X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 09:23:44 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:23:44 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Gary's reply, Neural imaging, Turing

[From Rick Marken (920910.0900)]

Gary Cziko (920909.1335) --

>I have written a response to a critique by Amundson et al. to my article
>"Purposeful Behavior as the Control as Perception: Implications for
>Educational Research" which will appear in _Educational Researcher_ which I
>have appended below.

And an excellent response it is, indeed. It is very well-written; clear,
concise and it makes the right points. Of course, there is no chance that
Amundson et al will get it -- but you slyly mentioned that in the paper.
It seems to me that you are now trying to publish papers for the same
reason that I do -- so that your grandchildren can hold up your articles
and smile smugly at Amundson's grandchildren and say (in a very kind, non-
controlling way, of course) "See, Grandpa Gary was right. Boy was he smart".
----------

Here is part of an ad for a conference that was posted to the
sci.psychology newgroup:

>            FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING: Looking at the Mind

>Functional neuroimaging is the application of instruments to view the
>changes in physiological state which accompany the work of the brain.

>Topics include:

>___Human Sensation and Motor Control___
>Characterizing the response of the brain to sensation, and tracing the
>activity backwards to look at the physiological states which presage our
>movements and our speech.

And I bet they'll find those physiological states that "presage" behavior.
I don't suppose anyone wants to tap them on the shoulder and suggest that
all that expensive equipment might be more effectively used study how those
"physiological" states "presage" what they really control -- perception.
I'd say the SR view is as entrenched in functional neuroanatomy as it is
in cognitive psychology. But it's like racism: you only hear it from
them when you overhear it.
-----

There was also an article in comp.robotics that delt with the Turing
Test. There is apparently an article on the subject by S. Harnad
(my favorite philosopher): Here is the reference: Harnad, S. (1992) The
Turing test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific
criterion. SIGART Bulletin 3(4)   (October 1992) pp. 9 - 10. Appears
preceded by an Editorial on the Turing Test by Lewis Johnson, pp. 7 - 9,
and followed by another commentary by Stuart Shapiro, p. 10]

I don't know if I'll waste my time reading it (NB-- Penni Sibun; I judge
that I will learn nothing from it because I have read Harnad before. Might
be a mistake but I'll take the risk). But I do think that the Turing
Test is an EXCELLENT example of the behavioristic basis of AI (and
cognitive science) etc. Harnad's contribution makes it even clearer -- he
suggests a Total Turning Test meaning its not enough to get a simulation
to answer questions like a real person -- you must also get it to
behave in all ways like a real person -- ie -- brush teeth,
play soccer, build model airplanes, etc. Of course, what is interresting
is that behavior is defined completely superficially -- it is what you
SEE. There is no notion that behavior (including the conversation of the
original Turing Test) is a controlled consequence of simultaneous influences
produced by the actor and the environment. Turing, like Harnad, was not
a physicist; he had no idea how behavior worked. Like present day psych-
ologists he assumed that the words he used to describe behavior were
behavior; he perceived behavior at only one level; category.

I think the Turing Test is an excellent model of the basic misconception
about behavior embraced by all the life sciences. According to the
Turing Test (Total version), the only problem with clockwork simluations
of behavior like those done in the 1700s was that they didn't mimic enough
behavior and, perhaps, didn't do it smoothly enough. The Turing Test
shows very clearly that the goal of AI and like minded "sciences" is
truly superficial -- they want to simulate how things "behave: not how
they control.

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU