From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke Mon May 25 14:06:31 EDT 1992
Article 5775 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uunet!news.smith.edu!milkyway!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992May20.165859.4837@sophia.smith.edu>
Sender: root@sophia.smith.edu (Operator)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
References: <1992May19.223413.8059@oracorp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 16:58:59 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <1992May19.223413.8059@oracorp.com> 
	daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

 >To reiterate, there is no X such that it is clear that (a) humans
 >possess X, (b) computers lack X, and (c) X is relevant to
 >understanding.

First, I applaud the clarity of your post, and this summary in 
particular.  Second, as far as I understand Stevan Harnad's position, 
he would say that there is such an X, "symbol grounding."  Whether
"it is clear that" (a), (b), and (c) for this X is the subject of
considerable debate.


