Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 09/13/04

  • Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2" 
    Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:58:23 -0400

    "David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:UFJeeFOlLORBFw0Z@longley.demon.co.uk...
    > In article <I231d.3921$0h7.161138@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
    > Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes
    > >
    > >"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > >news:41406a9d.54913759@netnews.att.net...
    > >> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:26:39 +0100, David Longley
    > >> <David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
    > >> > 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?
    > >>
    > >
    > >Yes, I noticed that. When I asked them to tell me what intelligence
    meant
    > >to them, they basically asked me what it meant to me [grin].
    > >
    > >
    > No, *we* actually do know what we are talking about when we talk about
    > "intelligence",

    Then you should have been able to answer the question: "How does one
    determine under the behaviourist notion whether a behaviour is intelligent
    or not?"

  • Next message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"