From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Tue Jun 23 13:20:50 EDT 1992
Article 6273 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Transducers
Message-ID: <6981@pkmab.se>
Date: 15 Jun 92 22:09:39 GMT
References: <1992Jun10.203412.19158@news.Hawaii.Edu> <4138.708217481@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jun11.055038.9628@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 22

In article <1992Jun11.055038.9628@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> The physical embodiment of the thinking includes the noncomputational
>part, ESSENTIALLY.

>Ceterum sentio: Real time learning or development have NOTHING to do
>with it; only real TTT-capacity is relevant.

[And so on...]

What bother me, is that I don't see Harnad presenting any real arguments
for his view. He just keeps on repeating his contention that "transduction"
is of essential importance. But really, why should we believe him, unless
we have already made up our minds?

I mean, I could insistently claim that thinking requires having red hair,
and argue about how nice a theory that yields, but why should anyone believe
me for doing so?

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


