Here's that broken record again--me, asking for definitions!
"Intentionality" = ?? My off-the-top-of-my-head response: very early
in my grad studies, there was an ambitious attempt to deal with what
PERHAPS you "intend" here, by--Pribram, Galanter, and Miller?
Ironically, (if I recall correctly) they were trying to account for
"purposeful" behavior in living organisms (without invoking
teleological explanations of "goal" seeking) in terms of concepts from
cybernetics... That is, using the "intentionality" of computers with
real-world interfaces as a model for "intentionality" of living
organisms.
(n.b.: I am leaping to the conclusion that you mean all kinds of
goal-directed behavior, not just the intent to convey meaning)
Does one "plonk" a watermelon to see if it is ripe??
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <932051152.618.23 at news.remarQ.com> "Gary Forbis"
<forbis at accessone.com> writes:
>>Jim Balter <jqb at sandpiper.net> wrote in message
>news:378D9AE0.95566048 at sandpiper.net...>> flefever wrote:
>> >
>> > Well...not to put too fine a point on it, but... Do you really
mean to
>> > say that ability to "identify the object in the world" is the
critical
>> > requirement?
>>>> That does seem to be what these "symbol grounding" folks seem to
mean.
>> But I think it clear from "brain in the vat" considerations that
>> this is the wrong track.
>>I'm not sure how. While a brain in a vat might have qualia, its
qualia
>cannot stand in relationship to objects in the world in a way
consistent
>with
>reference except coincidentally. Qualia don't have meaning.
>>> "snow is blue" might "really mean"
>> (I'm using their language) "7 is greater than 91", but this would
have
>> no consequence in re whether we understand the sentence "snow is
blue".
>>I'm sure people on all sides are confused about this. If "really
mean" is
>to have any meaning it is due to intentionality. If the system lacks
>intentionality
>its performances can't stand in relationship to the system in a way
where
>the system really means anything.
>>Determining if a system has intentionality may not be possible. In
certain
>cases it is possible to determine that a system does not intend a
particular
>interpretation of its performance. A system cannot intend an
interpretation
>that relies upon entities to which it has no reference (except
>coinsidentally.)
>>> Looking at a computer and seeing that it's "snow is blue"
corresponds
>> to our "7 is greater than 91" and therefore denying that it
>> "understands" is a confusion of viewpoints and levels of
description.
>> People only get away with it because we don't yet have a formal
>> model of human cognition where we can point to the obvious
counterpart.
>>Are you relying upon your intuition to tell you this?
>>That alternative interpretations exist only indicates we lack the
tools to
>determine intent. One would hope that with sufficient performance
>alternative
>interepretations could be ruled out. With ungrounded computational
systems
>this won't happen since the most obvious alternative interpretation
relates
>to the internal structure of the system. (For the most part this is
true
>for
>humans as well as computers. The difference is that humans are
connected
>to the world in a way in which they can make reference to it. Some
machines
>are connected to the world in a way in whch they can make reference to
the
>world if they can make reference at all.)
>>> > Would it suffice to add some input resulting from an
>> > object's knocking at the room's front door? Would this allow a
>> > "semantic association"? (e.g., "hey, Chinese room: you know that
thing
>> > we call a 'solid object', that is related to this, that, and the
other
>> > thing we talked about? well, that's whatt just bumped up against
your
>> > door."))
>>>> Indeed, it's all a matter of *relationships*. "symbol grounding"
>> is just another form of absolutism.
>>>> > >Just look at Jim Balter, who even plonked me now
>> > >because I told him (via PM) that I don't consider insults as
>> > >convincing arguments.
>>>> I plonked you because ...
>>What in the heck does "plonk" mean? I must lead a sheltered life.
>I've never seen it before. Webster's 10th says its a variation of
"plunk"
>and "plunk" says it means "to come out in favor of something." I
don't
>see how coming out in favor of something someone said could be
>considered an insult so it doesn't seem likely this is the intended
>interpretation. I might be plonking you without even knowing it but
>if I wrote "I plonked you because..." you could be sure I didn't
>intend what you intended when you wrote this sentence because I
>don't know what it means.
>>
