This topic has been discussed in this list for several times. A previous post of mine can be found at http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/2007/10/sort/time_rev/page/13/entry/22
Pei On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I've come out of the closet over the list tone issues, I guess I should > post something AI-related as well -- at least that will make me net neutral > between relevant and irrelevant postings. :-) > > One of the classic current AI issues is grounding, the argument being that a > dictionary cannot be complete because it is only self-referential, and *has* > to be grounded at some point to be truly meaningful. This argument is used > to claim that abstract AI can never succeed, and that there must be a > physical component of the AI that connects it to reality. > > I have never bought this line of reasoning. It seems to me that meaning is a > layered thing, and that you can do perfectly good reasoning at one (or two > or three) levels in the layering, without having to go "all the way down." > And if that layering turns out to be circular (as it is in a dictionary in > the pure sense), that in no way invalidates the reasoning done. > > My own AI work makes no attempt at grounding, so I'm really hoping I'm right > here. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
