Slurs (from Mary)

[from Mary Powers 960910]

Hans Blom (960909)

          I had no idea my remarks would hurt your feelings.

Didn't you? You merely said that I would throw away data that
didn't support my model and only keep what confirmed it. Then
you proceeded to explain the proper way to do science in
terms that implied that I just hatched out of the egg. In other
words, that I am dishonest and ignorant.

I am not hurt, I am pissed off.

Then in your new post you shrug off these slurs by saying

          Among the professionals, philosophical argument is a
          martial art

and excuse yourself by implying that I am unable to discriminate
between an attack on myself and an attack on PCT, and justifying
yourself with a quote from Wired.

Just because many scientists are rude and argumentative doesn't
make it ok. Your quote from Wired impresses me as describing a
bunch of guys somewhat zonked on beer and mainly interested in
scoring points off each other. This may be fun, but it ain't
science.

You then describe a conference called Toward a Science of
Consciousness, in which

          There are almost a thousand participants attending, and
          each participant worth talking to has at least half a
          dozen good theories, mostly incompatible. What holds
          all the theories and diciplines together is simple.
          These people think that the nature of consciousness is
          the most exciting intellectual frontier in the world
          today.

Then you go on to say

          That's the spirit in which I would like to see our
          discussion continued. It is, in my opinion, too early
          to have a single, convincing, consistent theory of why
          humans are the way they are...

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this net. We are not in
the stage of tossing around six theories per person. We have
chosen one particular theory and are exploring what it can do and
where it goes. You may feel that it is premature to do so, and
that PCT has

          ...inconsistencies, inadequacies, errors [and]
          an unscientic feel...

but there is no way of knowing that except by trying it out. So
far, your criticisms have been unconvincing.

As for theories of consciousness - they may be much more
exciting, but they are a dime a dozen, and so far people seem
much more interested in cooking up their own theory than in
testing - or even defining - what they are talking about.

Mary P.

[Hans Blom, 960911]

(Mary Powers 960910)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this net. We are not in
the stage of tossing around six theories per person. We have chosen
one particular theory and are exploring what it can do and where it
goes.

Those are two very different things, aren't they? Are we studying PCT
as a finished product, a well-defined unified theory, or are we
exploring where it is to go, not yet quite sure where that is? If the
first, I'm not satisfied. If the latter, shouldn't it be extremely
fruitful to have "around six theories per person" about extensions to
be investigated?

Greetings,

Hans