Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!udel!rochester!ritcv!cci632!dwp From: dwp@cci632.UUCP (Dana Paxson) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Thanks. (was Re: Results of Symbol Grounding Poll) Message-ID: <1431@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Jul-87 16:25:01 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.1431 Posted: Tue Jul 14 16:25:01 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jul-87 06:59:12 EDT References: <993@mind.UUCP> <1010@mind.UUCP> Reply-To: dwp@ccird1.UUCP (Dana Paxson) Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY Lines: 91 Keywords: grounding Summary: Keep these discussions around ... In article <1010@mind.UUCP> ghn@mind.UUCP (Gregory Nelson) writes: >In article <993@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >>[] >>[make the] Net the reliable and respectable medium of scholarly communication >>that I and (I trust) others are hoping it will evolve into. >> ... >>(4) I continue to be extremely enthusiastic about and committed to >>developing the remarkable potential of electronic networks for scholarly >>communication and the evolution of ideas. I take the present votes to >>indicate that the current Usenet Newsgroups may not be the place to attempt >>to start this. > > ... Perhaps you should take some time off to >look at some of the other newsgroups. The comp.xxxx discussions are naturally >oriented to computer people, but things like rec.xxx and sci.xxx are much >more "broadminded" (if you will.) If you want a real surprise, try tuning >in to the Deja Vu discussion on misc.psi or something like that. > I realize that this is belated input. As one who followed along with an occasional understanding of the discussion on symbol grounding, I have been attracted both to the discussion and to the way in which Stevan Harnad conducted it. I admire the discipline and rigor evident in his postings, and see his work as an example of how a newsgroup functioning often as a bulletin board with limited scope can be enriched by some really difficult exploration. Some of the other contributors to the discussion appeared to work well at a level near Mr. Harnad's. It has been an exciting series of exchanges. I regret the loss of the discussion from the newsgroup. Any reader of the most potent material on computer science will find that the authors reach out to many fields to gain inspiration, illustration, and, yes, even forms of grounding(!) for their work. Especially grounding. Like any other science area with meaning, computer science does not begin in words (or bytes) and end in bytes (or words). It ends in application, or at least applicability, to our lives. In the AI realm, that applicability is becoming an intimate metamorphism, a mapping/transformation, of how we work rather than a translation of what we do. If I can characterize an aspect of the symbol grounding discussion, it is a knife-sharp exploration of the type of problem dismissed by so many as having a self-evident solution. This class of problem is precisely the type which is most difficult even to see, let alone solve. Witness the depth and detail of the exchanges we have seen. If others become impatient with the material, they don't have to read it; but this topic area appears to be poorly understood by anybody, and desperately needs close dialogue. Personally, I feel strongly the need to extend my cognitive framework with such powerful and challenging material. Perhaps the outcomes from discussions like this one have too much potential for making a lot of funded thesis work and product development irrelevant... but then some outcomes can unfold whole new realms of exploration and advancement. Unless I am mistaken, these newsgroups can play an active role in this unfoldment. I don't want to see anything this good be relegated to an obscure electronic cranny, or lumped with a lot of diffuse and irrelevant outpourings. Computer scientists have a lot to learn from the symbol-grounding exchanges right here. I sense that there are many quiet readers out there who have powerful ideas relating to this subject, but who have kept silent on seeing contemptuous and abusive complaints of others about the length and content of the postings. For complaints, it seems reasonable to address the complaints to authors privately, or to the moderator if there is one; but open criticism on the net discourages its use by those whose insight and sensitivity exceed their boldness. Making one's views public is an intimidating process in itself, so why should we raise the level of intimidation? For my part, I would like to ask for a citation for Mr. Harnad's original article on the subject of symbol grounding; I want to read it to find out what started the interchange I have seen. I tuned in late in the process. Thanks to all of the participants in this probing discussion. The views expressed here are my own. Dana Paxson Systems Engineering Computer Consoles, Incorporated Rochester, New York 716 482-5000 CIS User ID: 76327,65