X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:45:19 PDT
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: Comments on Chapman's book
X-To:         CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu
              2 Sep 1992 09:16:27 -0700
              <92Sep2.092010pdt.11845@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 920902.1200)

   importance of perception, but he appears to see perception as
   regulating behavior, rather than the other way around (grounding
   representation and action in perception). He uses "representation" in
   some specialized way that I don't understand, making it seem that
   perception is something other than representation. Perhaps this is

right.  this is part of the problem i've had talking w/ y'all.  in an
ai/mentalist approach, perception is the input to representation.
representation is datastructures that hang around in your head
(whereas perception doesn't hang around in yr head, it's basically a
process).  chapman and i et al. argue against that view of perc./repr.

   solving the eight [-queens?] puzzle or designing a circuit, as

no, you have a 3x3 square and 8 tiles you can slide around in it.

   But Chapman reveals his cultural background here. He is promoting a
   particular world-view, rather like the Tao and quite like Maturana's
   view, which says "go with the flow; the river flows by itself so don't
   try to push it; we're just ships drifting under the influence of wind
   and tide and where we end up is not up to us." There's a sense of
   groupiness when he talks about other people that sounds very young to
   me (but then what doesn't?). There's a sense of not wanting to face
   the world alone -- or to realize that this is what everyone has to do,
   by virtue of the relationship of the brain to what lies outside it.

that's fascinating.  if you talked to him in person (or were subjected
to him on the net), you wouldn't have that impression at all.

   Penni echoed this sentiment when she asked rhetorically, "Why figure
   something out for yourself when you can ask someone else who's been
   there?"

well, i can't really comment on the psychoanalysis of me!  ;-}  (but i
don't mind it.)

   As is obvious from my participation on the net, I have nothing against
   groupiness. It's nice. I seek it out. But one mustn't overlook the
   fact that seeking out the group and the niceness of being with and in
   it is a GOAL; if you don't decide that this is what you intend to do,
   and if you don't overcome disturbances and obstacles that stand in the
   way of doing it, you will not end up with the group. One of the
   obstacles is the group itself. Groups are not known for reaching out
   and trying to get people into them (evangelists aside). It's more the
   other way around; they tend more often to reject outsiders, which is
   one of the things that feels so nice when you get inside. When people
   learn from those around them, which is the nice way of putting it,
   they also regress toward the mean and stop thinking for themselves,
   which is the nasty way of putting it.

you and agre would actually get along very well.


   "* Dynamics are not processes in the agent's head. They are patterns
   of interaction which may be noticed by a theorist. Dynamics are
   typically not represented in [perceived by?] the agent...

see above.

   This is because each level of perception does not start from scratch
   (as in Brooks' subsumption architecture) but derives its own type

i'm not sure this is right about brooks....

   organization where we have made little progress. He and Agre have
   abandoned the sterile approach of conventional AI for all the right
   reasons, and in doing so have gone a long way toward discovery of the
   principles of control. But to take Penni's side for a change, why go
   through that long painful process of reinventing the wheel, when you
   can ask someone who's already been there?

well, yes, indeed.  i do have sympathy for your position--even if i
still don't agree w/ all of pct, i do think it's worth a look.  but i
don't have any bright ideas on *whom* you should get to look.

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU