Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: FIRST order? was: why Ginsberg grouses
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <DBxpwH.40B@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <19950717.232140.58@daffodif.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 23:14:41 GMT
Lines: 130
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:31672 sci.logic:12710 comp.ai.philosophy:30515 sci.cognitive:8412


}==========PHIL@daffodif.demon.co.uk, 7/17/95==========
}
}On Mon, 17 Jul 95 14:23:08 GMT,
}  David Longley (David@longley.demon.co.uk) wrote:
}
}> In article <19950717.122617.21@daffodif.demon.co.uk>
}>            PHIL@daffodif.demon.co.uk  writes:
}>
}
}PHIL said:
}I'm sorry but I doubt you could even characterise 'behaviour' in 
}any 
}scientifically useful way without reference to things like beliefs 
}and 
}desires. Forget Quine, try reading Norman Malcolm's classic 
}paper 'The 
}Conceivabiltiy of Mechanism' reprinted in 'Free Will' ed. Gary 
}Watson  
}(OUP,1982); or The Philosophical Review, vol lxxvii, No.1 (Jan 
}1968); and  
}many other places. 
}
}David Lonley said: 
}How about: 'Is able to use long division', 'is able to speak short 
}French 
}sentences', 'is ready for work on first call to labour', 'scored 70% 
}on 
}maths test B', has IQ of 130', and other criteria or normative 
}based 
}assessments which require specific behaviours to be 
}demonstrated?  Simply ask
}any teacher or instructor what they are trying to teach, ask  them 
}how they
}assess students and mark those assessments, and you will  have 
}behaviours
}pouring forth. 
}
}Simply ask any teacher or instructor wht they are trying to teach, 
}ask them
}how they assess students and mark those assessments, and you 
}will have
}behaviours pouring forth.
}
}Note however, its is EXTREMELY difficult to generate such skill 
}based 
}criteria from an armchair away from such contexts.
}
}
}Reply:
}Firstly what is the relevance of this last remark?
}
}Secondly, you give five specific examples in reply to my claim 
}that one
}cannot *characterise* behaviour without reference to beliefs and 
}desires. I
}shall try to answer them in turn, and hopefully in the process you 
}will see
}why no further examples of this sort apply to the point I am trying 
}to make.
}
}1. is able to use long division
D. Weldon says:  This is not a behaviour, it is an abstraction from behaviour
(in this case, asserting the presence of an aptitude)
}
}2. is able to speak short French sentences
D. Weldon says:  This is not a behaviour, it is an abstraction from behaviour
(identifying the level of a language skill).
}
}3. is ready for work on  first call to labour
D. Weldon says:  This has the same status as #1 above
}
}4. scored 70% on Maths test B
D. Weldon says:  This is an abstraction of behaviour that may or may not imply
minimal math achievement (i.e., it is not an aptitude measure).
}
}5. has IQ of 130.
D. Weldon says:  this is simply a meaningless statement since we know nothing
about the test used to measure it; whether it is a true Binet quotient or
standard score; or the age of the person tested.
}
}Examples 4 and 5 are not characterisations of behaviour, but
}subsequent reports *of* behaviour, so these examples are 
}invalid.  Examples
}1, 2 and 3 refer to an ability or a disposition. I grant you that 
}abilities
}and dispositions are manifested in behaviour, but to say that 
}someone has an
}ability is again a subsequent report based on exhibited 
}behaviour, not a
}characterisation of the behaviour which leads to the attribution of 
}that
}ability. So again these examples are also invalid 
}counterexamples to my
}claim. The sort of example I believe you are looking for is 
}something rather
}like:
}	
}	John picked up a hat.
}	
}That, I would allow, is a characterisation of behaviour, but as I 
}pointed out
}in the previous post on this subject, it is unlikely that you can 
}unpack this
}characterisation of behaviour without reference to beliefs and 
}desires. If
}you have a genuine interest in this subject I would urge you to 
}read the
}suggested literature, since the arguments can stand for 
}themselves better
}than any short paraphrase I might give in these posts. 
}Nonetheless I would be
}happy to explain them to any interested parties who are prepared 
}to take part
}in a reasoned and unprejudiced debate on the matter. 
}
}--  
}Phil S. 
}
}<PHIL@daffodif.demon.co.uk>
}
}
D. Weldon says:  Anyone who stops to consider what it really means to record
behaviour (as opposed to abstract categories of behaviour) quickly realizes
that noone believes we should enforce the former.  That means that the most
rabid, doctrinaire behaviourist must categorize behaviours before counting. 
Categorization is logically imposed by the observer (or more often by the
observer's thesis advisor) regardless of philosophical orientation.  The only
real difference is level of abstraction and reliability.

