Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!simtel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!ssbunews!not-for-mail
From: jcawkwel@mlsma.mlm.att.com (Jack Cawkwell)
Subject: Re: Intensionality in science. (Was FIRST order? was: why...)
Message-ID: <DBpF5E.rt@ssbunews.ih.att.com>
Sender: news@ssbunews.ih.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mlw079.mlm.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <950708042013381@red6.mic.cl> <3u462t$bja@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:41:38 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:31528 comp.ai.philosophy:30176 sci.logic:12392 sci.cognitive:8307

Aaron Sloman stated in this discussion that "thinking is a behaviour",
but perhaps this statement needs some more precision.

Surely "thinking" is a number of different activities. One activity
is "perception" which can never be passive, and is always dependent on
the observer, and so is usefully called a behaviour. "I perceive" 

There may be other aspects to thinking, for example the use of an abstract
mathematical model; but once selected, I am not sure why it would be useful
to call this sort of thinking a behaviour? "I state theorem A" -
could be represented by ink on paper in a maths book, which is hard to
imagine as a behaviour.

-- 
Jack Cawkwell

AT&T Malmesbury SN16 9NA UK
Jack.Cawkwell@att.com +44 666 832295
