Re: Intuitions, Illusions and Common Sense

"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >
> >"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> >
> >> >"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil W Rickert
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> >> >> >David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Given the interest in paradox, illusions and rationality, I
> >thought
> >> >some
> >> >> >> >>folk might like to have a look at this:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
>>http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Given that it consists mostly of cognitivist interpretations of
> >data,
> >> >> >> >I wonder why somebody as apparently anti-cognitivist as Longley
> >would
> >> >> >> >suggest this.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because as I (and Glen Sizemore) have said several times now, one
> >can
> >> >> >> read the results behaviourally skipping the "cognitivist" gloss -
as
> >> >one
> >> >> >> can with all empirical research.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One can also use the cog-speak to understand, as neuroscientists
> >converse
> >> >in
> >> >> >such terms and have no problem understaning themselvs and making
> >> >progress.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Many points have been explained to many folk in this newsgroup
with
> >no
> >> >> >> apparent change in their subsequent verbal behaviour. Some folk
> >might
> >> >> >> like to look at the "What Works" .pdf files that I have made
> >available
> >> >> >> at the website below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What works is what neuroscience has been doing for decades.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggested you read the Valenstein paper. I said that you should
look
> >> >> carefully at the protagonists and location. Elsewhere I've advised
you
> >> >> to look into the nature of intensional contexts and what I've said
> >about
> >> >> them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you think I did that?
> >> >
> >> >To attempt to show that neurosciencetists can disagree over methods of
> >> >signal transmission and thus, is bereft of coherent knowledge about
> >brain.
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately, while containing interesting historical anecdotes, the
> >> >article does not show that (if that is what you were trying to show).
> >What
> >> >is now known to be the case is that some signals are transmitted via
> >> >neurotransmitters, some via changes in electrical properties (e.g.,
> >> >potential ditribution changes), and still others via several second
> >> >messenger systems (other molecules such as NO, DNA transcription and
> >> >downstream effects, etc.)
> >> >
> >> >What you may have gleaned from the article is that neuroscience, by
> >focusing
> >> >upon one mechanism then/or another, it is inherently confused.  But it
> >> >really shows that by looking at all the data, one eventually comes to
> >> >coherent conclusions that combine the best of all worlds; while the
quest
> >> >continues unabated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >http://www.psychology.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/mccourt/website/htdocs/HomePag
> >> >>
> >e/Psy486/Primary%20Source%20Readings/Valenstein%20(2002)%20Discovery%20of
> >> >> %20chemical%20neurotransmitters.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The reason I suggested it was because 1) I've drawn attention to
> >this
> >> >> >> recalcitrance before, and I've also drawn on the above line of
> >research
> >> >> >> as one thread of "Fragments"
> >(http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm)
> >> >> >> and 2) as I said when providing the link, people in this
newsgroup
> >seem
> >> >> >> to have an interest in paradox, illusions and rationality.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> David Longley
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> David Longley
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> No - that is *not* the reason.
> >
> >Tell me what you consider about the Valenstein paper.
> >
>
> You don't listen when people tell you things. If you follow the steps
> I've listed you'll find out for yourself. It's not that cryptic, and you
> will find it
> helpful - clue: Feldberg.

Why can't you tell me, specifically, what the Valensein paper tells you.  If
it is not that cryptic, and you are good at explaining things, then tell me
in a few sentences without all the meandering references.

After all, the more I read the more I will draw conclusions and interpret
all these papers you reference in ways that you might then have to spend
decades reversing.

Rather than that , just *tell* me.  What in the Valenstein paper is
important IYO?


>
> >>
> >> I suggested you focused on a) the location b) the protagonists.
> >>
> >> I also said you should look into what I have said about intensional
> >> contexts.
> >>
> >> You might also look up the piece on Naloxone and Neophobia and the
story
> >> I provided about that.
> >>
> >> Then look at the Valenstein paper again.
> >>
> >> Then perhaps the paper referred to in *this* thread.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Longley
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> David Longley