Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!husc6!diamond.bbn.com!aweinste
From: aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: The symbol grounding problem (Part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <6174@diamond.BBN.COM>
Date: Wed, 27-May-87 11:55:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: diamond.6174
Posted: Wed May 27 11:55:33 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 29-May-87 06:32:03 EDT
References: <764@mind.UUCP> <768@mind.UUCP> <770@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein)
Organization: BBN Laboratories, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 14
Keywords: icons, categories, symbols, grounding
Xref: mnetor comp.ai:453 comp.cog-eng:103

In article <770@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>The criterion for being iconic is physical isomorphism
>( = "structural correspondence"). This means that the relationship
>between an object and its icon must be a physically invertible
>(analog) transformation. 

As I've seen you broach this criterion a few times now, I just thought I'd
remind you of a point that I thought was clearly made in our earlier
discussion of the A/D distinction: loss of information, i.e.
non-invertibility, is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for 
analog to digital transformation.

Anders Weinstein