From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Mon May 25 14:07:26 EDT 1992
Article 5870 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Virtual vs. Real
Keywords: transduction, analog
Message-ID: <6906@pkmab.se>
Date: 23 May 92 14:00:43 GMT
References: <1992May20.034459.8223@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 51

In article <1992May20.034459.8223@Princeton.EDU> harnad@shine.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>Just three important points to keep in mind and then the point of
>grounding and the TTT is easily seen: (1) Transduction must be real,

What exactly do you mean by "real"? How do you know that that matters?

>(2) it is part of of the robot's internal functioning,

Internal? Isn't the boundary between "internal" and "external" always
rather arbitrary? Can't I choose to view the transduction as part of the
robot or not as I please?

>A real person whose real senses interact with computer-generated
>sensory input rather than real-world input is still grounded

But what if you remove all the biological senses, and connect the
computer-generated input directly to the nerves entering and leaving
the brain? Would that make a difference?

If it does, why do you think nerve endings are less "real" than the
senses? Or alternatively, why do you think the computer device that
generates nerve impulses is less "real" or less internal that the
original biological senses? What if we put them in a special box
closer to the brain than to the computer? Do they belong to the
person or to the computer?

>(because people's brains are grounded and the person could just as well pass
>the TTT with natural or synthetic sensory input).

>Exactly the same is true of a real TTT-capable robot in the same
>situation(s). The grounding still comes from its REAL TTT-passing
>capacity, not from the source of its sensory stimulation

This seems to be an unusual conception of "grounding", where the grounding
appears to arise out of something in the set-up of the system rather than
from a relation between the world and the symbols in the system. It seems
strange to me to say that the symbols in the system are grounded just by
the system having the equipment to interface to the "real" world, even
when the system nevertheless actually is receiving its input from another
world (a simulated one). It is unclear why the theoretical connection to
the "real" world should make any difference to how we judge that case, when
it doesn't make any practical difference to the functioning.

Personally, I would much rather say that the system is grounded in whatever
"world" it is taking input from and delivering output to, whether "real" or
virtual.

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


