On 12/9/02 7:13 PM, "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On this issue, we can distinguish 4 approaches: > > (1) let symbols get their meaning through "interpretation" (provided in > another language) --- this is the approach used in traditional symbolic AI. > > (2) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on textual experience --- > this is what I and Kevin suggested. > > (3) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on simplified perceptual > experience --- this is what Ben and Shane suggested. > > (4) let symbols get their meaning by grounding on human-level perceptual > experience --- this is what Brooks (the robotics researcher at MIT) and > Harnad (who raised the "symbol grounding" issue in the first place) > proposed.
I can be put pretty much in the (2) camp. This is adequate for proving the basic capability of the system and you can incrementally add (3+) later. I mostly view this as a pragmatic engineering issue though; no need to unnecessarily complicate the test environment until you can prove the system is capable of handling the simplest environment. It is a much easier development trajectory unless you believe that (3) or (4) are an absolute minimum for the system to work at all (obviously I don't). Cheers, -James Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
