Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Dualisms for the 5-minute autodidact
Message-ID: <2377@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 3 Mar 89 21:13:04 GMT
References: <4369@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2484@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 22

In article <2484@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>So, the five dualisms:
>	4) Explanatory -  human actions are not 'caused' like natural events, they
>			  involve reasons and motives
>
>
>My postings are motivated by Dualism (4), not Dualism (2) - the brand known to most

I agree that this is a most attractive hypothesis.  Otherwise, what about
free will?  What about man's responsibility for his actions?  Indeed,
I would love to see an argument that could convince me that
this was a true statement.  I really find Skinnerian determinism repulsive.
But like so many of your postings, you seem to indicate that the proof
of your statements is so deep and complex that it would require a few
years of graduate study (preferably at OxBridge, and NOT in science) to begin 
to fathom them, if indeed such Philistines as we could EVER do so.

>It's a waste of time.  Sanctity and mystery are not at issue.  It's accuracy and
>intellectual honesty.
>
Again, how so?  I don't understand what you mean.  Can you explain in plain 
English?