Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!rutgers!seismo!ut-sally!berleant
From: berleant@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: The symbol grounding problem
Message-ID: <8264@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Jun-87 23:32:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8264
Posted: Sun Jun 14 23:32:07 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jun-87 01:17:11 EDT
References: <764@mind.UUCP> <768@mind.UUCP> <770@mind.UUCP> <6174@diamond.BBN.COM> <1152@houdi.UUCP> <835@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: berleant@ut-sally.UUCP (Dan Berleant)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 15
Keywords: icons, categories, symbols, grounding, modularity, cognition
Xref: utgpu comp.ai:488 comp.cog-eng:118

In article <835@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:

>We cannot objectively verify intrinsic meaningfulness. The Turing test
>is the only available criterion.

Yes, the Turing test is by definition subjective, and also subject to
variable results from hour to hour even from the same judge.

But I think I disagree that intrinsic meaningfulness cannot be
objectively verified. What about the model theory of logic?


Dan Berleant
UUCP: {gatech,ucbvax,ihnp4,seismo,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!berleant
ARPA: ai.berleant@r20.utexas.edu