Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology,sci.psychology.theory,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!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: <jqbDCwM14.EK8@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <400mb0$l5b@mp.cs.niu.edu> <807660805snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <4017k9$ph2@mp.cs.niu.edu> <807691144snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 19:26:33 GMT
Lines: 32
Sender: jqb@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32236 comp.ai.philosophy:31334 sci.logic:13632 sci.philosophy.tech:19224 sci.psychology:45401 sci.psychology.theory:223 sci.cognitive:8879

In article <807691144snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley  <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4017k9$ph2@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu "Neil Rickert" writes:
>> 
>> >There you go again, playing depth-psychologist (which has  little 
>> >substance  either).... To repeat my point again....if we  do  not 
>> >report  what  someone has *said* or *written* we  do  not  report 
>> >their behaviour, if we do not report their behaviour, what are we 
>> >reporting?
>> 
>> I am not sure why you repeat your point.  Perhaps you want to be sure
>> that everybody can see its absurdity.  Physicists study electrons,
>> and report the behavior of electrons.  They certainly don't report
>> exactly what the electrons say (i.e. nothing at all), for that would
>> be no basis for doing science.  Biologists report animal behavior
>> without thinking that their reports must consist of exactly what the
>> animals say (i.e. nothing).  If we were to follow your narrow
>> prescription we would have to completely abandon science.
>> 
>
>What  has this non sequitor got to do with anything? It is  quite 
>clear that the subject is language, either spoken or written.  My 
>point  was  that if we do not report what someone  else  says  or 
>writes  *we* must be adding something to what they have  said  or 
>written. Your remarks are a clear and extreme example of  exactly 
>what I am talking about!

Yes, we add analysis, redaction, comprehension, sense, and understanding.
You are welcome to continue to eschew such qualities.
-- 
<J Q B>

