Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!arizona!mike From: mike@cs.arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Cog Sci Fi (was: STRONG AND WEAK AI) Message-ID: <16216@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 17 Dec 89 17:26:21 GMT References: Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 28 This is a single reply to multiple errors :-) From article , by harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad): > As long as you allow yourself to interpret > ungrounded symbols you'll keep coming up with "virtual reality." > The only trouble is, what we're after is real reality (and that > distinction is being lost in the wash). There's nobody home in > a symbol cruncher ... You omitted the first half of my posting, in which I pointed out that there is nothing (that I know of) that precludes the possibility that *we* might be simulated. In that case, what is the difference between real reality and virtual reality? On a more general issue, this "problem of symbol grounding" seems nothing more than a mantra that some people chant when they're faced with arguments they can't deal with otherwise. If the only thing that distinguishes reality and virtual reality is that symbols are grounded in one but not the other, what is the real difference? I mean, what observable effect does "grounding" the symbols have? Does a system begin behaving differently when symbols are grounded? Would *we* begin behaving differently if the entity that wrote our program suddenly said, "My God! they're ungrounded!"? -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858