From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:12:44 GMT


In article <k19gwB5w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> ,
tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd) writes:

>ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon) writes: 
 
>> The point at which the soup becomes part of me is open to debate: 
>>  
>>      when it's in the bowl 
>>      when it's in the spoon 
>>      when it's in my mouth 
>>      when it's in my stomach 
>>      when it's been digested, and it's molecules intertwine with mine 
 
>I suggest (in a functional style): 
>        When the soup first modifies your behavior. 
>(E.g. when you spot the soup on the shelf in the market, it's part of you.

>Or when you make out the shopping list, and think "I'm going to buy/cook 
>soup," the soup has already modified your behavior, and is part of you.) 

I agree that the very thought of soup does affect my mental configuration,
but I think there's a difference between the thought and soupy substance.

It seems to shaping up something like this.

As an eating entity, the soup has to be more or less irreversibly on it's
way into my stomach before it becomes part of me.

As a soup stocking entity, the soup has to be in the cupboard to fulfill my
functional obligations.  I still feel silly saying the soup in the cupboard
is part of me, but it's definitely mine.  I guess if we talk about a
functional enterprise , it's Me and My Private Soup Supply, Inc, a legal
entity.

As a soup locating entity, I must know how to go about finding soup with a
fair degree of success.  I don't have to know the exact location of the
soup on the store shelf, but I must know the location of enough stores, and
have sufficient transportation and financial resources to insure the
success of any soup procurement mission.  I think in this situation the
soup is part of the environment of Me an My Private Soup Supply, Inc, but
it may be part of the entity Soupville, USA.

This all seems to be re-enforcing article <29744@castle.ed.ac.uk> , 
in which cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes: 
  
>A better basis (for drawing the entity environment boundary) seems to be
>to base it on the notion of ownership, which is decided on the basis of  
>current and historical experience of successful command. This permits  
>the inclusion without ambiguity of tools both sensory and effector,  
>since there are many kinds of ownership.  

Any function is going to require access to resources, which can be
described as ownership of resources.

If we use the usual definition of ownership, no actual usage of the
resource is required.  However, if you subscribe to the notion of "use it
or loose it", then I suppose there's not really a lot of difference between
a functioning ownership and ownership of the means of functioning.


But wait, I just remembered an old thought of mine,  the distinction of
resource and user, like car and driver.  

Successful action in the world requires me to be able to make plans and
acquire and use skills.  A couple of primary resources I use in this task
are my mind and my body.  Since I use my mind and my body quite often, and
for so many different things, I think of them as more than peripheral
resources, I think of them as a part of me. 

On the other hand, things like computers and cars, and cans of soup, are
more in the nature of peripheral tools.  Things that are mine, but not me.

OK, we've got three categories.  The owner, the owned, and the unowned (or
other owned).  The user, the tools, the thing being worked on.  Entity,
interface, environment.

Returning from dinner back to the world of AI, the AI entity would be
required to have sufficient computational and S/E resources to successfully
command it's S/E extensions, but I wouldn't necessarily call the extensions
part of the entity or the environment, hence interface.

In keeping with the functional definition of entity, it must be able to
successfully do the job it was designed for by being able to successfully
operate a mixed variety of S/E extensions.


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