From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: what it means to be grounded
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:01:05 GMT

In article <C0I7t3.LE1@spss.com> ,
markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:


In article <1ii5d1INNdl5@shelley.u.washington.edu>
forbis@stein.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes: 

>>I will propose the following definition for grounding: 
>> 
>>An entity may be said to be grounded with respect to an environment when,
>>using its model of the environment, it can make a plan to achieve a goal 
>>in the environment and then, adjusting the plan as necessary, have an 
>>effect in the environment and achieve the goal.  The symbols in the model
>>may be said to be grounded to their corresponding entities in the
>>environment when the entity having the model refers to them when acting
>>upon the corresponding entities in the entity's environment. 
 
>Now I will surprise you, perhaps, by agreeing with your definition.  Your 
>definition presupposes a causal connection from the entity to the 
>environment.  Moreover, this is probably impossible without the ability 
>to get information about the environment in an ongoing fashion.  There you
>go, sensorimotor experience, what I've been going on about for weeks-- 
>the chain of symbols ends outside the entity; a grounded AI has at least 
>some robotic capacity. 

Now I will surprise you, perhaps, by agreeing with your definition.
Now can we return to the important issue, the entity/environment boundary.

It seems to me that a scholar is grounded in an environment of stories, as
is a kid watching the Saturday morning cartoons, or a chess player in a
world of chess strategies, or a USENET victim in the environment of ideas
being tossed back and forth.

I think we're agreed that we probably need a background of common
sensorimotor experience to effect communication, and perhaps some common
threads of cultural heritage.

I maintain that once we have acquired the basic ability to communicate,
much of the reality, the environment, of intellectually active people is in
the mind.  (Indeed, from an intense philosophical perspective I believe
that much of the material environment is in the mind as well, but I think
it might be easier to talk about the intellectual environment.)

Our model of these intellectual environments is part personalities (who
said what, what did they really mean, should I respond) and part conceptual
(what AI is all about, how to do it).

The goal in this environment is to communicate, to observe and to make our
mark on our common intellectual environment.  We make a plan to learn and
"teach", we adjust the plan, we achieve our goal.  

Our model elements, our personal view of personalities and ideas can be
said to be grounded with respect to their counterparts in our common
intellectual environment when we act on our personal ideas to effect the
corresponding ideas in the common intellectual environment.

Of course this chain of thought goes on to ask just what is the entity in
an intellectual environment.  Thoughts anyone?

--
Ken Easlon                | "...somebody spoke and I went into a dream..."
ken@holonet.net           |    -Paul McCartney
Pleasantly Unaffiliated   |


Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy