From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Aug 12 16:52:34 EDT 1992
Article 6576 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.203254.11225@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 92 20:32:54 GMT
References: <1992Aug6.153250.28517@sequent.com> <1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug6.185819.9079@sequent.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 16

In article <1992Aug6.185819.9079@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>
>I do believe that the person ringing the door bell
>may have successfull communicated his presence to someone inside who 
>understands what a door bell means and can hear that it is ringing.  On the
>other hand, if no one is inside the house, then I don't believe that the
>person on the doorstep has communicated anything (special case of the one-way
>communication mentioned below).

  Aha.  This clarifies the confusion.  I was basing my comments on the
assumption, which I believe you agreed to, that "communication" is
broader than person to person communication.  My point was that the
button is communicating to the bell the fact that it is being pressed.

  I guess that means you are using "communication" in a narrower sense
than I thought.


