From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jun  9 10:08:01 EDT 1992
Article 6164 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Transducers
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.221324.535@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 92 22:13:24 GMT
References: <BILL.92Jun7131519@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <60790@aurs01.UUCP> <BILL.92Jun8150837@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 16

In article <BILL.92Jun8150837@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
[Discussion of the need of "embodiment" of a robot]
>throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>   But surely this is talking about *engineering* or design problems,
>   not any problems of TT-passing-without-embodiedness in *principle*.

>In any case, I can't get too excited about "in principle" arguments.
>As far as I can see, saying something is true in principle means
>saying it would be true if you could change the inconvenient part of
>reality.

 Perhaps.  But perhaps an argument "in principle" means that once a
successful embodied robot has been created, a disembodied version can
then be created *in practice* merely by copying the disk containing all
of the learned knowledge about the real world.


