bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (03/10/89)
In article <Mar.9.19.27.15.1989.9767@elbereth.rutgers.edu> harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) lucidly explains his main thesis, without resort to excessive discussion of the Chinese Room. Stevan summarizes: > It's obvious that some, at least, of the symbols (the elementary ones) > must be grounded in something other than still more symbols. > My book describes how nonsymbolic representations may play an > essential role in our ability to do that, thereby grounding our > elementary symbols in the objects they refer to. Stevan, this article says it all. I think the digressions into the Chinese Room have only confused the discussion, and diverted attention from your main idea, which seems very clear to me here. I am reminded of S. I. Hiakawa's _Language in Thought and Action_, in which he introduces three kinds of definitions: intensive, ostensive, and extensive. At the symbol-grounding level, an "extensive definition" is given by simply pointing (extending) one's finger at an object while saying its name. --Barry Kort