Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article

From: Glen M. Sizemore (gmsizemore2_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/07/04 

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 18:45:50 -0400

AC: It's a problem, though, because the only thing we find interesting about
categorisation is how it's different from every other type of behaviour. How
does calling it - everything actually -- behaviour help us understand
anything?

GS: Because there is an experimental science that exerts direct control over
the behavior of individual subjects - human and non-human. Calling behavior
what it is (instead of inventing mental surrogates) allows one to bring to
bear on the problem known techniques that may be used understand it. The
behavior called "categorization" can be, and has been, investigated in
non-human animals, as has the topic that is the more general topic - operant
stimulus control.

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:vh3Rc.44112$Jq2.2049749@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xk6Qc.25597$Jq2.1069594@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Sergio Navega wrote:
> > >>Again, granted that "categorisation" takes place. But what, exactly,
is
> > >>it? I submit it's behaviour.
> > >
> > >
> > > And so your investigation of the subject stops. Cognitive scientists
> > > want to develop abstract (even mathematical) models of categorization.
> > [...]
> >
> > a) investigation begins with "categorisation is behavior." Now we have
> > some idea of what to look for.
>
> It's a problem, though, because the only thing we find interesting about
> categorisation is how it's different from every other type of behaviour.
> How does calling it -- everything actually -- behaviour help us understand
> anything?
>
>