Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: The symbol grounding problem
Message-ID: <1188@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 13:19:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1188
Posted: Fri Jun 26 13:19:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 10:52:28 EDT
References: .... <6174@diamond.BBN.COM> <914@mind.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 20
Summary: Bad syllogism; and, why both comp.ai and comp.cog-eng?
Xref: mnetor comp.ai:576 comp.cog-eng:149

In article <914@mind.UUCP>, harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> Invertibility is a necessary condition for iconic representation, not
> for grounding.  Grounding symbolic representations (according to my
> hypothesis) requires both iconic and categorical representations...

Syllogism:
    (a) grounding ... requires ... iconic ... representation....
    (b) invertibility is ... necessary ... for iconic representation.
    (c) hence, grounding must require invertibility.

Why then does harnad say "invertibility is a necessary condition
for ..., NOT for grounding" (caps mine, of course)?

This discussion is getting hard to follow.  Does it have to be carried
on simultaneously in both comp.ai and comp.cog-eng?  Could harnad, who
seems to be the major participant, pick one?

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1