Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!pt!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!cycy
From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Thanks. (was  Re: Results of Symbol Grounding Poll)
Message-ID: <1232@isl1.ri.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 00:40:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: isl1.1232
Posted: Mon Jul 27 00:40:18 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jul-87 05:35:44 EDT
References: <993@mind.UUCP> <1010@mind.UUCP> <1431@cci632.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 68
Keywords: grounding

In article <1431@cci632.UUCP>, dwp@cci632.UUCP (Dana Paxson) writes:
> In article <1010@mind.UUCP> ghn@mind.UUCP (Gregory Nelson) writes:
> >In article <993@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> >>[]
> >>[make the] Net the reliable and respectable medium of scholarly communication
> >>that I and (I trust) others are hoping it will evolve into. 
> >>        ...
> >>(4) I continue to be extremely enthusiastic about and committed to
> >>developing the remarkable potential of electronic networks for scholarly
> >>communication and the evolution of ideas. I take the present votes to
> >>indicate that the current Usenet Newsgroups may not be the place to attempt
> >>to start this.
> 
> I realize that this is belated input.

Me too.
  
> As one who followed along with an occasional understanding of
> the discussion on symbol grounding, I have been attracted both
> to the discussion and to the way in which Stevan Harnad
> conducted it.  I admire the discipline and rigor evident in his
> postings, and see his work as an example of how a newsgroup
> functioning often as a bulletin board with limited scope can
> be enriched by some really difficult exploration.  Some of the
> other contributors to the discussion appeared to work well at a
> level near Mr. Harnad's.  It has been an exciting series of
> exchanges.

I agree completely.

> I regret the loss of the discussion from the newsgroup.
  
> I sense that there are many quiet readers out there who have
> powerful ideas relating to this subject, but who have kept
> silent on seeing contemptuous and abusive complaints of
> others about the length and content of the postings.  For
> complaints, it seems reasonable to address the complaints to
> authors privately, or to the moderator if there is one; but
> open criticism on the net discourages its use by those whose
> insight and sensitivity exceed their boldness.  Making one's
> views public is an intimidating process in itself, so why should
> we raise the level of intimidation?

I followed this discussion off and on, though I have a tendency to
pop in and out of the net since I get absorbed in work at my lab. I,
like Dana Paxson, tried to keep up with the discussion on symbol grounding.
I was quite shocked to plug back into the net (so to speak) and find that
it had been voted off the net! I think that's ridiculous. The discussion
was completely germain to the subject of this group. Certainly it was
more relevant than many of the other discussions I've seen here (such as
what "Jabberwocky" looks like after a style and spelling checker is through
with it).

Now, Steve Harnad's posts were rather lengthy; that's why I sent them to
a file so I could read them later. But there is no reason at all that
that should be a reason for banning a very relavant discussion. This
group does have *that* much traffic, after all. And nobody is forced
to read it. But there are those of us who read this group and who are seriously
involved with AI, and who really appreciate seeing something substantial on
the net. It's really not that hard to skip to the next message.

If I had been plugged in at the time of the vote, I would have voted in
favour of Harnad and the symbol grounding discussion.
-- 

					-- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)

"He was a cruel man, but fair."  -- M.P.F.C.