Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!dg1v+
From: dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Oh, NO! Biological Categorization
Message-ID: <8Xr5ley00jbbA4EUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 89 11:22:18 GMT
References: <Jan.21.13.42.31.1989.10447@elbereth.rutgers.edu>,
	<3039@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 11
In-Reply-To: <3039@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>

>>(Stevan Harnad):
>> ...
>> No symbol grounding theory (including my own) -- at least no
...
>(Greg Lee) Except that even Schlick allows grounding in *possible* experiences,
>I see no notable differences from your views.  For a recent argument


No! Please! Not the symbol grounding debate!

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!