From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc Mon May 25 14:07:15 EDT 1992
Article 5852 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc
>From: nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding and Symbols
Message-ID: <1992May22.210320.1780@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 22 May 92 21:03:20 GMT
References: <1992May20.181548.7296@cs.ucf.edu> <1992May22.012530.19921@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May22.183855.13048@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 90

In article <1992May22.183855.13048@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992May22.012530.19921@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis) writes:
>
>>While this still leaves unclear as to *exactly* how I should interpret
>>"grounding" I have to wonder why the property of being grounded is
>>important at all.  Assume we have a robot that works roughly on the
>>same level of competence as a human being.  Assume also that it was
>>programmed in LISP code that doesn't look much different from the sort
>>of LISP code you see today (this last clause is put in here to narrow
>>the possibilities not to include things such as LISP implementations
>>of neural nets).  Being a LISP program, it will have symbols in it.
>
>*EQUIVOCATION ALERT!!!!*
>
>To interpret "symbol" to mean "something that refers to something else"
>is to beg the question.  Why not use "marks" instead, which carries fewer 
>problematic connotations?  After all, all that the program does is look
>at the "shape" of the thing that it manipulating, and not its meaning.

Why do you interpret human psychology to use "symbols" and not the
operation of the brain through time, which carries far fewr
problematic conotations?  If I were a cynical reader of Nietzche, I
would say that without the problematic connotations, there would be no
more opporutunity to substantively exercize a certain verbal will to
power.  (I confess that I haven't read many of the Symbols and
Grounding posts, so I don't know if much of this depends on some form
of dualism.  If it does, then forget I asked.  Assuming that the
notion of some other sort of substance is coherent, how do you propose
to actually determine it's properties?)

What do human symbols have that machine symbols or marks don't?  Besides, if the whole of an argument turns on a definition, then it seems that the argument is more about verbal tacticts than reality.

>
>>Suppose that we can find no adequate basis for them being grounded
>>under any of the plausible definitions.  So what!  The robot works and
>>"AI has been achieved."  Don't you all see (and it appears that some
>>people do, including Fernando) that such a priori discussions over
>>groundedness aren't accomplishing anything (positive)?
>
>No, I don't.

Then what has it accomplished?  Is it getting us any closer to AI, or
to an empirical theory of human behavior?   
> 
>>A few people (knowing my interest in AI and knowing that I read some 
>>philosophy) ask me what's this Chinese Room thing all about, they were 
>>completely astonished by my description of it.  
> 
>Given your obvious position on the issue, I'm not sure if your the 
>most unbiased presenter.

Ad hominum is the highest form of flattery.

> 
>>One said: "I can't 
>>believe people even take bull*$&% like that seriously."  
> 
>I feel sorry for your friend...  
> 

I'm sure he'll accomplish more than engendering confusion.

>>I have to say
>>that had that been my first introduction to philosiphy, it would have 
>>been a long time until I read anything else.  
> 
>...and you.  
>
>>I do enjoy reading Patricia and Paul Churchland , Dan Dennett and WVO 
>>Quine 
> 
>Again, not that surprising, since their positions are close to that which 
>you seem to be advocating.  Realize, however, that are certainly not 
>the last word on the issue (and no, neither is Searle). 

Instead of advocating a position, I am urging that taking one is a
waste of time.  Of course, they're not the last word, and anyone who
looks to another person to the last word on such issues is no more
wise than the visitor of oracles.  Philosohpy doesn't have "results."
The point of philosophy (at least the point in my thinking about it)
is to keep my thought and my action clear and productive.

The question I posed still remains unanswered.  What does debating
about symbols and groundng accomplish?  Ad hominum's only make the
prospect of a solid answer seem less dim.

-Nick

PS My plane leaves in hours, so I *definately* won't be able to make
   any replies for a little more than a week.  


