From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!think.com!samsung!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke Mon May 25 14:06:08 EDT 1992
Article 5733 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!think.com!samsung!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Keywords: simulation
Message-ID: <1992May19.014453.26865@sophia.smith.edu>
Date: 19 May 92 01:44:53 GMT
References: <1992May19.003821.9450@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 19

In article <1992May19.003821.9450@Princeton.EDU> 
	harnad@shine.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

>... A simulated plane does not really fly, a simulated
>furnace does not really burn, there is no real motion in a simulated
>solar system; by the same token, there is no real thinking in a 
>simulated nervous system.

	Flying, burning, and moving are all rather physical; comparing
them to thinking "by the same token" seems risky at best.  Perhaps
you cover this point in your cited papers, which I have not read.
Would you say that a calculator adds?  Or does it only simulate
arithmetic?  Does a chess computer play chess, or does it only
simulate playing chess?  These two instances at least have been
with us long enough for common usage to name these activities
arithmetic and playing chess.  Perhaps you feel common usage is
no guide here?  When a natural language system parses a sentence,
do you feel that it only simulates parsing the sentence?
	I don't think that same token can carry you that far.


