"The abuses of Freudian approaches are entirely independent of the question of the mind, its nature, and its structure; and lumping them together is simply illogical."

I wasn't talking about the abuses, but the legitimate uses of his theories. If his theoritical structure of the mind is wrong, then free association delivers no insights, provides no secondary evidence of that nature or of the casues of the client's problems. The Freudians, especailly while Freud was still alive, have a lot in common with the good burghers of Vienna and the memebers of the Royal Academy when it comes their response to work in chemical imbalnces.. The connection I was aiming for was that of a theory, fairly widely accepted, that claimed a strong scientific basis. (I allow that the theory may ber right). The direct and indirect proof offered itsn't very conclusive. And all those chemicals do work.

I don't recall teh part whre I said that Will, intent, self and so on, should or will have to do with electrical circuits and wires. Or that there is any need to build a self-aware machine to demonstrate that will, self and so on have a lot, and maybe everything, to do with cells, neural pathways and biologically based electrical impulses. Or will, mind and so on are a result of those elements. There may be something that exists as separate from that structure. If it is of a nature that allows for some of the alternate beliefs discused in this thread that would be extraordinary. (And pretty cool), The proof, whether direct or indirect should also be extraordinary. And account for or discredit what we currently have evidence for.

" I would like to add that the rationale of taking physical methods of proof and applying them to all phenomena as a sole criteria, and then rejecting phenomena and explanations that rest on the premise that there may be vectors or functions involved that operate outside those ranges because they do not meet that criteria, is perhaps the most circular piece of Byzantine reasoning I have seen. Reminds me of a foo bird."

Rereading what I've written, I don't think I said that. Physical proof is an element. As is the development of a theory taht can predict what will happen before there is a direct or indirect proof. As is preponderance of evidence, and congruence with more established theories. The lack doesn't preclude consideration of the thoery.

I recall that one of the early validations of Einstein's work (long before more direct evidence seemed to validate Relativity) was that it predicted the orbital patern of Mercury. Something Newton's math didn't. And a number of explanations were put forward in support of Newton's math. Relativity allowed an explaination o fhtat orbit. On the ohter hand Relativity can't explain why the EPR Paradox may be paradoxical, but it seems to happens all the same. And means that we have experimental evidence of a phenomena, at the quantum level, the violates Relativity.

Contradiction was meant in the sense of the all those paradoxical things that go against "accepted" beliefs, not dialectically.

Cognitive Theory is a very young field. I know that Maslow developed a fairly complex theoritical structure that dealt with the nature of learning, and supported it with some fairly rigorous experiments that didn't go beyond the physical structure. Circurel developed the idea of "mental organs of social organization" (my words not his) to explain the "syntax" of social structure that were similar to Chomsky's theories on language. None of which precludes the existance of whatever it is that I will never understand. The Ptolomic model, with great dificulty, predictied were the planets would be, based on the flawed geocentric model. Copernicus came up with the truer model. What we know know about the mind, self and so on, may be Ptolomic and Copernicus is just around the corner. BTW, I seem to recall that behavioristic models (which are closer to the bolts and wires allusion) of language were discreditied by research in neurophisology that showed that the brain couldn't hold enough stimuli/response sequences to allow us to talk.

I do have a bad habit, unintentional, of sounding supercilious. Sorry if it offended you. The methodology I try to apply, isn't "mine", however. And I would never try to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. Disgusting habit, that.

You seem to imply that I am in denial. (Being charitable and ignoring the implied ad hommium) What you specifically believe, don't believe, want to believe or need to believe, wasn't where I was going. Why you believe the way you do, and reasonings in support of it were. My intent was and is not to teach, but to learn. The past few posts seem to make it clear that we are working at cross purposes. (Leaving open the possibilities of comments about my lack of ability to learn, of course)

Regards John