Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu!mnr
From: mnr@daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Cog Sci Fi  (was: STRONG AND WEAK AI)
Message-ID: <7315@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 89 20:04:24 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 23

Stevan Harnad writes,
> ... the symbol grounding problem for this enterprise is empirical and
> methodological. It isn't and never has been philosophical.

Let's look at the following statement from a methodological point of view.

You wrote,
> ... what goes on inside a simulation is just meaningless
> symbol crunching. The only way to ground symbols is in the real world.

What did you mean?  If you're saying that an AI system running in a
simulation is totally meaningless, then I'll argue that you're flat wrong.

I get a feeling that you only meant 'meaningless' in the philosophical
sense.  In that case, my question stands: why make philosophical arguments
if you really mean to discuss methodological issues?  And would you re-state
the methodological case you were trying to make?  I couldn't hear it for
the noise.

   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  /// Marc Ringuette /// Carnegie Mellon University, Comp. Sci. Dept. ///
 /// mnr@cs.cmu.edu /// Pittsburgh, PA 15213.  Phone 412-268-3728(w) ///
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////