Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!dgordon
From: dgordon@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Dan Gordon)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.ai
Subject: Re: The symbol grounding problem: Against Rosch & Wittgenstein
Message-ID: <14184@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 15:02:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: teknowle.14184
Posted: Tue Jun 30 15:02:28 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jul-87 05:47:07 EDT
References: <.... <6174@diamond.BBN.COM> <917@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgordon@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (Dan Gordon)
Organization: Teknowledge, Inc., Palo Alto CA
Lines: 12
Xref: mnetor comp.cog-eng:162 comp.ai:591

In article <931@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>(And I must repeat: Whether or not we can introspectvely report the features
>we are actually using is irrelevant. As long as reliable, consensual,
>all-or-none categorization performance is going on, there must be a set of
>underlying features governing it -- both with sensory and more

Is this so?  There is no reliable, consensual all-or-none categorization
performance without a set of underlying features?  That sounds like a
restatement of the categorization theorist's credo rather than a thing
that is so.

Dan Gordon