Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!telesoft!dar
From: dar@telesoft.com (David Reisner)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: intrinsic vs. extrinsic rules (Was: the baby bootstrap)
Message-ID: <744@telesoft.com>
Date: 15 Mar 90 09:52:15 GMT
References: <1990Mar8.125506.11913@newcastle.ac.uk> <725@berlioz.nsc.com> <7181@gelatinosa.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: David Reisner, Consulting
Lines: 23

In article <7181@gelatinosa.ai.mit.edu>, miken@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Michael N. Nitabach) writes:
>
> development of intelligence depends on *both* interactions with the environ-
> ment, and *many* innate structures of the mind.  Why does radical behaviorism
> continue to exert such a seductive pull on workers in fields other than
> psychology?

As noted in the earlier posting...

> In article <5209@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
> (Lawrence Detweiler) writes:
>
> This is a hopeful sentiment for the future of machine thought.

It is an obviously self-serving view. If you WANT machine thought to be
possible or be able to replace human thought (becuase you like the idea,
it would be useful, its interesting, or you get along better with machines
than with people), then this viewpoint makes things easier.  I think this
sort of view would be less common if more people were familiar with the
behaviour of other species, and therefore could see human behaviour thru
somewhat different eyes.

-David