Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology,sci.psychology.theory,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: On Going Beyond The Information Given & 'Cognition'
Message-ID: <jqbDCxJK8.41p@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <400mb0$l5b@mp.cs.niu.edu> <807691144snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbDCwM14.EK8@netcom.com> <807756236snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:31:19 GMT
Lines: 43
Sender: jqb@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32260 comp.ai.philosophy:31351 sci.logic:13652 sci.philosophy.tech:19239 sci.psychology:45433 sci.psychology.theory:241 sci.cognitive:8898

In article <807756236snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley  <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbDCwM14.EK8@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>> 
>> Yes, we add analysis, redaction, comprehension, sense, and understanding.
>> You are welcome to continue to eschew such qualities.
>> -- 
>The *only* reason anyone wants to work with non-intensional terms is 
>to be clearer about what one is dealing with.

a) The issue was additions to verbatim reports.  We make these additions
   in order to add clarity, among other things.

b) When ones' actions repeatedly fail to bring about the desired result,
   it may be time to consider another course.  Your postings, with their
   long "direct quotations", are certainly not a model of clarity.

>If we can't find terms
>which are more reliable, and do at least as well as the intensional
>terms, we are stuck - for such terms can't be regimented within formal
>languages, and that's what we need to do if we are going to deal with
>them quantitatively. In the final analysis, the merits of any alternative
>terms will be seen pragmatically. 
>
>Take the example in 'Fragments..' which considers the use of the term 
>'subversive'. We can derive a better set of terms from the actions which
>we find to be the basis for such ascriptions (report rates, baroning,
>movement rate, etc etc). Rather than label someone 'subversive', one can
>profile the behaviours which go with such a label (using logistsic regression)
>When the behaviours change, so should the label. Often, as one would expect, 
>once one is labelled, .... that's the end of it.

As with "intensional", "unscientific", "pedantic", "obfuscatory", etc.?

Over and over again you bring up these examples that may be wonderfully
relevant to your prison psychology but have no bearing on your *greater*
program regarding intensionality and science.  How does constantly repeating
strawman arguments and ignoring the content of all responses add to *clarity*?


-- 
<J Q B>

