From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system Tue Nov 24 10:51:50 EST 1992
Article 7621 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: grounding and the entity/environment boundary
Message-ID: <03o5TB6w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz>
>From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:38:44 NZST
References: <1992Nov9.001936.23167@spss.com>
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 62

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

> In article <qk0TTB2w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz> system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.n
> (Wayne McDougall) writes:
> >
> >I'd hoped that was exactly the distinction I was making. I think I'm 
> >suggesting that it is possible to maintain grounding with low-bandwith 
> >communications for those areas in which we (or an AI system) has a 
> >generalized grounding. 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree; but the question is fortunately empirical.  Someone
> needs to stay for a decade or two in a sensory deprivation tank, connected
> only to the Internet.  Any volunteers?
> 
I'd suggest that anyone with a high percentage of their grounding 
coming from Internet is subject to sanity problems, regardless of the 
grounding effects. :-)
> >However, this is why closing your eyes for 10 
> >years is a problem - your generalized grounding wears out 
> 
> Why do you say that?  People who go blind don't forget what colors are
> in that time, do they?  And we generally remember quite a bit of our
> childhood experiences-- what our houses looked like, what our relatives
> were like, etc.  
> 
I say that because the generalized grounding becomes less and less 
reliable; Aunty Franny's beard, the new model cars with 7 wheels. 
Colours is not a good example, because it is SO stable....I guess you'd 
have problems talking about the mauve on the Mona Lisa if you ain't 
never seen it, or the glory of a particular sunset....as I said, the 
grounding wears out in inverse proportion to the stability of the area 
in which you are grounded. Since most things we see are relatively 
stable in a generalized sense, we'd have to close our eyese for a long 
time for the small changes to have an effect on our groundedness.

> >(ain't transistors wonderful!). 
> 
> No more wonderful than neurons.  I very much suspect that brains forget
> things only when they want to.
> 
Obviously I was too obscure. I was suggesting that someone who was 
well-grounded with computers and vacuum tubes or transitors, say, and 
then is out of touch for a relatively short time, could have great 
difficulty in talking sense to a computer engineer.
> >How's this for a twist on the Turing Test? A Artificially Intelligent 
> >system is something that is worthwhile to talk to.
> 
> Cute, but no improvement on the usual TT.  For one thing, it's even more
> subjective than usual-- as Marvin Minsky might say, "worthwhile" is a
> two-place not a one-place predicate: X is worthwhile *to Y*.  For another,
> I know humans who'd fail this test...

Indeed. Perhaps intelligence should be a sliding scale.Mertz from Mars 
might otherwise classify us both as failing the xertyl test, and 
therefore not intelligent.


-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.


