[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Krimel]

[Krimel said to dmb]
You have shown no indication, ever, what is specifically reductionisticabout
anything I have ever said. It is always a blanket charge full of soundand
fury signifying nothing. I am left to conclude that indeed this is
aclassic/romantic issue and that you really are just using it as a kind
ofsissy rhetorical tactic.

dmb says:
You really don't see it, do you? Your denial comes at the end of a post in
which you reduce the immediate flux of experience to nothing but brain
states and physiological processes. That's reductionism, sir, and here you
are practicing it...

[Krimel]
I have not said there is nothing else, that is your inference. I have said
that understanding brain states and physiology are critical to understanding
non-conscious processes. Any discussion of what those might be, what they
might mean or whatever else might be important; have repeatedly been
subverted by your reductionist tirades.

But for purposes of moving on, if I were to concede that I subscribe; even
to what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism" (which I don't for the myriad of
reasons I have given over the years). But if it will let us get past this:
What is the something else that you would add to my faux-reductionist notion
of the relation of brain physiology to the pre-intellectual?

dmb says:
Yes, there is undeniable evidence that James's empiricism was in part an
effort to solve some issues raised during the writing of his psychology
book. This evidence come from James himself and from James scholars. But
more to the point, you apparently think that these scientific facts
contradict what I'm saying about pre-intellectual experience and yet you
don't actually connect them to what I'm saying in any way. In fact, all you
did was negatively characterize my view without saying what it actually is.
What is it you think I'm saying and how does any of this dispute it? I mean,
it's all snark and no substance. I honestly have no idea what your complaint
actually consists of.

[Krimel]
I think what you are missing is that James' use of terms like sensation,
perception and conception all have rich literatures of thought,
experimentation, introspection, even fictions associated with them. By
lumping them together into a made up term like pre-intellectual and making
up new words like non-conceptual, you miss the richness these other
perspectives offer. 

dmb says:
Again, to explain the hot stove example in terms of sensory nerves is
reductionism. 

[Krimel]
Again, if I concede that it is reductionist (which I don't), what is
missing?

[dmb]
Pirsig and James are radical empiricists and one of the things that this
means is that they no longer view experience as limited to the senses. 

[Krimel]
Here, I like the behaviorist position which loosely speaking would say that
experience is a function of our biology and personal history interacting in
the present environment.

What would you add to that?


 


 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html