Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush
From: rush@cwrudg.UUCP (rush)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories (Question not comment)
Message-ID: <150@cwrudg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 14:25:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cwrudg.150
Posted: Wed Oct  1 14:25:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 02:20:01 EDT
References: <158@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: rush@.UUCP ()
Organization: CWRU Dept. of Computer Engineering, Cleve, OH
Lines: 30
Keywords: Robotics, Symbol-Crunching, Category Representation,Analog Representation, Induction
Xref: mnetor net.ai:1166 net.cog-eng:274

In article <158@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>6.  The Teletype versus the Robot Turing Test:
>
>For example, the "teletype" (linguistic) version of the Turing...
> whereas the robot version necessarily
>calls for full causal powers of interaction with the outside
>world (seeing, doing AND linguistic understanding).
>
Uh...I never heard of the "robot version" of the Turing Test,
could someone please fill me in?? I think that understanding
the reasons for such a test would help me (I make
no claims for anyone else) make some sense out of the rest
of this article. In light of my lack of knowledge, please forgive
my presumption in the following comment. 

>7.  The Transducer/Effector Argument:
>
>A principled
>"transducer/effector" counterargument, however, can be based
>on the logical fact that transduction is necessarily
>nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-digital
>functions that can only be simulated, but not implemented,
>symbolically.
>
[ I know I claimed no commentary, but it seems that this argument
  depends heavily on the meaning of the term "symbol". This could
  be a problem that only arises when one attempts to implement some
  of the stranger possibilities for symbolic entities. ]

	Richard Rush	- Just another Jesus freak in computer science
	decvax!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush