Turing and The Test -Reply

[Hans Blom, 960202]

(Rick Marken (960131.0800))

All I know about others is through their "wonderfully superficial"
external appearances. Not much different from a Turing Test, I
would say.

Yes.

Well, great to agree for once. But I knew there would be a but ...

But if you had learned perceptual retrofaction (nee control) theory
(PRT) you would know how to test to determine what variables people
are retrofacting. Then you would be able to see beyond the
superficial appearance of behavior to the perceptual goals of
retrofactive systems.

Because _you_ are be able to see beyond the superficial appearance of
behavior to the perceptual goals of retrofactive systems? One thing
that has become clear in previous discussions on The Test is that it
is not a means that will provide you with answers that are beyond the
shadow of a doubt. To me that implies that I will always have to keep
in mind that my guesses can, after all, turn out to be wrong and
those of others might be right (however unlikely the latter ;-). To
you, it seems to me, that same Test provides so much certainty that
you make an axiom out of it. Difference in attitude?

Since you seem to have a deep personal interest in _not_ learning
perceptual retrofaction theory (it's been well over three years and
there's been no change in your understanding that I can detect;-))
it looks like you have, indeed, committed yourself to looking at
behavior from the conventional (Turing) perspective: so enjoy
yourself in the "wonderfully superficial" world of external
appearances. You'll have lots of company;-)

Why does this sound like a compliment, coming from you? I am very
easy to convince that your way of looking at things is great -- for
you. It is very difficult to convince me to give up those subjective
truths that I see all around me but which your point of view
disregards, cannot explain, and does not want to talk about. And yes,
thank you, I _do_ have lots of company...

Greetings,

Hans