[From Rick Marken (920821.2100)]
penni (and anyone else):
I get the impression that there is some book or article by
Agre from which I can learn the principles of interactionism.
Could you tell me what that is? I'll be at ucla tommorrow
so maybe I can take a look at it. Maybe there's a forth
blind man (the zen master, perhaps) that I neglected in my paper.
It just struck me that the three views of behavior described in
my paper probably don't include the interactionist view. It
might be hard to represent that view in my scheme since it
seems that interactionists make no distinction between organism and
environment -- thus eliminating both equations 1 and 2. That would
sure take care of my thesis.
By the way. Didn't anyone else feel the sense of relief that I
felt after the republican convention when they revealed that
all the problems in this country are the result of homosexuals and
atheists -- and NOT JEWS. I'm particularly relieved that there
has been no embarassing outcry agaist the republicans -- as there
was agaist Joe McCarthy. Could the republicans have finally
found the people that everyone can hate. I'm impressed; they are
already AHEAD of Hitler -- and after only 48 years. Heil (er...
Viva) Bush.
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)
(penni sibun 920822)
I get the impression that there is some book or article by
Agre from which I can learn the principles of interactionism.
Could you tell me what that is? I'll be at ucla tommorrow
so maybe I can take a look at it.
the only published book is
david chapman, _vision, instruction, and action_, mitp, 1991.
it's about sonja. doesn't go into a lot of the philosophy, but if you
spent .5hr w/ it, you could get some of the back ground.
agre's thesis and the pengi papers are what i recommend. avery posted
how to get the former.
i really recommend preston's paper. it starts at exactly the same
place as yr blind men paper, adn draws a v. diff conclusion.
It just struck me that the three views of behavior described in
my paper probably don't include the interactionist view. It
might be hard to represent that view in my scheme since it
seems that interactionists make no distinction between organism and
environment -- thus eliminating both equations 1 and 2. That would
there is no interactionist manifesto, or even well-defined canon.
(there's pockets of interactionist work in phil, psych, anthro, ling,
ai....) i'll also remind you that i've presented the most radical
view of interactionism possible. a risky pedagogical move--though if,
after having thoroughly jumped down my throat, you go off to
investigate on your own....
cheers.
--penni
I'm testing the follow-up feature of the rn command. Hope this
works.
In article <92Aug22.140417pdt.38019@huh.parc.xerox.com>
sibun@parc.xerox.com writes:
i really recommend preston's paper. it starts at exactly the same
place as yr blind men paper, adn draws a v. diff conclusion.
I send a preprint request to Beth Preston but I am just burning
with curiosity. Did she start off with the simultaneous equations
for a closed loop system and come up with different conclusions
about its apparent "behavior" in relationship to environmental
variables and constraints?
By the way, I found that I do have a copy of a paper by Agre and
Chapman (it's in the "Designing Autonomous Agents" collection
edited by Pattie Maes, MIT, 1990). I have read it now. I see that
there are some sentences that seem consistent with PCT. For example,
on p. 21 they say "a plan does not directly determine an agent's
actions" -- which is precisely true from PCT perspective; it
directly determines an agent's PERCEPTIONS (assuming that a plan
is a specification of intended outcomes, which seems to be exactly
what A&C are trying to say).
They do make some, well, strange statements, the meaning of which
seem to be left to the reader's imagination. For example, I never
got a clear explanation (I thought) of this gem (also on p. 21):
"We have found, in the case studies that we conducted, that
participating in the flow of the environment, rather than attempting
to control it, can simplify the machinery required to account for
the organization of activity". If they are not saying something
trivially obvious I would really like to know what it is. As it stands,
it sounds to me like they are saying that the internal organization
of, say, a stick that falls when you stand it on end and release it is
simpler than that of a stick that maintains its vertical orientation
when it is released. Is that it???
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)