A nice article on behaviorism, materialism and cognitive states
Eray Ozkural exa
This is a well written and brief article. Have a look.
Cheers,
__
Eray
David Longley
Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
I think, given his remarks on Harvard philosophy and psychology, one can
safely ignore Eray's judgement as to what is and what is not "well
written".
The above article is naive - as is Eray.
--
David Longley
Eray Ozkural exa
> I think, given his remarks on Harvard philosophy and psychology, one can
> safely ignore Eray's judgement as to what is and what is not "well
> written".
>
> The above article is naive - as is Eray.
Really. Really. Search for David Longley's hilarious posts. Google is
your friend.
See who's naive.
And you don't have to take my word for what's well written. But
remember, you don't have to take the word of this silly guy, either.
Judge the content for yourself. Do your own research. Become an
independent mind. Conduct your own research. Then, please come around
and tell us whether the author has written a nice article or not. That
will be fair.
In USENET, the greatest favor one can do is giving others information.
Redundancy like Longley is counter to netiquette. Please give a
moment's thought to this.
And if you take my word seriously as a PhD candidate in CS, please
also remember that I'm telling you this guy has to go straight to the
top of USENET kooks and crackpots list!
David Longley
>news:<y4pHR9Z5T2W$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>> I think, given his remarks on Harvard philosophy and psychology, one can
>> safely ignore Eray's judgement as to what is and what is not "well
>> written".
>>
>> The above article is naive - as is Eray.
>
>Really. Really. Search for David Longley's hilarious posts. Google is
>your friend.
>
>See who's naive.
>
>And you don't have to take my word for what's well written. But
>remember, you don't have to take the word of this silly guy, either.
>Judge the content for yourself. Do your own research. Become an
>independent mind. Conduct your own research
The problem here Eray, is that *you* can't do research in this area. You
don't know what to read. You have no standards to guide your selection
of what is nonsense from what is not.
Look at the silly things you say about two of the most influential
people in the history of 20th century psychology and philosophy.
>. Then, please come around
>and tell us whether the author has written a nice article or not. That
>will be fair.
What's a "nice" article Eray? One which you *like*? or one which is
accurate and reports facts? You seem to judge what you read by how much
it entertains or excites you - this is not, as I have said several times
now, something you should be basing any serious study upon.
>
>In USENET, the greatest favor one can do is giving others information.
>Redundancy like Longley is counter to netiquette. Please give a
>moment's thought to this.
And you have been provided with plenty - you just don't seem to pay any
attention to it.
You are "sensitized" - take a break and let it fade.
>
>And if you take my word seriously as a PhD candidate in CS, please
>also remember that I'm telling you this guy has to go straight to the
>top of USENET kooks and crackpots list!
And what *is* a "crackpot" in your view Eray?
--
David Longley
Eray Ozkural exa
The resident kook/crackpot of comp.ai.philosophy David Longley is
asking me what a crackpot is.
I think he may be better identified as a kook rather than a crackpot
given the definition in http://www.lart.com/auk/aukfaq.html:
6. Who is a net.kook? Anyone who posts uniquely strange, preferably
incomprehensible articles, or who manifests a persistent, extreme, and
somewhat bizarre obsession, might be a net.kook. And more. It is
important to note the subtle distinction between a net.kook, a
net.cretin, a clueless newbie, troll, or garden-variety asshole.
This person has been doing this for more than 8 years on c.a.p so I
thought you might be interested in it. Especially the obsession part,
he is obsessed with an outdated doctrine called "radical behaviorism".
It would most certainly be a very strong and "unassailable" [1]
nomination. Also he is managing to use a language that the newcomers
will take seriously (incomprehensible part!).
Another possible kook was Ken Collins given his obsession with his own
neuroscience theory and strange language. On the other hand, his
kookery is but a weakling compared to Longley's.
Could somebody please care to explain the difference between a USENET
kook and a crackpot?
I thought crackpots were people who said things like "Relativity is
wrong" in sci.physics. I still see a lot of them on sci.physics.
If we decide that David Longley is a net.kook then we might post a
message to alt.net.kooks with links to the threads about his kookery.
We have had quite a few threads about him in particular.
I would love to see him get a net.kook award! Especially this one:
VICTOR VON FRANKENSTEIN "WEIRD SCIENCE" AWARD Given to those inspired,
pioneering visionaries and their worthy inventions, institutions and
prides-of-joys, who have reasoned it out, who KNOW The Answer, that
would know how to use it to make for a better humanity....if only
somebody would listen to them.
Who would be better suited to this award? :)
[1] a term he uses to define his position
David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b$$9wovhf8W$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <fa69ae35.03090...@posting.google.com>, Eray
> Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
> >In USENET, the greatest favor one can do is giving others information.
> >Redundancy like Longley is counter to netiquette. Please give a
> >moment's thought to this.
>
> And you have been provided with plenty - you just don't seem to pay any
> attention to it.
>
> You are "sensitized" - take a break and let it fade.
>
> >And if you take my word seriously as a PhD candidate in CS, please
> >also remember that I'm telling you this guy has to go straight to the
> >top of USENET kooks and crackpots list!
>
> And what *is* a "crackpot" in your view Eray?
Thanks,
__
Eray Ozkural