Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!texsun!convex!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!edai!cam
From: cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Oh, NO! Biological Categorization
Message-ID: <260@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Jan 89 02:22:26 GMT
References: <Jan.21.13.42.31.1989.10447@elbereth.rutgers.edu> <3039@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <8Xr5ley00jbbA4EUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: cam@edai (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Lines: 18

In article <8Xr5ley00jbbA4EUZ7@andrew.cmu.edu> dg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Greene) writes:
>>>(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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Goody! The symbol grounding debate again! Let's have less noise this time
from the back row, eh?

Chris Malcolm
Department of Artificial Intelligence