harwood@cvl.umd.edu (David Harwood) (07/01/87)
In article <950@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: [...replying to M.B. about something...] >................................................ I do not see this >intimate interrelationship -- between names and, on the one hand, the >nonsymbolic representations that pick out the objects they refer to >and, on the other hand, the higher-level symbolic descriptions into >which they enter -- as being perspicuously described as a link between >a pair of autonomous nonsymbolic and symbolic modules. The relationship is >bottom-up and hybrid through and through, with the symbolic component >derivative from, inextricably interdigitated with, and parasitic on the >nonsymbolic. Uh - let me get this straight. This is the conclusion for your most recent posting on "the symbol grounding problem." In the first poorly written sentence you criticize to your bogeyman, saying he ain't "perspicuous." Small wonder - you invent him for purposes of obsurantist controversy; no one else even believes in him so far as I can tell. But wait - there is more. You say your bogeyman - he ain't "perspicuous." (as if you aren't responsible for this) Then you go on with what you consider, apparently, to be a "perspicuous" account of the meaning of "names." So far as I can tell, this sentence is the most full and "perspicuous" accounting yet, confirmed by everything you've written on this subject (which I shall not need quote, since it is fresh on everyone's mind). You say, with inestimatable "perspicuity," concerning your own superior speculations about the meaning of names (which I quote since we have all day, day after day, for this): "The relationship is bottom-up and hybrid through and through, with the symbolic component derivative from, inextricably interdigitated with, and parasitic on the symbolic." A mouthful all right. Interdigitated with something all right. Could you please consider creating your own newsgroup, Mr. Harnad? I don't know what your purpose is, except for self-aggrandizement, but I'm fairly sure your purpose has nothing to do with computer science. There's no discussion of algorithms, computing systems, not even any logical formality in all this bullshit. And if we have to hear about the meaning of names - why couldn't we hear from Saul Kripke, instead of you? Then we might learn something. Why not create your own soapbox? I will never listen or bother. I wouldn't even bother to read BBS, which you apparently edit - with considerable help no doubt, except that you don't write all the articles (as you do here). -David Harwood
ksbooth@watcgl.UUCP (07/03/87)
Hooray for David Harwood.
harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (07/05/87)
In Article 186 of comp.cog-eng, ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) of U. of Waterloo, Ontario writes: > Hooray for David Harwood. David Harwood has made two very rude requests that I stop the symbol grounding discussion, which I ignored. But perhaps it's time to take a poll. Please send me e-mail indicating whether or not you find the discussion useful and worth continuing. I promise to post and abide by the results. -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {bellcore, psuvax1, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet harnad@mind.Princet polclc
harwood@cvl.umd.edu (David Harwood) (07/05/87)
In article <977@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > >David Harwood has made two very rude requests that I stop the symbol grounding >discussion, which I ignored. But perhaps it's time to take a poll. Please send >me e-mail indicating whether or not you find the discussion useful and worth >continuing. I promise to post and abide by the results. As I have told others, I don't really want you to quit posting altogether to this or other newsgroups. And I would be glad for you to form your own group for your "dialogues," such as they are. But I have to complain about your insufferable postings on two grounds: (i) they have nearly nothing to do with computer science, nevertheless preoccupy comp.ai with your various and sundry self-referential, just vaguely intelligible musings; (ii) your postings, in my opinion, are the heighth, width, and breadth of unresponsive, presumptuous, and condescending twaddle. Worse than anything which I've read which was contributed as an original article to BBS, for example. Of course, as my colleagues advise, BBS does not publish my research - and is unlikely to in the near distant future. Such are the wages of public sin.) Yes, my two replies to you were sarcastic (more than "very rude," I think; I never recieved any serious complaint about either, perhaps because others knew what I meant, even if they did not quite agree with me.) Let me give you back an illustration of how you talk. You just a moment ago replied to D.S. who question what psychological evidence you have that perceptual categorization is usually "all-or-none." He seemed to question your expertese as a perceptual psychologist. (I might add that you have tried to impress us with generally slighting remarks about psychologists as well as computer scientists, but this may be a "policy of controversy" (perhaps used to secure competitive funding - who knows;-). Anyway, your one line reply did not answer the question, but was more of a silly riposte, something like, "Check the concrete nouns in your dictionary." He asks you something, and you ignore this. Or, taking you seriously, you tell him to go supply his own evidence for your claims. (I suppose that if he were your research assistant, that you would sagely explain that a "concrete" noun is one admitting "all-or-none" categorization.) I have no prejudice concerning your views - to be sure, I rarely can make sense of them. But I wish you would simply take your own advise, "Check the concrete nouns of your dictionary," and use them sometimes to good effect in your postings. Define your abstractions. Cite evidence for your speculations. Do not cite your own damn article like a parrot. If you prefer, post the damn thing, which has got to be more intelligible than your recent stuff, and we will be done with this particular "symbol grounding problem." Then I will look forward to your new occasional postings, even in this newsgroup. David Harwood
