From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!gatech!willis.cis.uab.edu!utkcs2!memstvx1!langston Tue Jun  9 10:06:19 EDT 1992
Article 6032 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!gatech!willis.cis.uab.edu!utkcs2!memstvx1!langston
>From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Point of View dilemma
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.005020.2321@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 06:50:20 GMT
References: <1992May31.235438.2302@memstvx1.memst.edu> <1992Jun2.134855.8373@waikato.ac.nz>
Organization: Memphis State University
Lines: 57

In article <1992Jun2.134855.8373@waikato.ac.nz>, rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> 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     |

All I was basically trying to point out is that whenever you consider a system,
you should consider it from the point of view of _that_system_, and not from
your own.  It is quite the opposite of behaviourism; it requires that you do
not eneter into behaviourism.
	The main thrust is that a system should be discussed from
_the_system's_
POV; this eliminateds any behaviourism resulting from an inaccurate assumption
of the system's capabilities.  I do not deny the existence of internal 
processsing in a system; instead, I urge that _that_ processing in particular
be considered, and nothing else, when discussing that particular system.
	Behaviourism tends to result from an inaccurate understanding of the
]internal workings of, and therefore the denial of such workings in, a 
system.  To avoid such hypotheses that lead to homuncules, etc, it is 
absolutely necesary that the system be approached from the _system's POV,
with a complete understanding of the internal mechanisms operating in the 
system.

that's all,


-- 

Mark C. Langston                                  "What concerns me is not the
Psychology Department                              way things are, but rather
Memphis State University                           the way people think things
LANGSTON@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU                        are."     -Epictetus

     "...a brighter tomorrow?!?  How about a better TODAY?"  -me


