From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Mon May 25 14:07:32 EDT 1992
Article 5883 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual
Message-ID: <1992May23.185612.10208@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 18:56:12 GMT
Lines: 42

harnad@shine.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad):

>... A simulated plane does not really fly, a simulated furnace does
>not really burn, there is no real motion in a simulated solar system;
>by the same token, there is no real thinking in a simulated nervous
>system.

orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke):

>Flying, burning, and moving are all rather physical; comparing
>them to thinking "by the same token" seems risky at best.  Perhaps
>you cover this point in your cited papers, which I have not read.
>Would you say that a calculator adds?  Or does it only simulate
>arithmetic?  Does a chess computer play chess, or does it only
>simulate playing chess?...

This seems to be a game of "dueling analogies". Joseph O'Rourke is
right to say that calling the method for producing something a
simulation does not imply that the results are any less real. The only
thing that could possibly count as an argument that simulated thinking
isn't the same as real thinking is by pointing out some difference
between the two that we all can agree is important.

In another posting, Stevan Harnad suggests that the missing ingredient
is analog processing. While I agree that (by definition), a digital
computer lacks this, the suggestion that this is the key ingredient to
"symbol grounding" makes no sense to me. Does that mean that if it
turns out that there are a discrete number of possible states of the
universe, then we are mistaken in thinking ourselves conscious? Or
does it mean that by introspection we see that we are conscious, so we
can logically deduce that the universe is analog?

My own pet theory is exactly the opposite of Harnad's. I think that
intelligence requires discreteness. When while driving, you come to a
"T" intersection, you have to make a discrete decision; to turn left,
or to turn right. I believe that thinking is all about such discrete
decisions.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



