[moderator's note: This article, and indeed this thread, are nearly
devoid of useful content. If it's descended to slinging insults, 
perhaps it should be abandoned? - JAH]

"Glen M. Sizemore"  wrote

> JM: Operant behavior is just learned behavior. I'm looking for a
> definition thatis applicable to *all* purposeful behavior.
> 
> GS: I have already dealt with this. 

You have?

You don't "get" to create definitions.
> Again, when the issue is the meaning of colloquial terms one must look to
> colloquial usage. Period.

If science limited itself to colloquial terms we'd still be in the middle ages.

> 
> True, some people extend the terminology to other types of
> > behavior but, especially with humans, most of what we are observing when
>  we
> > talk about purpose is operant behavior
> 
> JM: You are attempting to qualify an absolute distinction based on
> relative criteria.
> 
> GS: No, I am pointing to colloquial usage.

Leave me out of any conversation that relies on colloquial usage.



> JM: I think you've already said enough. It's pretty obvious you're just
> pretending not to notice that, obviously, operant behavior can only
> logically be considered a subset of all forms of purpose.
> 
> GS: I have not failed to notice this and, in fact, directly stated that the
> term has other usages and is applied to other kinds of behavior. That is the
> nature of colloquial terms. Your problem (not considering your distasteful
> personality) is that you want to turn a colloquial term into a technical
> term.

All *real* scientists look for technical, precise terms.

> 
> JM: Now I know that logic, it seems, is out of fashion in the disciplines
> of evoloutionary theory but if operant behavior is a subset of
> purposeful entities (which it, obviously, is) then it is only logical
> that it would be nonsense to describe purpose as operant behavior.
> 
> GS: What is nonsense is to insist that "purpose" is a useful
scientific
> term. It is not.
> 
> JM: So why do you keep beating this dead horse?
> 
> GS: I can't figure out whether you are more arrogant than ignorant, or more
> ignorant than arrogant.

It seems there's a lot you can't figure out.

> 
> >
> > >
> > > JM: Putting it all together and along the same lines of
> > > what you stated above, I would say that purposefulness
> > > involves causation being produced by one entity, the
> > > purposeful entity, that will (future tense) produce
> > > effects in the effected entity.
> > >
> > > GS: Well, this is not necessary.
> >
> > JM: Not necessary? If you are saying it's not necessary to be explicit?
> >
> > GS: No, I'm saying that the behavior need not have any future effects, or
>  at
> > least, the same effect that resulted in the establishment of the behavior.
> 
> JM: Here it seems you are starting to think like a scientist again. This
> is an interesting statement. Now you are starting to think in terms
> of a causal entity producing causation that achieves effects on
> another entity or entities. (this is how *real* scientists think).
> But what is most impressive of all is that you are starting to think
> in terms of the similarity (sameness) of the two entities (causal
> entity and the effected entity). Nevertheless this statement is,
> firstly, wrong, and secondly, dismissive. How do you know it need
> not, " have the SAME effect. (emphasis mine). I'm sure you never
> thought about this before. Why don't you do this. Try to demonstrate
> or prove the validity of this notion. Your inability to prove it
> will, hopefully, give you a better appreciation of the real issue
> herein.
> 
> GS: Because you are unworthy of further attention.
> 
> 
> 
> > I am not eliminating the phenomena from consideration, just the
> > mentalism.
> 
> JM: Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GS: And I am weary of your arrogance and ignorance.

It's your stubborn stupidity that bothers me.

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/3/02 4:25:05 PM