Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rteeter
From: rteeter@netcom.com (Robert Teeter)
Subject: Re: Quantifying literary progress
Message-ID: <rteeterDDxIvq.KsC@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4159is$l0u@Mars.mcs.com> <41aii5$cmr@agate.berkeley.edu> <41cqig$pir@Venus.mcs.com> <41hms6$i6p@netaxs.com> <41nh90$25f@Mars.mcs.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:50:14 GMT
Lines: 44
Sender: rteeter@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32874 sci.cognitive:9268 sci.psychology.theory:447

Jorn Barger (jorn@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <41hms6$i6p@netaxs.com>, Neil Roseman <nroseman@netaxs.com> wrote:
: >Jorn Barger (jorn@MCS.COM) wrote:
: >: The concept of *information processing* makes pretty much *all*
: >: philosophy irrelevant, imho.
: >what does this mean, exactly? how can a concept invalidate an entire body 
: >of work? now, maybe a concept when proven scientifically, can invalidate 
: >to a certain extent earlier theories, but otherwise i don't get you. in 
: >particular, HOW exactly does IP invalidate Socrates' Question, or almost 
: >any other question of moral, ethical, or even analytical philosophy?

: The combination of the concept of brain-as-computer with the explanation
: of its origin thru natural selection, creates a context for philosophical
: speculation that's almost completely unanticipated by any pre-20th century
: thinking.

	Modern neurology and computer science *may* invalidate some
earlier ideas in epistemology, but that wasn't the question.  The question
was: How do they have any bearing on moral, ethical, political philosophy?

: All the jokes about computers and "I think, therefore I am" are a good
: example.  But, really, philosophy has been obviously bogus from the
: beginning, it was just that there weren't any plausible alternatives.

	Clearly, those philosophers were just a bunch of ignorant fools.
Once again, I ask you, give us some names.  You've mentioned Kant.  who
else was "bogus from the beginning"?

: The question now is "how did evolution produce the brain, and what
: exactly did it produce?" and it's the evolutionary theorists who
: have the best handle on part one, and the ***novelists*** who have
: the best handle on part two...

	So, I would think you'd want to read the widest variety of
novelists possible, so why do you avoid *most* novelists before 1900?
And what about poets and playwrights?  Don't they know anything about
psychology or are they hopelessly damned for hanging onto to outdated
genres?


-- 
	Robert Teeter
	rteeter@netcom.com

