Interesting call on the part of the good doctor.
"F. Frank LeFever" wrote:
> In <7m480g$6k4$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
> >
> >In article <7m3pv4$f0c at dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
> >
> >>Well, one question I can answer (assuming it is intended as a
> question
> >>and not as rhetoric, emerges near the bottom of this comedy of
> errors:
> >
> >>"what kinda business are you in, doc?"
> >
> >>ANSWER: I am a neuropsychologist (both clinical and experimental); in
> >>terms of livelihood, I am in the rehab business, i.e. am a member of
> >>the General Medical Staff of a physical rehabilitation hospital (our
> >>patients include those with stroke, traumatic brain injury, MS,
> >>epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and a few other neurological disorders
> >>particularly relevant to brain function, as well as conditions such
> as
>> - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> The morbidly curious can call up and read the entire 20K mess of
> Bloxy's interpolated retorts. He appears to be a lost cause. For
> anyone else bothering to read all this stuff, I'll simply point out
> that I gave a long answer to his perhaps rhetorical question partly
> just to tweak him. Beyond that, by listing my clinical, research and
> organizational activities, I meant not just to impress him or claim
> higher authority, but to reassure him (and others) that my criticisms
> are not just impetuous, off-the-top of my head rejoinders, but grow out
> of a long and serious consideration of questions of "intelligence" and
> "consciousness" as they relate to brain function.
>> Bloxy misses the point of my most explicit statements, that it is not a
> matter of my being "unable" to define "intelligence" but of not being
> interested in defining "it".
>> He seems unable to grasp the concept that there is no such "thing"
> called "intelligence" that one is smart enough and learned enough to
> define or not smart and learned enough to define. For others (if any)
> reading this, let me offer this little tutorial:
>> Primitive man observed that animals that breathed were able to move
> about and do things; those that ceased breathing also ceased to move
> about and do things. In the absence of basic knowledge of physiology,
> and the role of respiration in the whole of physiology, "spirit" (and
> other forms of the words meaning "breath") came to be an explanatory
> principle, an entity separate from the body and its functions,
> animating it and (upon death) continuing independently of it.
>> Similarly, observing a multitude of ways that humans coped with a wide
> range of problems, our ancestors inferred some kind of entity
> responsible for this, and named this hypothetical thing "intelligence".
>> With the development of the scientific method, we have made
> considerable progress in understanding specific examples of coping,
> specific examples of processing sensory stimuli, organizing our
> perceptions and directing "intelligent" responses.
>> If someone asserts that this work does not really clarify or explain
> "intelligence", then it is the responsibility of this person to define
> the term, so we can see just what it is that our scientific analysis
> has failed to clarify or explain. This job is apparently too demanding
> or the concept that the job needs to be done is too subtle for some
> peoople (most people?).
>> The IMPLICIT definition is apparently rather simplistic: there is
> something "in" humans (maybe "in" other animals as well; I suppose
> there are different factions among the conceptually-challenged) that
> let's us do all these intelligent things, and this "something" CANNOT
> be in computers or other living things. In other words, it is a
> definition which does not allow any serious discussion, much less any
> investigation. It has no "truth" value, because it can neither be
> proved nor disproved; it is simply a matter of faith, and/or of
> "definition", i.e. it is defined in a way which makes it a priori
> impossible for anything other than a living human (animal?) to be
> "intelligent".
>> It has no heuristic value; i.e., it does not inspire efforts to
> investigate anything or to learn anything already investigated.
>> In such a situation, one can only "rhapsodize" about the wonder of it
> all. Not that I mean to knock rhapsody: wonder and admiration at the
> mysteries of life are appropriate. Some of life's mysteries may never
> be understood, some when understood should still inspire awe and
> wonder; and true mysteries (i.e. not the vulgarized sense of difficult
> clues to follow until one solves the "crime") in some sense can never
> be "understood", but it is a vulgar error to rail at those trying to
> understand as much as can in principle be understood when approached
> with enough work and enough "intelligence".
>> Bloxy diatribes the common and naive (adolescent?) belief that nobody
> else sees what he sees or has had the great insight that he has had; in
> general, the neuroscientists he rails against have indeed had these
> "insights", probably at about the same age he seems to be (14? 15? the
> prediliction for "suck" supports this inference, and I know that many
> really talented "computer geeks" have well-developed computer skills by
> this age).
>> We know what he is talking about. We've been there, done that. We've
> moved on. He doesn't (yet) know what WE are talking about. Give him a
> few years... (of course, if this is a case of ARESTED adolesc
