colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (10/21/86)
> It is not always clear which of the two components a sceptic is > worrying about. It's usually (ii), because who can quarrel with the > principle that a veridical model should have all of our performance > capacities? Did somebody call me? Anyway, it's misleading to propose that a veridical model of _our_ behavior ought to have our "performance capacities." Function and performance are relative to the user; in a human context they have no meaning, except to the extent that we can be said to "use" one another. This context is political rather than philosophical. I do not (yet) quarrel with the principle that the model ought to have our abilities. But to speak of "performance capacities" is to subtly distort the fundamental problem. We are not performers! POZZO: He used to dance the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig, the fandango and even the hornpipe. He capered. For joy. Now that's the best he can do. Do you know what he calls it? ESTRAGON: The Scapegoat's Agony. VLADIMIR: The Hard Stool. POZZO: The Net. He thinks he's entangled in a net. --S. Beckett, _Waiting for Godot_ -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc
harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (10/23/86)
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: > [I]t's misleading to propose that a veridical model of _our_ behavior > ought to have our "performance capacities"...I do not (yet) quarrel > with the principle that the model ought to have our abilities. But to > speak of "performance capacities" is to subtly distort the fundamental > problem. We are not performers! "Behavioral ability"/"performance capacity" -- such fuss over black-box synonyms, instead of facing the substantive problem of modeling the functional substrate that will generate them.