Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:00:05 GMT

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:26:39 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <TkL%c.23854$lP4.1387565@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
>Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes
>>I have a couple of challenges to the behaviourists to let them explain their
>>view a little clearer.
>>
>>If behaviourism (of any stripe) is going to be of use in artificial
>>INTELLIGENCE, it is going to have to give us a way to tell what behaviours
>>are intelligent, and which are not. What are the posited characteristics
>>that a behaviour must have in order for it to be considered an intelligent
>>behaviour? And if you feel the question is irrelevant in a behaviouristic
>>model, please explain why.
>>
>>
>Here's a clue - "intelligence" is a relation not an attribute or
>property.

How very peculiar. I would have thought that most attributes or
properties are relations.

> You and many others here have the "arity" wrong, and that
>leads to metaphysics (which is all most of our folk psychology amounts
>to).
>
>When you talk of "intelligence", what are you referring to, and how?

Fascinating. Is there an echo in the room? Having just asked
behaviorists to explain the intelligence in intelligent behavior,
behaviorists then turn around to ask what intelligence is in
intelligent behavior?
 
>Many people who talk of "AI" are metaphysicians.

And all behaviorists are metaphysicians.

Regards - Lester

Quantcast