Re: logical laws of Nature
- From: casey <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:51:54 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 16, 12:28 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
And if the crude guidance systems designed and built by
the cyberneticists are what you are calling a model of
intelligence, you are dumber than I thought.
Of course the simple feedback used to in a crude guidance
system will not produce the complex adaptive behaviors
seen in rats.
You may have noticed that there are not many (any?) great
modern thinkers posting to this group. I don't know how
smart or dumb you are but I do know I don't find your posts
understandable and thus they aren't very useful to me.
But I do find some books written by well educated modern
thinkers readable and am thus influenced by their views.
The first neural guidance systems of biological systems
would have been crude. The first neural networks were
probably selected to guide the biological system toward
food (or shelter) and away from predators.
I see it as a simple goal defining system. In the case
of humans the goals are much more complex and the means
of generating solutions to obtaining the goal state
are also much more complex but the observed results can
be categorized as seeking pleasure or avoiding pain.
A better way would be that perception as with other
kinds of behavior, is a matter of feedback. Either
way, though, it is a matter of what Skinner called
"contingencies."
I have to say it in a way I can understand it. Your
terminology doesn't help me. I prefer the terminology
used by engineers. Thankfully some are able to leave
their specialist language behind and risk simplifying
the subject to make it accessible to a wider audience.
Actually that was not an insight of the cyberneticists,
and I doubt that even they were careless enough to have
missed the connection to Claude Bernard (who described
this in 1856) though the term "homeostasis was not
coined until 1938 by another physiologist Walter Cannon.
The history of these ideas isn't the issue and who invented
what first or who had the insight first doesn't interest me
with respect to understanding and applying the concepts in
real machines.
How silly you've become. The "purpose" is "in the system"
that's the whole thing about "feedback" or "circular causation."
There isn't a "thing" called "purpose" or "intention" that can
be located inside an animal - that is the message. Animals
definitely have crucial stuff inside them, but it is a step
backward to think that the stuff is somehow what was called
"purpose" or "intention."
It is not the stuff I am calling purpose or intention it is
the behavior of the stuff.
One of the little robots that seek light would be seen as
displaying purposeful or intentional behavior which would
not happen without the crucial stuff, as you call it, inside
the machine. It is the crucial stuff inside that determines
if the machine seeks or avoids light, the light itself remains
unchanged with regards to the seeking or avoiding behavior.
--
JC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: logical laws of Nature
- From: Alpha
- Re: logical laws of Nature
- References:
- logical laws of Nature
- From: elubed
- Re: logical laws of Nature
- From: Wolf K.
- Re: logical laws of Nature
- From: casey
- Re: logical laws of Nature
- From: Glen M. Sizemore
- logical laws of Nature
- Prev by Date: Re: logical laws of Nature
- Next by Date: Re: logical laws of Nature
- Previous by thread: Re: logical laws of Nature
- Next by thread: Re: logical laws of Nature
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|