Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Why I won't debate Greg Stevens
Message-ID: <1994Dec31.013530.4269@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3crovi$12e@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <blaine-2812942227200001@prevost.islandnet.com> <1994Dec29.155841.24793@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3dvhcl$6ok@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3e13if$2e5@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <1994Dec30.183000.19925@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3e0duf$3gu@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 01:35:30 GMT
Lines: 137


Roose calls me a fanatic, and says:
>I say "fanatic" because by definition, only a fanatic will assert that 
>which they know they cannot prove with hard evidence open to independent 
>verification.

Then you are a fanatic in your belief that developmental neuroscience
leads one to the logical conclusion that infants have a "right" to live.
Then you are a fanatic in your belief that humans have the finite list
of universal goals you have proported them to have.
Then you are a fanatic in your belief that "mind" is a product of brain
function.
Then you are a fanatic in your belief that connectionism can lead us to an
understanding of intelligence.
Then you are a fanatic in your belief that objects would exist if there were
no observers.

None of these have been verified.
Many of them *can* not be verified.

Roose talks about being able to refute my claims, and says,
>I would rather not waste 
>the effort though because I know from experience, even if I proved you 
>wrong and humiliated you before the whole Internet, you would not change 
>your assertions any more than any other religious fanatic would.

I would like you to prove me wrong and humiliate me.  I really would.  I
don't think you can do it.  And you do not know what you have claimed to know
"from experience," because you do not have any experience with proving me
wrong.

Roose says,
>I told you in my second reply that you might just as well have 
>referenced a biblical scripture or a passage from a pagan rite for the 
>same effect your mumbo jumbo has.  I wonder why you choose to ignore 
>that in subsequent post?

Because I didn't understand what the criteria are for distinguishing "real" 
and "valid" scientific references from "mumbo jumbo."  Please provide for 
me a list of criteria so I can distinguish between the two henceforth.

Roose then makes a bet:
>I am even willing to make you a bet in order to make it worth my effort. 
>If I can not find "ten" authors who support the concept of a single 
>Reality defined and bounded by the Laws of Nature or the neural network 
>concept for the brain, for each "one" who supports your "emergence" 
>crap,  I'll kiss your ass in public square and invite the whole Internet 
>to watch, provided you will grant me the same curtsey if I do.

Although I have no interest in having my ass kissed, it is an interesting
challenge.  What would be more interesting to me is if you explained to
me, calmly and rationally, your response to my refutations of your
following claims:

1) You claimed that only humans can deviate from their genetic pre-
   determination.  I refuted this by claiming that any organisms with
   nervous systems have been shown to learn through the course of 
   their lifetimes, thus indicating that their behavior is dictated
   by personal histories as well as genetics.  You have not supported
   you claim that humans are somehow "special" in this regard.
2) You claimed that because of your explanation of child neurological
   development, it logically follows that children have a birthright
   to be nurtured to their fullest potential.  I claimed that arguments
   about developmental facts could not lead to conclusions about teleology
   and what "should" happen.  You have not supported the logical framework
   in which you make this jump.
3) You claimed that connectionism is "accepted" as a model which can lead
   to a complete understanding of intelligence.  I have claimed that this is
   not "accepted," and that in fact many people see connectist machines as
   statistical tools, primarily, and many people question their validity as
   cognitive models (I referenced Seidenberg, 1993, as a good source of
   references for this debate.  I would also refer you to Judd, 1991,
   "Neural Network Design and the Complexity of Learning" for an analysis
   of the limitations of neural networks.   My information also comes from
   conversations I've had with PDP researcher Robert Jacobs.  I can probably
   pull up further references if you would like concerning the limits of
   connectionism in its description of intelligence and cognition).  You have
   not yet responded to my claim.
4) You claimed that you are the first person in modern times to try to devise
   an all-encompassing world-view, a theory encompassing ontology, epistemology
   and teleology, based on logic and scientific fact.  I claimed that in fact
   this is very common, citing Maturana and Varela, Churchland and Fodor as
   a very small set of examples.  I think one could consider Ayn Rand another.
   My lover, standing over my shoulder reading this, says, "Doesn't everyone
   and his brother in science try to come up with all-encompassing theories?
   It seems like megalomania is to science as codependence is to social work."
5) You claimed that humans have a small finite set of motives, and although I
   can not off the top of my head cite what these were, I remember thinking
   that not only are there a wide abundance of DIFFERENT theories for what
   the basic human motives are, but that all of the ones I'm familiar with
   differ from your list.  In Reite and Field's _The Psychobiology of 
   Attachment and Separation_ an articles describes the basic motives as
   "The four F's -- feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproduction" (1985).
   Certain rational choice theorists (for example, Johann DeVree) claim that
   all human motivation can be summed up as maximuzing expected utility --
   DeVree goes on to conclude that this "logically" results in the conclusion
   that all humans see "power" as their one and only motive.  You have not
   yet defended *your* claim against my comment.
6) You claimed that the purpose of life can be defined in terms of prediction,
   when this seems, as I claimed, inconsistent with your notion that 
   intelligence can be described by connectionist models, which do very well
   at associative learning, dimensionality reduction, multidimensional scaling,
   and so on, but do not do time-series prediction very well.  You have not
   addressed this point of mine.

I will leave off there.
    
I would like to see some rational responses to these points.  As of yet I
have seen none.

Roose's following comment also brough a question to my mind:
>You! Greg Stevens, and all others of your ilk, by your denial of the 
>existence of an objective Reality,.....

For the record, I believe in objective reality.  I also believe that all
distrinction, description and characterization of "objective reality" is
subjective.  Please do not misrepresent me, there IS a difference.

>... and by your articulate, pseudo 
>scientific arguments, are attempting to lead humanity back into those 
>"Dark Ages".  I will not give credence to your bullshit by debating with 
>you or the others.  Go "Baa" amongst yourselves, but don't expect me to 
>join you.

How do you distinguish between science and pseudo-science, by the way?
You have given arguments, I have given responses, and your only response to
mine has been "but I am obviously right."  You have not given any logical
refutation for my arguments, merely STATED that my arguments are illogical.
You have not given a single sample of a refutation of one of my claims,
only a counter-claim that I am wrong.  If this is what you mean by not
joining my "ilk", then you have a priori precluded any conversation between
us.  I thought you claimed you wanted rational discussion.

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

