(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing

Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki at gmail.com
Thu Feb 3 12:41:59 PST 2005

I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation in the least bit: anything
which requires you get rid of elegance like unitary wave evolution,
accept things which are completely muddled and really, metaphysical,
and introduces a bunch of paradoxes like Von Neumann's Catastrophe, or
Wigener's Friend, is a bad thing in my book.
We need a better solution, in QM as well as psychology.  WIth QM
you've got multiverse models you can switch to, but what alternatives
do we have in psychology and philosophy?

Microsoft delenda est.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:11:01 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas
<iorweththomas at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll elaborate on something I said earlier.  What seems to have happened
> with behaviourism is analagous to what seems to have happened with the
> Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.  You have a fairly well
> defined _operational_ definition of what you're looking for (behaviour in
> psychology, particle spin - for example - in QM) and a good idea of the
> basic philosophy behind what you're doing and its limits.  Your students,
> however, aren't so careful.  Neither are the popularisers of your ideas (who
> may or may not be identical with you), largely because they're writing what
> amounts to a polemic.  At some point, the operational definition becomes an
> _ontological_ one, and then you get crass behaviorism (version [2]) and bad
> pop-sci nonsense on state-vector reduction.
> I tend to automatically assume (knee-jerk prejudice) that most behaviorists
> are crass, as opposed to thoughtful (type [1]) because I'm a massive
> intellectual snob.  Oh well.
> >For what it is worth, I do find the apparent
> >references to these individuals in 5HC to be more than
> >coincidence.
> It hadn't occured to me, but there might be something in that.  I do tend to
> think that he was more of the cold, rational and amoral scientist archetype
> [1] rather than a depiction of anyone in particular though.
> [1]  I won't say steriotype as there may have been one or two of this kind
> lurking around the more unpleasant reaches of 20th century research, eg.
> those motherhood experiments with monkeys, etc.     And then there's Edward
> Teller for us physicists.
> Iorwerth

More information about the Urth mailing list