<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 1/28/14, 3:09 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ=QoBSJ_=GQr=8cPg8Jo9wmtCLR7qs6Gy94cdghspRaHG0S1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Richard, thanks for the feedback.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">>
Yes, in general, having an outcome measure that correlates
with C ... that is good, but only with a clear and
unambigous meaning for C itself (which I don't think anyone
has, so therefore it is, after all, of no value to look for
outcome measures that correlate)</span><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Actually, the outcome
measure I described is independent of a clear and
unambiguous meaning for C itself, and in an interesting way:
the models, like us, essentially reinvent the entire
literature, and have a conversation as we do, inventing
almost all the same positions that we've invented (including
the one in your paper). </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can tell you in advance that the theory I propose in that paper
makes a prediction there. If your models (I assume you mean models
of the human cognitive system) have precisely the right positioning
for their 'concept analysis mechanism' (and they almost certainly
would have to... it is difficult to avoid), then they would indeed
"reinvent the entire literature, and have a conversation as we do,
inventing almost all the same positions that we've invented".<br>
<br>
However, I can say *why* they should do this, as a tightly-argued
consequence of the theory itself, and I can also say why they should
express those same confusions about consciousness that we do. <br>
<br>
I think that is the key. I don't think the naked fact that a
model-of-cognition reinvents the philosophy of mind would actually
tell us anything, sadly. There is no strong logical compulsion
there. It would boot me little to know that they had done that.<br>
<br>
Anyhow, look forward to hearing your thoughts if/when you get a
chance.<br>
<br>
Richard Loosemore<br>
</body>
</html>