Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Fearful thinking, etc. (belated reply) Message-ID: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-May-85 01:39:35 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6156 Posted: Thu May 30 01:39:35 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 20:48:15 EDT Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 113 Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Rich Rosen >>>To summarize: Paul's notion of fearful thinking, the belief that those >>>who question wishful thinking beliefs out of "fear" that they might be >>>right, is [...] >> --is NOT my notion of "fearful thinking". Go back and read the original >> article... > *You're* the one who put it forth. If you have free choice, take some > responsibility for your choices. :-) I still contend that "fearful > thinking", the notion that those who proclaim wishful thinking beliefs as > such are doing so out of "fear" that the beliefs just might be true, [...] AAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! YES!, I'm the one who put the notion "fearful thinking" forth, I'm the one who coined and defined the term, SO WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN WHEN I SAY THAT'S **NOT** THE WAY I DEFINED IT??!! TO REPEAT my definition: "Fearful thinking" == automatically believing the opposite of whatever the wishful thinkers believe, as if the fact that something is believed on fallacious (in this case, wishful) grounds proves that it is false. Now, you can argue that "fearful thinking" is something that you have never done, but you CAN'T give the term ANOTHER definition and then attribute that definition to me!!! >> Please note the distinction between *eliminative* reductionism -- where >> a phenomenon is (allegedly!) explained *away* -- and non-eliminative >> reductionism, where a phenomenon is understood and not dismissed. > Where a phenomenon is shown by analysis not to in fact exist, or when the > basis and foundation of it is shown to be erroneous, it SHOULD be dismissed. That's nice. And where it has been shown to exist, it SHOULD NOT be dismissed. >>>Best explanations. Like some other "best explanations" of the world we've >>>seen throughout the ages. Like that of the sun travelling across the sky >> Be serious. How do you come up with these wild misinterpretations? > Not a misinterpretation at all. Oh, a mindreader eh?!! Well guess again. It is a misinterpretation. > Your "best explanation", avoiding what may actually go on in favor of > preconception imposed on observation without thorough analysis [...] Please quote the passage where I define "best explanation" as "avoiding what may actually go on ..." (etc.). You can't, because I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. But rather than argue against me -- too tough, apparently -- you set up a straw man. ------------------------------ >.... Cognitive psychology is such a top down approach. Eventually it > will reach the middle point where "both meet" at some point of > understanding. (Hopefully) Dennett ignores the fact that top down > approaches may be laden with preconceptions (like that of "the sun > travelling across the sky") that may APPEAR true in the gestalt but > which are not actually happening internally. But, in point of fact, mental terms are not generally such preconceptions. The fact that further analysis is possible does not negate the validity of "top-level" terms. Take heat transfer, for example. The fact that there is a heat transfer of (e.g.) 1 watt from my legs to the metal rim of my chair is still a fact, even though a rabid reductionist would say "but there's really JUST a bunch of molecules moving around, colliding, etc." Yes, there's really a bunch of molecules moving around, Yes, there is nothing to the heat transfer above and beyond this fact, BUT, the heat transfer is still real. Now, substitue "mental process" for "heat transfer", "neurons firing" for "molecules moving", and repeat the last 2 sentences. >>Neurons? Chemicals? They get in the way of notions like [...]"free will". >> No THEY DON'T. And that's been one of my main points all along! > Yet you say "don't bother discussing such things, look at it in an holistic > way". Precisely because they get in the way of your presumptive notions. No, for the Nth time, I don't say "don't discuss such things", I don't say "don't look at it that way" -- I say "look at it BOTH ways." Precisely because they DON'T get in the way of my notions! >> Or perhaps "belief" is a name we give to information constructs in >> *sentient* (look it up) brains. [...] Freedom is something that is >> relevant to us *qua* beings with a mental life; with experiences. > Yeah, look it up. Like the word "cult", its meaning depends on who's > saying it. Not at all. > I already discussed how the formation of such beliefs is not necessarily > within the realm of free choice, and thus, how totally free choice cannot > exist where there are beliefs that are not necessarily formulated by choice. And I already refuted that argument. ---------------------------------------- >>[...] Understanding the language of logical >> connectives (like "if...then...") is enough to see the validity of >> the relevant rules of inference, I think. > Then explain it in such a way that anyone can understand the language and > recognize the validity. Don't get me wrong, Paul, this is Rich Rosen playing > devil's advocate here. [...] The point is that what proof can you give to > someone who does not believe in the veracity of logic about logic's veracity. You can't prove something TO someone like that, but that doesn't mean you can't prove it. As for explaining the language, that would only be necessary or useful when the person was first learning the language (i.e., as a child). If someone rejected logic, there would probably be no way to rescue him. But that'd be *his* problem, not logic's. --The blooming iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, (soon at) umcp-cs!flink