Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
From: JPL Verhey (matterDELminds_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: GLOBAL EMERGENCY ON PLANET EARTH--GLOBAL HOLOCAUST"
- In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:44:35 +0200
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hWq2d.22436$0h7.1584841@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Bill Modlin wrote:
....
> BM: The difference is that the intelligent entity has access to deeper
> more
>> meaningful features of the situation, which can generally be expected
>> to
>> be recognized in a wider range of novel situations.
>
> WK: What you've done here is suggest a measure of intelligence, and as
> such, it's a good one. For one thing, it's testable - and has been
> tested, as it happens, many times, by those 'orrible behaviourists who
> don't have a clue of what intelligence is because they refuse to
> ascribe that property to the mind.
This is exactly the point where people don't understand, or disagree
with 'orrible behaviorists - that they refuse to ascribe that property
of intelligence to the mind. But maybe some reconciliation is possible.
Let my give it a try.
I think you are right in pointing out that one can only ascribe
'intelligence' to a system on the basis of observable behavior. You also
mention that you use the word behavior as meaning the interaction of a
system with its environment. No matter the "innards" of the system, when
the interaction is such that measured (output) behavior fits the
intelligence bill (when the term intelligence is first quantified and
made testable), the system can be said to be-have intelligent in that
specific environmental context. So far so good?
Now every system that behaves has, implicitly, "innards" that make it
behave, interact with its environment, the way it does. Those innards
mentioned here, are the structures, processes and functions you are able
to observe that constitute the system when it interacts with its
environment. One could, without a problem, call those observable inner
structures, processes and functions 'internal behaviors'. Any natural
science that observes and analyzes for instance the human bodybrain can
be said to study 'internal behaviors' that in sum constitute the
"innards" of that system. (Human beings are very complex systems of
course.. but that aside) Without causing real pain, one could say that
all is behavior, interaction. So far so good?
The internal behaviors ("innards") of a system interface with the
behaviors of the environment in-which the system behaves, which results
in the system-environment interaction, such as the barking of a dog when
it detects somebody nearing its territory. We could also take
[dog+territory] as one system that has an environment, or focus on a
small region with specific functions of the dogs brain and take that as
the system and the rest of the dogs bodybrain as it's immediate
environment. One could even go further down into the dog's bodybrain and
take a protein molecule as the system and its environment in-which (and
by-which) it behaves. Bio-physicists thusly also observe behavior,
i.e.of (micro-) systems in their micro environments with-which they
interact. So it appears safe to say that all natural sciences identify
systems on different levels - from the quantum microcosmos to galaxies -
and study those system's behaviors within the context of its
environment. I would think that nobody has a problem with behaviorism
observing and analyzing animal behavior in different environments - the
lab included, under stood in this way. That observing the behavior of
molecules in chemistry, particles in particle physics, neurons in
neurology, stars in astronomy, animals (included humans) as in
behaviorism.. all yield different theories, laws, predictions and even
often languages..with their own domains in which their science is valid,
is only logical. So far so good?
Having said all this and if agreed upon, it can be added and should be
emphasized that any science always studies and analyzes BOTH the
observable "innards" of the system they research as well as the specific
environment relevant to that system. The innards of any system are of
extreme interest to the scientist who wants to explain the behavior of
that system within its environment. Usually, after the first detection
of any behavior and identification of 'a system' the question that
follows is, how that behavior can be explained in terms of the innards
of the system and the 'behavior' of its environment with-which it
interacts. To explain the 'out-put' behavior (the interaction) of an
identified system, BOTH the (behavior of the) environment and the
innards (internal behaviors) of the system matter. This is what science
is all about. Neither "innards" nor environment can be left out of the
equations.
Of course a system can be observed as the behavior of a black-box, where
only the interaction with the environment and the environment itself are
open to investigation, and one can thusly produce theories and accurate
predictions about the behavior of that black box. In fact, that is
usually the case when a scientific new theory is in the process of being
developed especially when such a system is a very complex system. The
innards of the human system/organism are extremely complex. Yet, endless
shelves are filled with books containing scientific findings on the
innards of very complex organic systems such as human beings. This
research is indispensable to understand apparently 'simple' behavior
such as kicking a ball in a soccer match. To rely only on ball-kicking
experiments (analogous to key-pecking' of pigeons) and assume that this
will be enough.. aint really science. Of course there are practical
limitations and investigating the relevant innards of a very complex
system is not easy.. but it is paramount to recognize the importance of
it if you want to have a better explanation for a system's behavior.
Also if you want to research 'intelligent' behavior. To explain it, you
need the behavior (impacts) of the environment and the internal behavior
of the system to explain the interaction between the two.
You can say, of course "I don't care how a system produces certain
behavior that I qualify as intelligent or otherwise (or made to produce
by controlling the environment), as long as it works.. who cares how the
innards of the systems make it possible". This can be a pragmatic
consideration and even valid, as you say that a teacher doesn't need to
bother about his/her student's neurology etc..as long as they perform.
But for a *scientist* this is not the primal issue. S/he wants to
explain the behavior of a system by investigating the environment
in-which the system behaves, PLUS the innards of the system resulting in
the interactive system-environment output behavior that is to be
explained.
Maybe if some common ground is found here.. we can move on to the next
and final question: that of the "mind" or mind and how that fits, or not
fits in the equations that explain human behavior.
-- Cheers, JPL http://home.tiscali.nl/boynalechmipo/ On consciousness: experiential bubbles, solipsism, mind-brain duality, the binding problem, the hard problem and artificial consciousness.
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: GLOBAL EMERGENCY ON PLANET EARTH--GLOBAL HOLOCAUST"
- In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
