--- In Wittrs@yaho..., gprimero <gerardoprim@...> wrote:


> (Neil) And that is where we part company. Treating it in terms of
> "stimular situation" seems too limiting.


> (Gerardo) "Too" limiting... for what purposes?

As I wrote in another thread: "For me, investigating cognition  amounts
to finding out what would be required to build an artificial  person.  I
don't want to actually build one, but I want to know  the operational
principles so that I would know how to build one."


> (Neil) That's a standard view, but I do not agree with it. I cannot
> find any adequate account of "similar" in the literature.


> (Gerardo) You don´t know any adequate account? What about the
> behavioral research about generalization and discrimination of
> stimulus classes?

My comment was mainly with respect to typical philosophical  literature
(often from epistemology), where explanations are given  that depend on
similarity but no account of "similar" is given.  The AI people would
probably want to use computer data comparisons  of representations, and
I am very doubtful that could work.

Regards,
Neil

==========================================
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/