[From Rick Marken (930125.1000)]
Bill Powers (930125.0800) --
Rick Marken said "If (as I suspect) all they want is impressive
surface appearances (the Disneyland syndrome?) then we don't need
to waste our time ..."
And you [John Gardner] said
I say ouch too. Look before you leap, Rick.
See. I'm not really that nice.
My only excuse is that I had no specific person in mind when I
referred to "they". I also didn't mean to imply that there is anything
wrong with wanting to create impressive surface appearances; I
would like to be able to do it myself. I was just trying to point (not
jab) to the difference in emphasis (that I see) between current
robotics (as I understand it) and the PCT approach to robotics
(such as it exists). The current approach to robotics seems to be
oriented towards building machines that produce certain perceptions
(surface appearances) FOR THE ROBOTICIST. The PCT approach
would be oriented toward building robots that produce certain
perceptions FOR THEMSELVES and, as a side effect, produce
interesting perceptions for the PCTer. Another way to look at this
is that the PCT approach would be to find perceptions which, if they
were controlled by a robot, would tend to produce the
"impressive surface perceptions" desired by the PCT roboticist.
So I apologize to John Gardner for creating the disturbance that
caused the "ouch". My comments were not aimed at you (or anyone
in particular). They were just a clumsy attempt to distinguish the
goals of PCT from what I might mistakenly believe to be the goals