From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 11:14:36 -0500

Jim Balter wrote:
> 
> In article <328294C6.545D@ix.netcom.com>,
> Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
> >a. the evidence supporting the theory of natural selection with
> >its implication that the dominant motivation in our species
> >should be the pursuit of our _physical_ well-being (DNA being
> >the physical stuff that it is) and
> >
> >b. the introspective evidence (assuming that my own mind is not
> >atypical) that the dominant motivational factor in our species is
> >not the need for _physical_ well-being, as a standard physicalist
> >interpretation would lead us to believe,
> >but rather the need for _emotioanl_ well-being, i.e., the pursuit
> >of a sense of self-worth.  This evidence is further corroborated by
> >the schism which exists between natural science and the
> >humanities, a schism which goes right down the middle of
> >psychology itself, as a matter of fact.
> 
> You seem to have a very odd conception of what constitutes evidence and what
> serves as a support relationship between evidence and a theory or hypothesis.
>

Elaborate please.
 
> >> and led to Dan Dennett's disgust, something not easy to extract
> >> from him.
> >
> >Not always.  His review of Popper and Eccles (Journ of Phil, 76, 91-97)
> >was one of the most mean spirited I have read.
> 
> A good example of such a failure, in this case an attempt to negate "not easy"
> with "not always".  As Aaron Sloman would say, some is not all.
>

Greater nits have smaller nits
Upon their backs, nit-picking;
And smaller nits have smaller nits -
Recursive nit shit-kicking. (Oliver Sparrow)


Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of
So-Called Cognitive Science

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476