Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!sher
From: sher@rochester.arpa (David Sher)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: The symbol grounding problem: "Fuzzy" categories?
Message-ID: <454@sol.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 4-Jul-87 20:51:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: sol.454
Posted: Sat Jul  4 20:51:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jul-87 01:34:20 EDT
References: <764@mind.UUCP> <768@mind.UUCP> <770@mind.UUCP> <6174@diamond.BBN.COM> <2238@mmintl.UUCP> <967@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 16
Xref: mnetor comp.ai:621 comp.cog-eng:185

In article <967@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>Most of our object categories are indeed all-or-none, not graded. A
>penguin is not a bird as a matter of degree. It's a bird, period. 

Just for the record is this an off hand statement or are you speaking
as an expert when you say most of our categories are all or none.  Do
you have some psychology experiments that measure the size of human 
category spaces and using a metric on them shows that most categories
are of this form?  Can I quote you on this?  Personally I have trouble
imagining how to test such a claim but psychologists are clever
fellows.
-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
{ seismo , allegra }!al A: stwter s