On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, Doyle Saylor wrote:
> SnitgirrRl is talking about "precisely the same", or symmetrical
> transformations logically shown in my writing compared to Jim Heartfield.
> SnitgirrRl says I did the same thing concerning using Obsessive Compulsive
> behavior as she claims Jim Heartfield does with his remark that Pomos blind
> people with their fuzzy thinking about science. The key I picked up on is
> "precisely the same". I went straight to neural network processes that best
> demonstrates a symmetrical like constancy that is like SnitgirrRl's finding
> a logical symmetry in my remarks. SnitgirrRl uses logical rules to find
> "same"ness in me and Jim. I use neural networks that find patterns of
> symmetry or constancy. I am trying to show that logic doesn't have to be in
> mental processes, and to undermine her dependence on logically constructing
> moral claims. One can reach the same goal through other means. In that
> case then I am casting away the onus upon intuition for example. That is
> why I try to get her to base her claims upon how the brain works. As long
> as SnitgirrRl relies upon simple moral reasoning without recourse to showing
> how the brain works, then she wins. She is vastly superior in quality to me
> in such reasoning.
Here is one of the reasons I think your project is doomed to failure. It is neither simple nor elegant. It seems that SnitgrrRl and you are both looking for consistency--I get that sense from your "patterns of constancy r symmetry." Logic is simple, it makes sense. Looking to neural networks to explain something that doesn't seem all that different from logic takes lots of time and explaining. It doesn't make sense to people. No one on the list who has responded to you seems to think it's a useful trope. I wonder if perhaps you take more seriously the criticisms leveled at your theory--if your subject were the bible instead of NS, I would have to label you a religious fundamentalist.
The last part of the above section sounds like you are using NS simply because you know about it and think you have authority in this area. I don't get the sense that SnitgrrRl is trying to "win" anything. I know Lakoff says arguments are understood as war, and maybe that's why you said that. I can't imagine why you would possibly want to undermine her dependence on logic. That's like saying you want to undermine her dependence on oxygen. One cannot think or engage in discourse without logic. But I guess your neuroscientific piety doesn't recognize that.
> I have two questions about Wilson. Do you mean my position is like Wilson's
> in the sense that genetics controls human society? Do you mean my reduction
> of things is so much in error it is gross? I suppose you could mean simply
> reduction itself if not acceptable, but I can't agree with that. If you
> believe I am so much in error as to be grossly wrong, I hope you point to
> the error and correct my path. I think neural networks apply to all aspects
> of human conscious activity. That is why they are exciting to me.
Well, it might be exciting to you, but it is pseudoscience in the Popperian sense. Your claim that everything is reducible to neural networks holds the same scientific value as astrology, or creationism. It is completely unverifiable. It is a myth. How can you talk about brain functions without at the same time talking about interpersoanl and human-environment interactions? Do you really suppose that these neural networks evolved in a vacuum? And do you suppose that NS evolved in a socio-political vacuum? Obviously this work was done by people with prior epistemological/philosophical/political committments, and traces of that is in there work. To assume that science, any science, not just NS, is objectively true seems to be naive at best. You should really be reading some stuff on science as well as the NS stuff, because you need to take into account how science comes to be. You should also be reading some stuff that is critical of reductionism. Steven Rose's new book *Lifelines* has a couple of good chapters on that.
I'm afraid I probably can't continue this thread. I'm very busy for the next few weeks, and it's too much like trying to have a conversation about Christianity with a born again christian.
frances