Dear Stevan:
> For toilers, the knowledge is
> grounded in having learned the features of the edible mushrooms; so the
> toilers can forage alone; for the thieves, the only "feature" of an
> edible mushroom is the vocalization of the toilers: "edible". So when
> there are no more toilers, the thieves cannot eat.
I buy this.
> The solution is always to have the bottom-level categories learned by
> toil, by everyone. The categories acquired by "theft" need to be
> higher-order categories, describable by (e.g., boolean) combinations of
> the names of the lower-order categories, as in the Cangelosi/Harnad
> paper.
I do not see this if the thieves can "associate" other features to
the vocalization of the toilers: "edible". On the other hand, if
"association" qualifies as "toil" then I see it. However, this seems
to contradict with your final conclusion:
> The solution is always to have the bottom-level categories learned by
> toil, by everyone. The categories acquired by "theft" need to be
> higher-order categories, describable by (e.g., boolean) combinations of
> the names of the lower-order categories, as in the Cangelosi/Harnad
> paper."
unless you allow (as a special case) that "lower-order categories" could
be raw sensory information and not more.
?????
Regards,
Andras
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:07 GMT