From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!aurs01!throop Tue Jun  9 10:06:09 EDT 1992
Article 6019 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!aurs01!throop
>From: throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Virtual vs. Real
Message-ID: <60758@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 92 21:52:55 GMT
References: <22133@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP
Lines: 14

-> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
-> Grounding is not just an initial calibration. The world changes,
-> sensors age, robots get fatter and slower (if you see what I mean :-).
-> In other words, grounding needs a continuous process of tracking, of
-> adaptation. If you remove that, and simply depend on an initial
-> calibration, you have a system which simply happens to be grounded
-> now, and with luck will still be grounded tomorrow, but is destined to
-> drift gradually out of registration with the world. An unguided
-> missile, a ballistic rather than guided trajectory.

Actually, I like this notion of grounding quite a bit.  But computers
are fully grounded in this sense, are they not?

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop


