Re: death of the mind.
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- Previous message: Sergio Navega: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: John Casey: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:35:52 GMT
Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4107ec48.62544200@netnews.att.net>...
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:25:31 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The mind is a vague concept that is not specific enough to talk about
>>>scientifically.
>>
>>Then why does Glen talk about it?
>
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Sizemore or Longley do not and cannot talk scientifically, for they
> must adhere to an unscientific (some call it philosophical) dogma.
>
Oh, and specifically what is that unscientific dogma? How is isolating
a part of a system that cannot be studied (by the methods available from
the other part of a system which can be studied, unscientific ?
> 2. As demonstrated by Sizemore himself, it is useless to try to avoid
> referring to mind, especially in philosophical discussions, let alone
> psychology!
>
>
>>> It is mostly a collection of fables that we have
>>>learned from out culture. To say it doesn't exist is a political
>>>statement, not a scientific one. I doubt that the elite of the EAB will
>>>disagree. When i talked of the "death of the mind" (as i did when i
>>>started this subject line) i did so as a dramatization of the politics,
>>>not as a medical examiner doing an autopsy [though, perhaps the latter
>>>would make an interesting story]. The EAB deals with what can be
>>>reliably measured and controlled; and that excludes the fables. People
>>>don't like that because it appears to diminish what they consider
>>>important. It feels like it infringes on their sovereign domain.
>>
>>Glen and David deal with anything they feel contributes to the agenda
>>of behaviorism whether political or scientific. Whether they deny the
>>mind out of political or scientific conviction is truly irrlevant to
>>whether they deny the mind. Glen definitely denies the mind. If he
>>does so out of conviction it's a matter of speculative philosophy and
>>not a matter of science and of no interest to those interested in the
>>mind and mental effects as matters of science.
>
>
> Their contributions are mostly political. Most of their talk (>80%) is
> methodological, based on philosophical speculations that are not
> generally accepted (metaphysics of this and that). In fact, such naive
> skepticism is not regarded very highly by modern analytic
> philosophers. (Philosophical skepticism in general is not! Most of
> them are quite silly. Their skepticism is the same sort of saying "Oh!
> This is not reality! I'm being fed these dreams while they keep me in
> an astral prison!")
>
>
>>>Can the EAB talk to people (to us) without evoking a negative political
>>>reaction? I doubt it.
>>
>>Who cares?
>
>
> Nobody.
>
> We care about explanations. So far, we have been given none.
>
> We don't care about poor philosophy that says "this cannot be
> explained!", "this cannot be done!" based on word games and
> nonsensical reasoning.
>
>
I think you and Zick agree with each other, not because you understand
each other, but just because you think you are fighting the same enemy.
>>> But if we want to understand what they are
>>>actually saying, if we are just a wee bit curious to learn something
>>>about our behavior; it is going to be up to us to get beyond our initial
>>>political revulsion.
>>
>>If I want to understand what they are saying, I examine what they are
>>saying. What they are saying and have said repeatedly is that there
>>are no mind and mental effects. As someone interested in mechanical
>>explanations for the mind and mental effects, I have no interest
>>whatsoever in what behaviorists imagine they explain about behavior
>
>
> Precisely.
>
>
I know you and Zick dont understand what they are saying because you
cannot paraphrase them and get assent.
>>What they explain about behavior is nothing more than how they train
>>animals. What they imagine they explain is how these things happen in
>>the absence of a mind and mental effects. The technique behaviorists
>>use is to train animals and anthropomorphize results. Examples abound.
>>David recently recommended a paper by Kahneman in which the behavior
>>of pigeons was examined in macroeconomic terms as if they were human.
>
>
> Right. Economy works when you oversimplify things. AI does not work
> when you oversimplify things, for instance when reducing cognition to
> nothing! That's a very poor explanation for AI!
>
>
I think behaviorism tells us to program our AI from the outside in,
rather than from the inside out. How we situate our AI processes in the
environment in which they must function and how we prepare that
environment for them is just as important as the innards of the code and
the models.
That Longley uses the "AI" word quite differently than the rest of us is
confusing; but if we can get past the word confusion his points are well
taken. But i still think we are in a different position when we try to
create AI processes than when we study animal behavior in that some of
the variables that are not available to the former and definitely
available to the latter. Sorting all that out is not an easy piece, but
when Glen says things like:
""
And behaviorism suggests, I think, that it is
more profitable to view "intelligent" behavior
as the product of ontogenic selection of
spontaneous behavior. Thus, the brain generates
a range of movements that constitute an exploration
of the behavioral space, and reinforcement selects
behavior and "links it up" with stimuli. This is
what the brain does in concert with the whole body
and the surrounding environment.
""
i think it is very helpful and ignoring it just because you guys think
he is the enemy is foolish.
>>Just because patty doesn't like to examine arguments of behaviorists
>>critically doesn't mean they can't be examined critically by those who
>>are interested in the mechanical origin of the mind and mental effects
>>and disregard behaviorism for its denial of mind and mental effects.
>
>
> It's misdirected to think of behaviorists as scientific, Patty, they
> are a stupid religious cult.
Well why don't we just push them all up against the wall and shoot them.
> BTW, your ideas about semiotics are most
> definitely opposed to philosophical behaviorism.
I know. You do me an injustice with you lumpism.
There are several points where i disagree with Longley's Extensional
Stance. But i do try to understand it and not disagree upon the facts
of the matter. Where i disagree is with the attitudes and the politics
that it seems to evoke. For example i am not obsessed with explaining
failures of so called intelligent behavior in terms of the opacity of
intensional idioms. I think there are effective procedures in our
language, in our training, and in our culture that normally mitigate the
problems that do occur. I think that we can put effective procedures in
our AI to mitigate the problems as well. Quine's analysis of the
language does not justify his flight from intension. Rather it is just
a political choice. It may (or may not) be a good choice, but the
choice is not implied by his logical analysis. You may remember that as
POTTES.
> What's that wiggly
> thing in the head? You mean there is a "state" or "structure" in the
> head?
>
re: <http://www.icyberspace.net/patty/diagrams/SEMIOT.JPG>
It is the same squiggly line that reaches outside the head into the
environment. It just portrays processes of cause and effect.
Behaviorism does not deny that there are precesses of cause and effect
that go on in the head. Behaviorists do not deny the utility of using
relationships (interpreter, object, mark) in an analysis. Behaviorists
just think it is stupid to reify those analyses ... and so do i.
> Poor David sliced up brains and couldn't see anything of the sort,
> it's just radially arranged layers of cells. Guess what's in there?
> Memory? Noooo! Memory can't exist!!!
>
> But then, why do memories vanish when we have brain failures? What
> makes it different than a harddisk failure? Behaviorism can't even
> answer these exceedingly trivial questions about the mind, and thus
> must be eliminated from rational context. Consistency alone (which
> they think they have, but they do not!) does not entail reality. And
> well, they are not consistent, they always use mental terms while
> trying to explain their idiotic behavior.
>
>
You know, Eray, that kind of rhetoric is very common on both sides of
the fence. It does not inform or convince. It just makes the wall
between us and understanding the other perspective higher.
>>Right now you're just caught up making stupid and irrelevant excuses
>>for behaviorists' very obvious and well documented behavior denying
>>what I'm interested in explaining mechanically, suggesting I'm at
>>fault for not being interested in what else behaviorists have to say.
>>And if you want to continue crying in your beer at my lack of interest
>>in animal training regimens and the anthropomorphosis of results, I
>>heartily suggest you tell it to someone who cares.
>
>
> In effect replicating their well known, and refuted responses to
> criticism. When they are completely stuck, they will then start waving
> their hands, emitting sentences of silly metaphysics.
>
> If it were scientific at all, they would not have to rely on a
> particular, odd, and in my opinion, useless, metaphysics.
>
> As I said before, it's best to think of Longley-bot and Glen as a sort
> of online, interactive Turing/IQ test. If you believe them, you are
> probably worse than your favorite chatbot. How many people on
> comp.ai.philosophy or elsewhere accept their philosophical and
> methodological claims? Who were they? How many didn't? What did
> psychologists say to them? neuroscientists? computer scientists?
> philosophers? cognitive scientists? linguists?
>
> What did they contribute to this newsgroup? "AI is just engineering"?
> What kind of a silly thesis is that?
>
> If Patty can't see that these guys are some of the most persistent,
> sophisticated and twisted kooks on USENET, she really ought to go and
> gather intelligence elsewhere to understand what's going on. Or I
> could alternatively tell her why it's a waste of mind. (and not just
> hers as demonstrated by this post!)
>
Well i have tried to give Zick's ideas equal footing as his point of
view seems to be diametrically opposed to the Extensional Stance. But
most of the time i cannot understand Zick's words, they just don't match
up with anything. At least with the elite of the EAB there is extensive
documentation that can be checked. Correct language usage does count
when it comes to communicating ideas. Even new paradigms must first
stand on the language of older ones to be understood. Of course if all
we are doing is playing blue group against red group, well then i guess
it doesn't matter and anything that sounds cute is fair game.
> Regards,
Similar sentiments.
patty
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- Previous message: Sergio Navega: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: John Casey: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
