From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!dlh Tue Jun  9 10:08:01 EDT 1992
Article 6165 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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!dlh
>From: dlh@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Dominik Lukes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Transducers
Message-ID: <9706@scott.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jun 92 17:28:45 GMT
References: <BILL.92Jun6194350@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Jun7.034525.16059@cs.ucf.edu> <BILL.92Jun7131519@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Jun7.210138.21887@cs.ucf.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 18

In article <1992Jun7.210138.21887@cs.ucf.edu> gomez@barros.cs.ucf.edu (Fernando Gomez) writes:
>and others.
>But, Brooks' insects will not be able to conduct a conversation about
>eating (even if they knew how to eat) because they have no way to verbalize
>or conceptualize their stimuli. They would need some kind of a priori
>representation (ungrounded concepts) to frame their stimuli.
>
>Fernando Gomez



Nor do real insects or even dogs, but people somewhat got fed up and
spoke aloud about all the misery, rulling world, especially when
waiter brings you yesterdays fish as todays beefsteak. But, please,
note that computers are unable *verbalise* anything either, they just
operate with strings of charecters, which although not absolutely
meaningless, as Searle claims, do not have the same meaning as they do
for humans or Brooks' fancy insects.


