Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!dual!ucbvax!ICST-ECF.ARPA!cugini From: cugini@ICST-ECF.ARPA Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: symbol grounding and physical invertibility Message-ID: <8706210306.AA17813@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 17-Jun-87 09:02:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706210306.AA17813 Posted: Wed Jun 17 09:02:00 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 06:38:12 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 21 Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com I hate to nag but... In all the high-falutin' philosophical give-and-take (of which, I admit, I am actually quite fond) there's been no response to a much more *specific* objection/question I raised earlier: What if there were a few-to-one transformation between the skin-level sensors (remember Harnad proposes "skin-and-in" invertibility as being necessary for grounding) and the (somewhat more internal) iconic representation. My example was to suppose that #1: a combination of both red and green retinal receptors and #2 a yellow receptor BOTH generated the same iconic yellow. Clearly this iconic representation is non-invertible back out to the sensory surfaces, but intuitively it seems like it would be grounded nonetheless - how about it? John Cugini ------