bolasov@athena.mit.edu (Benjamin I Olasov) (07/05/87)
I personally don't feel that it's Harwood's place to make a recommendation such as the one he made (rude or otherwise). If the discussion is germaine to the stated purpose(s) of the newsgroup (which it is), and is carried on in an intellectually responsible manner (which it certainly has been), why should it not be allowed to continue? Isn't the solution for those who don't find the topic interesting to simply not read the messages bearing that topic on the subject line? After all, any number of discussions can be carried on concur) wr) wr
harwood@cvl.umd.edu (David Harwood) (07/06/87)
Letter sent by email to Stevan Harnad (with postscript added) re his postings to comp.ai about "the symbol grounding problem." I don't want you to quit posting altogether - I would just like you to realize that you are hogging comp.ai with what seems, to me at least, to be mostly pompous and unintelligible postings, that have very little to do with computer science. I heard from a student colleague, who is not opposed to a "cognitive science" viewpoint (if this means anything to you), that the first thing you did to explain your views at a recent colloquim was make reference to your net discussions. My oh my, either you are an modest comedian, or these dialogues of yours - why - if even they be blarney and posing of feathers - why they be verily verily immortal. You have made your views, whatever these are, resoundingly reknown - by, I suppose, half or more of the recent volume of comp.ai. I simply wish you'd pipe down for awhile, especially about your "symbol grounding problem." I will be especially verily verily glad to see you post the source code which implements your theoretical improvements; this should keep us off the streets for awhile; and I will try to be first to applaud your success. David Harwood Computer Vision Laboratory Center for Automation Research University of Maryland My views are simply my own. Please note all typos and mistakes, as I prepare to publish an edition (with permission which is surely forthcoming) of _Recent Contributions to the Dialogue de Problem Profundo Symbo-Grundo: New Foundations and New Vocations in Computer Science_. [This postscript added to my letter emailed S.H.]
bolasov@athena.mit.edu (Benjamin I Olasov) (07/06/87)
In article <2328@cvl.umd.edu> harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > I don't want you to quit posting altogether - I would just like >you to realize that you are hogging comp.ai with what seems, to me at least, >to be mostly pompous and unintelligible postings, that have very little to >do with computer science. ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ This point should not need to be made, but this newsgroup doesn't deal exclusively with computer science issues per se. Many important contributions to AI, after all, have come from outside the field of CS, as conventionally understood- much of Marvin Minsky's research for example, is not restricted to CS, and yet has significant implications for AI. Some of the most challenging and interesting problems of AI are philosophical in nature. I frankly don't see why this fact should disturb anyone. Perhaps if more of us pursued our theoretical models with comparable rigor to that with which Mr. Harnad pursues his, the balance of topics represented on comp.ai might shift .....
mob@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Mario O. Bourgoin) (07/07/87)
The awful thing about Harnad is: Harnad is a awful thing. Simple cognitive ideas Are expressed via complex strings. His obscure semantics, and omnipresent pedantics, Help make discussions grow, Grow, GROW! But the most awful thing about Harnad is: Reading his subjects is boring, Reading his subjects is BORING. --Mario O. Bourgoin With apologies to Tigger@Hundred-Acre-Woods.Milne.
shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) (07/07/87)
Oh, God, do I sense an impending debate over the definition of _computer science_, _ai_, etc.?
mob@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Mario O. Bourgoin) (07/07/87)
Hello, I wish to apologize to Mr. Steve Harnad for my poem of yesterday. My frustrations with his style of argument and choice of platform do not justify such public ribbing. I have also been guilty of supporting such discussions at times and ribbing certainly never helped me stop. --Mario O. Bourgoin
weltyc@b.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) (07/20/87)
Maybe you guys should form a newsgroup to discuss whether or not symbol grounding should be discussed on comp.ai/ai-digest or moved to its own newsgroup. Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc