ruveyn wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
In hard science land, such as Skinnerian Behaviourism, "ego" does not exist, as it is a fictional construct. Many students of von Frisch were so enmeshed with such fictional constructs, that in their studies with the "Dancing Bees", they assigned "thoughts" and "egos" to the bees, as well as to each other (von Frisch tried to blame the limits of language (verbal behaviour) for such surfacing of ghosts of pseudo-science).
Tadzio
Skinner was a charlatan.
Look to yourself. Do you sense thoughts. Do you sense an ego. Of course you do. Forget Skinner.
ruveyn
Well, so much for the contention that things have to be based on undeniable facts, since any limits to entertaining only undeniable facts result in the individual being a charlatan.
Usually the nearly exact opposite contention is issued by individuals skeptical of Skinner's Behaviourism, in that he is overly scientific, and too cold, being limited to facts, to accept the wonderful range of the unmeasurable human spirit and psyche.
Having both contentions at the same time is demanding that the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is to be held as an established fact, and that any person saying such a count is not of science must be held as a charlatan. It sounds as if "scientific" witch trials are about to be contended as necessarily based on scientific facts, with any question about such will end at a stake in the middle of a fire.
Maybe Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky can respectively go so far right and so far left that they will meet on the other side of the perfect sphere of nonsense and find true angel mates in each other for the production of perfect stupidity. Humanity certainly needs to know whether if the angel count with the pin is even or odd, as that might make the remaining Objectivists for the perfect cult of doomsday to decide to terminate all the imperfect 99% of humans, while with a natural return to caves for the great remaining 1% meeting the high standards of Scientists of Lone Angelology as a study of only a singular "fact" of the singular individual: "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." ("Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (2004), page 731).
Ayn Rand told everyone what to do with God too, but the same advice didn't work for Pharaoh either.
The ideal singular individual doesn't accept the defined necessarily imperfect concept of "hospitality", so the great remaining 1% will be as well protected in caves as the cities of the plain.
Ayn Rand is so perfect, there won't even be anyone warned to leave, let alone warned not to look back.
Tadzio
29 Sep 2011, 4:48 am
