From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!tulane!ukma!memstvx1!langston Tue Jun  9 10:05:51 EDT 1992
Article 5996 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!tulane!ukma!memstvx1!langston
>From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: The Point of View dilemma
Message-ID: <1992May31.235438.2302@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: 31 May 92 23:54:38 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University
Lines: 41

   The discussions I have been reading of late regarding transducers and
thier simulated counterparts seem to be circling a common beastie: point
of view.
   What, if any, is the difference between a 'real' transducar and a
'simulated' transducar?  Don't they both perform the same functions within
its environment?  And, not trying to complicate matters, but isn't the
perception of a homunculus just a similar problem with point of view? I 
perceive my self as a whole; to do otherwise is folly, because I would
simply be shifting my point of view to a lower level, thus creating a
homunculus, which would, in turn, require a meta-homunculus to justify its
existence, and so on ad nauseum.
  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.
   Of course, this fails without a complete understanding of the constraints
(e.g., introspection on the location of self without an understanding of the
various components of the system: eyes, nose, nerves, brain, et al), but I
think
it works quite well when discussing simpler systems that are more completely
understood.

of course, I could be wrong.




-- 

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



