From: silbrmnd@acf3.nyu.edu (Darkmage)
Subject: Re: what it means to be grounded
Organization: New York University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:52:22 GMT

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>In article <1ii5d1INNdl5@shelley.u.washington.edu> forbis@stein.u.washington.edu 
>(Gary Forbis) writes:
>>In article <C0Hx49.GBw@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>>Human symbol systems are of course not *inherently* grounded-- "runny nose"
>>>might mean "tasty breadfruit" in Maya-- but human beings *are* grounded:
>>>when we make noises about noses or fire we aren't playing with arbitrary 
>>>symbols, but really referring to noses or fire. 
>>
>>I may be mistaken but the first part of this sentence means "human symbols
>>are arbitrary."  When I make noises about noses or fires I associate some
>>symbols with noses and fires but my noises are not noses and are not fires.
>>The symbols themselves are no more grounded when I use them than when a 
>>computer uses them.  

>Agreed so far.

>>Suppose I accept your assertion that "human beings *are* grounded."  What
>>makes computers any less grounded?  When I use the word "pi" and mean the
>>ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter I don't go through
>>some infinite regress of definitions.  

>That's right: for you, the regress *stops* in a mass of real-world experience.
>You've worked with diagrams of circles, round things, rulers, etc., so
>all these things have meaning for you.  (This is stated from Lakoff's
>perspective, in which geometry and logic are abstracted from our experience of
>everyday things.  If you want a Platonist explanation instead, ask 
>Mikhail Zeleny. :)

>For the computer the regress stops... period.  Symbols are defined in terms
>of other symbols, and then there ain't no more.

>>Haven't you ever played the game where
>>you ask a person to define a word he or she uses then recursively ask her
>>or him to define a word used in the prior definition?

>Do you seriously maintain that all words are defined in terms of other
>words?  Some are; but others have to point to the real world instead.

>>What does "in a pig's eye" mean and why?

>Obviously the meaning of idioms can't be derived from the meanings of their 
>component words.  So what?

>>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.

Why a robot?  Why not "place" the AI in an artificial (ie VR)
environment?  This may have been brought up before, but wouldn't it be
easier (and more fitting) to have an AI living in cyberspace?  Think
aabout it:  If symbols were introduced, such as images of trees, or
toys, and the AI learns to interact with these symbols in an appropriate
(or at least consistent) way, wouldn't the AI be grounded?  The context
would be different; we are grounded in the physical world, whereas the
AI would be grounded in the virtual world.  Wouldn't such an AI be more
(or better) grounded than one with robotic capacity which was grounded
in the real *HUMAN* world?  In a virtual world, the AI would essentially
be interacting with data; with other pieces of code (and maybe the
occaisonal human "visitor" ). This seems more like natural behavior for
a computer program than the robot trying to act human....

>Discussing grounding with Wayne Throop I've come to believe that there are
>degrees of grounding; felicitious conversation with a human being, for 
>instance, would require not just some but vast loads of world experience.

By (eventually) letting the AI "travel" in different virtual
environments, perhaps even accessing data from other sites in the net,
the VAI would aquire much more "world experience" in much less time than
a big clunky robot, which probably wouldn't be able to go very far, or
have too much of a variety of experiences.

	-Dvora

(if I'm completely and totally wrong, please e-mail me and tell me, 'cuz
I'll be away from the net for a week.  Thanx. :)

--
   "Welcome to Heisenberg Airlines.  We have no idea where we are,
	but we're making damned good time..."
			-Virtual Mark, _Synners_
Darkmage IS: silbrmnd@acf3.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc