Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
No: the real concept of "lack of grounding" is nothing so simple as the
way you are using the word "grounding".
Lack of grounding makes an AGI fall flat on its face and not work.
I can't summarize the grounding literature in one post. (Though, heck,
I have actually tried to do that in the past: didn't do any good).
FYI, I have read the symbol-grounding literature (or a lot of it), and
generally
found it disappointingly lacking in useful content... though I do agree
with
the basic point that non-linguistic grounding is extremely helpful for
effective
manipulation of linguistic entities...
Ben,
As you will recall, Harnad himself got frustrated with the many people
who took the term "symbol grounding" and trivialized or distorted it in
various ways. One of the reasons the grounding literature is such a
waste of time (and you are right: it is) is that so many people talked
so much nonsense about it.
As far as I am concerned, your use of it is one of those trivial senses
that Harnad complained of. (Essentially, if the system uses world input
IN ANY WAY during the building of its symbols, then the system is grounded).
The effort I put into that essay yesterday will have been completely
wasted if your plan is to stick to that interpretation and not discuss
the deeper issue that I raised.
I really have no energy for pursuing yet another discussion about symbol
grounding.
Sorry: don't mean to blow you off, but you and I both have better
things to do, and I foresee a big waste of time ahead if we pursue it.
So let's just drop it?
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=64998305-6bdb18
