Insects

[From Shannon Williams (960221.08:30)]

Rick Marken (960220.1100)--

Until you can model reorganization, you cannot say that a thinking creature
uses references the same way that an insect does.

Why not?

I am not sure which part of the above statement that you are questioning.

I think maybe you question the concept of "using references". When you say
that a creature has a reference you are saying that you can
describe/predict the creature's behavior by E=R-P. E=R-P represents a
model of that creature for you, the external viewer.

In other words, when you see a thinking creature or you see an insect you
still describe that creature's behavior by E=R-P. And from your
perspective, you define 'E', 'R', and 'P' the same for both creatures.
But that does not mean that the internal mechanisms that cause the
creatures' behaviors are the same.

I think that there is good reason to believe that they are not the same. A
thinking creature does not always behave according to 'E=R-P'. A thinking
creature pauses in one goal to pursue another. A thinking creature can
delay or inhibit the behavior indicated by 'E'. A thinking creature can
change his 'R', etc. It seems to me that the behavior generating
mechanism in a thinking creature has evolved to be quite different from the
behavior generating mechanism in an insect.

However, I think that a creature which developed behavior that could not be
associated with a goal would soon perish. In other words, a creature could
not evolve that emitted random behavior. Such a creature would be unable
to sustain its life or would cause its own death. This is why intelligent
behavior can be described by 'E=R-P'.

ยทยทยท

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Powers (960220.2300 MST)--

Your assumption that the tracking models I referred to explain only the
behavior of insects is incorrect, unless Rick, Tom, I, and numerous
other people have, unbeknownst to us, been transformed into giant
cockroaches. The model predictions of which I spoke are for data from
human tracking experiments.

There is no reason that Rick, Tom, and you cannot mimic an insect,
especially if such mimicry results in the best method for achieving your
goals.

Your tracking demonstration demonstrates correlation, not cause. And you
cannot demonstrate "cause" until you can demonstrate learning. Until then,
you still only have a description of intelligent behavior, not a
mechanism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-Shannon

[From Shannon Williams (960221.11:30)]

Bill Powers (960221.0930 MST)--

   It seems to me that the behavior generating mechanism in a
   thinking creature has evolved to be quite different from
   the behavior generating mechanism in an insect.

Well, I'll leave it up to you. How would you apply hierarchical PCT to
answer these points?

I would not use HPCT. It has absolutely no predictive power that I can
see. It can be used to explain behavior after the fact, but it cannot be
used to predict. Since it cannot be used to predict, I do not think it is
a valid model.

-Shannon