Are you sure?
>>See above. 'Self-interest' becomes 'in the interest of the biological
>>entity'.
>
>OK, so you're talking about the entity as a whole. Fair enough.
See. It *did* help.
>Except that, if in pursuit of the motivation of an action you
>descend to the level of individual neurons (which I think is what
>you suggested),
No. I suggested that until we were capable of doing so we would never be
able to prove motivation. I did not suggest it alone would answer the
questions for us. In fact if memory serves I didn't even claim that
mapping neuron firings *would* help. I'm sure there was a 'perhaps' in
there somewhere.
>>>>It also tells us that reflection alone *cannot* reveal our motives to
>>>>us. It also requires examination from an outside source.
>>>
>>>No, it just tells us introspection is not entirely reliable.
>>
>>???...That's what I just said.
>
>There's a difference between saying that something is generally
>insufficient, and saying it's not always sufficient. OK, it's a
>matter of degree, but it seemed significant to me here.
I stand by my original statement. If it isn't "entirely reliable" (or at
least reliable within certain *known* error bounds) then it is telling
us nothing but a handful of maybes. I can try to analyse my motives from
now until doomsday and whatever answers I find may be acceptable to me
but if I intend to try to *prove* motivation (which is what we were
discussing) I need *reliable* data and *reliable* methods.
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.