From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Mon May 25 14:07:27 EDT 1992
Article 5872 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <zlsiida.334@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> <1992May23.152941.12033@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May23.170049.31825@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Message-ID: <1992May24.042950.7982@psych.toronto.edu>
Keywords: symbol, analog, Turing Test, robotics
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 04:29:50 GMT

In article <1992May23.170049.31825@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992May23.152941.12033@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <zlsiida.334@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>>I'm prepared not only to argue that we never see the world, but further, 
>>>that we never see retinal images either.  
>>
>>then you are at great pains to account for the astounding correspondence
>>between what we see and what's out there. Just a lucky break?
>
> What I, and probably Dave, are saying, is this:  What we see is our
>interpretation of the external world.  

Then you (and probably Dave, though I doubt it) are confusing the representation
with what is represented. What you see (i.e., represent) is the world. That
this representation is imperfect, that it is formed of an amalgamation of
various sense modalities, that it is broadly "interpretive", are all
immaterial to the central point. I suspect we were just interpreting
the word "see" in different ways.

regards

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


