From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!shine.Princeton.EDU!harnad Mon May 25 14:06:09 EDT 1992
Article 5735 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!shine.Princeton.EDU!harnad
>From: harnad@shine.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Keywords: simulation
Message-ID: <1992May19.035936.7143@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 May 92 03:59:36 GMT
References: <1992May19.003821.9450@Princeton.EDU> <1992May19.014453.26865@sophia.smith.edu>
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 29
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Nntp-Posting-Host: shine.princeton.edu

In article <1992May19.014453.26865@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>
>	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.

Thinking only differs from flying, burning and moving in not being
publically observable. I certainly don't think that makes thinking
nonphysical. Besides, fortunately, thinking IS privately observable, if
there is indeed someone home. Then and only then is it really thinking
(as opposed to merely being a performance that is interpretable as if
it were generated by thinking). Adding and chess are merely
performances (hence observable, and identifiable on the basis of
definition and "usage"). But if you are asking whether a calculator
adds or a chess-program plays chess in the same sense I do, i.e., by
thinking, the answer is no, they do not, and that has nothing to do
with linguistic usage.
-- 
Stevan Harnad  Department of Psychology  Princeton University
harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com 
harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771


