From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!rmarsh Tue Jun  9 10:06:17 EDT 1992
Article 6029 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!rmarsh
>From: rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Point of View dilemma
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.134855.8373@waikato.ac.nz>
Date: 2 Jun 92 13:48:55 +1200
References: <1992May31.235438.2302@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Lines: 27

In article <1992May31.235438.2302@memstvx1.memst.edu>, 
langston@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
[...]
>   Point of view should be anchored to the agent or object being described.
> (I know this becomes a kind of multiple solipsicm, but, hey.)  An ant lives
> in its own perceived environment and acts accordingly, just as a simulated
> ant does.  They both exist within the constraints of their sensors, effectors,
> and environments, nothing more, nothing less.  Both can be described at
> various levels, but each can only be described correctly within these
> boundaries.  Trying to describe either outside of their sensors, effectors,
> or _perceived_ (by the ant) environments leads to a shift in POV, and leaves
> the system open for misinterpretation.
[...]

This looks to me dangerously close to behaviourism. I know some folks like
the idea, but it seems to me that behaviourism misses a lot of what is
important about intelligence. Likewise this approach may describe the
outward behaviour with unerring precision and accuracy, but still it leaves
us wondering what is really going on behind the scenes.

> of course, I could be wrong.
> 
Ditto, I'm sure.
-- 
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh | 95 Fairfield Rd | I can't reply to E-Mail, but 
rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz  | Hamilton        | don't let that stop you sending.
+64 7 855 4406        | New Zealand     |


