Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!tjhorton
From: tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton)
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Symbols for Thinking ? - (nf)
Message-ID: <2587@utai.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Oct-86 12:09:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: utai.2587
Posted: Tue Oct 21 12:09:10 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Oct-86 16:47:25 EDT
References: <10200001@tub.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 31

> 
> I am new to this round, so I will hack some of my current believes,
> which, as I hope, will provoke some response.
> They do not intend to be complete, free of contradiction or well grounded.
> 
> 1) 	Symbols are for communication, not processing.

You think about the world with models.  If you define "symbol" to include
"anything that stands for something" then how can you think without symbols?
I do agree that the models I use are quite different from the symbols that
I communicate with, if that's what you mean. i.e. a blind-deaf person
could presumably learn a great deal about the world (build models) with no
communication of symbols

> 2)      Conscious thinking is processing ready-made for communication.

I expect that you categorize thought this way.  When I play a game of squash,
aware of opponent and strategy, my thinking isn't close to the level of
communication.  If you ask me to explain my thoughts, I have little
difficulty translating them to you, but why do my words always say something
a little differently than what's actually in my head?  Just half an hour ago
I thought of someone that I had to talk to, but couldn't remember their name.

> ...
> "If GOD doesn't exist, why don't we program it ?"

In short, I think that you may be confusing your communication symbols with 
your models. 

On the other hand, imagination means that I don't have to know all about it 
to tell you all about it...