[comp.ai] Oh, NO! Biological Categorization

dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene) (01/24/89)

>>(Stevan Harnad):
>> ...
>> No symbol grounding theory (including my own) -- at least no
...
>(Greg Lee) Except that even Schlick allows grounding in *possible* experiences,
>I see no notable differences from your views.  For a recent argument


No! Please! Not the symbol grounding debate!

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (01/26/89)

From article <8Xr5ley00jbbA4EUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu>, by dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene):
" ...
" AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In consideration of the good nature I think I see behind this
dispairing cry, I'd like to thank you all for your patience
with these philosophical/psychological/linguistic tangents.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu

cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (01/27/89)

In article <8Xr5ley00jbbA4EUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu> dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene) writes:
>>>(Stevan Harnad):
>>> ...
>>> No symbol grounding theory (including my own) -- at least no
>...
>>(Greg Lee) Except that even Schlick allows grounding in *possible* experiences,
>>I see no notable differences from your views.  For a recent argument
>
>
>No! Please! Not the symbol grounding debate!
>
>AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Goody! The symbol grounding debate again! Let's have less noise this time
from the back row, eh?

Chris Malcolm
Department of Artificial Intelligence