|
Hi all,
The Shards and Leftovers Department has its best time in the forthcoming January Sales, when all stock is either sold or goes to the tip. A wonderful purging!
But before that can happen we have to get through the coming season of goodwill. With that in mind I would like to offer some expressions of goodwill and seasons greetings.
First Ken. Flattery will get you everywhere! Let me resolve just one perplexity for you concerning my being wrong 95% of the time.
> The puzzle of this claim is this: while David may assume that 95 per cent of what he writes is wrong, he nevertheless seems to believe that he is right in each instance.
This is true, but to coin a phrase: "In the future, everyone will be right for 15 minutes".
Terry, I'd like to suggest some illuminating reading over the season of mindless merriment and joy.
Chapter I: Descartes' Myth, in Gilbert Ryle's 'Concept of Mind' , 1949.
To everyone else, here is a bit of insight into one of the seminal works in contemporary communication theory. It might provide some pause for thought, or even an epiphany!
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29626-9 paperback.
With good wishes for the festive season. Here endeth my last provocation of the year.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 17/12/2012, at 12:50 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Hi, Terry,
>
> It's not a Turing test ... It's worse. This reply to Jerry is an example problematic
> argumentation. To me, it is unacceptable to quote Jerry back to
> himself and say, "Check the logic." If there is a flaw in the logic, it is your job
> to explain it.
>
> Jerry's analysis seems sound to me.
>
> You are at odds with most everyone in neuroscience because you confuse
> the physical mechanism through which we perceive reality with the
> organizational mechanism that we use as a lens. Of course you think that
> Damasio is wrong -- he understands both aspects. Your view of this is
> mechanistic. Because you do not engage with people in neuroscience or
> publish in the field, you don't approach neuroscience as a scientist does.
> You approach neuroscience as an engineering problem.
>
> While Jerry feels that you keep us on our toes, I am not sure, at least
> not in the sense of robust argumentation from a scholar. Many of the
> claims you make in these threads are stated as blunt opinion with the
> added claim that your views are obvious and logical while ours must be
> checked again.
>
> That quality of argument is thin.
>
> Once again, I ask what I asked before: You do not publish in the field
> of neuroscience and you do no work that a neuroscientist would
> recognize as neuroscience. I know you have thought about
> neuroscience for ten years -- I have thought about physics far longer
> but I am not a physicist. My earlier question remains: how are we
> to distinguish your opinions about neuroscience from the opinions of
> anyone else with opinions about neuroscience who does not actually
> work in the field?
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:33:30 +0800, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> The maintenance of the illusion and the fallacy in the sequence argument
>> you present is the snip below. If you rethink it clearly on the basis that
>> mind is directed by body, you get a different analysis. Your snip assumes
>> your position then claims from it that your position is true - a
>> sophisticated tautology. Try a starting point that the choices occur in the
>> body outside the mind; the mind gymnastics feed some additional information
>> to the body; and the body then gives us the illusion we are thinking and
>> having freedom of choice. The situation is more obvious when one reviews
>> individuals mind use in situations that one can easily test that the mind is
>> too limited to think through and predict the behaviour of. In this cases,
>> freedom of choice in decisions and belief that one has made the correct
>> choices are clearly false and illusory - our sense of self is deluded.
>>
>> snip>"A design theory that involves negotiating transformative preferences
>> and assumes a conversation among actively participating stakeholder minds
>> must necessarily require some freedom of choice. Terry�s presentation of
>> mind as a kind of receptacle showcase and phantom ambassador for decisions
>> made elsewhere doesn�t obviously allow for this and raises, I think, strong
>> ethical concerns. Would we really want to travel backwards to Beyond Freedom
>> and Dignity? However and whenever we are able to reveal the
>> neural-physiological mechanisms of consciousness, I have a hard time
>> believing it will dissolve the responsibility required both individually and
>> socially for dwelling gracefully in the world."
>>
>> Carefully check the logic and you will see you are privileging 'stakeholder
>> minds' and 'we' to the point that it gives an erroneous logic.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>>
>> ===
>> Dr Terence Love, FDRS, PMACM, AMIMechE, MISI
>> PhD, B.A.(Hons), PGCE
>> 0434975848
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ===
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
