From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Sun May 31 19:04:08 EDT 1992
Article 5906 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Virtual vs. Real
Message-ID: <1992May26.031148.27458@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 26 May 92 03:11:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992May26.031148.27458
References: <1992May25.214006.29965@Princeton.EDU> <1992May26.022413.14151@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 32
Cc: minsky

In article <1992May26.022413.14151@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992May25.214006.29965@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

>>The only way to get confused here is to make the mistake that when the
>>input to the candidate is computer-generated rather than real, then the
>>candidate may as well just be a computer too! The reality of the
>>transduction should be a partial reminder that this is not all there is
>>to it; the plane analogy should help too.
>
> I guess this is the mistake you will believe I am making.  But the plane
>analogy certainly does not help.  For the fact is that aircraft designers
>often use numerical models of wind tunnel tests, and they claim that for
>some purposes these pure computer simulations give them more and better
>information than does a test in a real wind tunnel.

>  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>

I find myself very much on Rickert's side of this argument.  Here is
another item related to the airplane analogy.  A flying instructor told me
that each hour in a modern simulator is worth several hours in a real
airplane.  In particular, he claimed, it's better to use simulated
training to land at a particular airport than to actually practice
landing at the real place.  Many reasons for this, but the main one is
that the symbolic inputs are better understood, remembered, and
applied.

SO, RATHER THAN EMPHASIZE "GROUNDING IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD" -- OR
ARGUE WHETHER SIMULATION CAN EVER BE MORE THAN A PALE APPROXIMATION --
LET'S TAKE THE OPPOSITE VIEW.  THE WORLD IS BASICALLY ILL-STRUCTURED
DRECK. WHATEVER GROUNDING "IS" (AND I DOUBT THAT THIS CONCEPT HAS
MUCH VALUE) IT WILL TURN OUT IN THE END TO BE A SECOND RATE WAY TO
LEARN TO 'UNDERSTAND' THE WORLD.


