From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Fri Oct 30 15:18:22 EST 1992
Article 7451 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.143242.8130@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <1992Oct23.161211.5628@spss.com> <720241604@sheol.UUCP> <markrose.720385670@spssig>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 14:32:42 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <markrose.720385670@spssig> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <720241604@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>: From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
>>: Actually I'm coming to believe that grounding does have to be kept up,
>>: though on a scale of years rather than hours.  Chris Malcolm's post on
>>: this [13 Oct] was very good.
>>
>>Then could you revisit why someone who moves away from a 
>>town (or has eyes amputated, etc, etc) remains grounded?  
>
>Because the deteroriation of grounding takes place over years or decades.
>If you move to another city, statements you make about your home town are
>still grounded in a) your memories of that town, as well as b) your continuing
>experiences (i.e. you still deal with human beings, houses, trees, animals).
>
>I can easily believe that grounding would deteriorate faster if b) were not
>present-- e.g. the chap confined for years to a sensory deprivation tank.

Etc.  Lots of good stuff here.  But it is all about memory, not
"grounding" -- whatever that is.  Is it the same as "semantics"?

.



