Statements are inherently meaningless.

[TimeSeeker]

Recursion is just a computational process where the output of one cycle is used as the input for the next repeated cycle. I don't see how that can possible lead to a 'model of reality'

Science is recursive. One hypothesis (approximation) superseded and falsified by the next. It leads to better and better answers.
It converges. It becomes more complete.

The model doesn't have to be precise replica of reality. It just has to be "good enough" to make predictions.

Your 'grounding problem' seems like a pseudo problem. If you say 'make me a coffee' and I respond 'you are off your tree' your communication is just as 'grounded' as if I had made you a coffee

The point is that the word "coffee" was interpreted by you and you understood it. It triggered action.

You converted my declarative knowledge (make coffee) into a procedure (boil kettle, put coffee etc.).
Or the alternative procedure utter the phrase "you are off your tree".

And computers are only perceived to follow instructions, it is only the perception by a person that 'grounds' its response in 'reality'.

It is only people that have a model of reality (at least so far in technology). Computers and modern robots are no more than machines in the same way that a plough is a machine.

Self-driving cars. Machine vision. Automation.

Robots are beginning to do more and more tasks which were previously considered in the domain of "humans only".

The distinction is no longer in what humans can but robots CAN't do. The distinction is "is there such a thing that robots will never be able to do" ?

Everything technology is able to do right now is defined IN language. That means we are TRANSLATING procedural into declarative knowledge.

http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/ ... ategorie=3

[A_Seagull]

Recursion is just a computational process where the output of one cycle is used as the input for the next repeated cycle. I don't see how that can possible lead to a 'model of reality'

Science is recursive. One hypothesis (approximation) superseded and falsified by the next. It leads to better and better answers.
It converges. It becomes more complete.

The model doesn't have to be precise replica of reality. It just has to be "good enough" to make predictions.

Your 'grounding problem' seems like a pseudo problem. If you say 'make me a coffee' and I respond 'you are off your tree' your communication is just as 'grounded' as if I had made you a coffee

The point is that the word "coffee" was interpreted by you and you understood it. It triggered action.

You converted my declarative knowledge (make coffee) into a procedure (boil kettle, put coffee etc.).
Or the alternative procedure utter the phrase "you are off your tree".

And computers are only perceived to follow instructions, it is only the perception by a person that 'grounds' its response in 'reality'.

It is only people that have a model of reality (at least so far in technology). Computers and modern robots are no more than machines in the same way that a plough is a machine.

Self-driving cars. Machine vision. Automation.

Robots are beginning to do more and more tasks which were previously considered in the domain of "humans only".

The distinction is no longer in what humans can but robots CAN't do. The distinction is "is there such a thing that robots will never be able to do" ?

Everything technology is able to do right now is defined IN language. That means we are TRANSLATING procedural into declarative knowledge.

http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/ ... ategorie=3

I don't think you understand how science works.

I don't think you know how to make coffee.

I don't think you understand the difference between a person and a machine.

You seem to think that making links to Wikipedia and other websites constitutes an argument.

It seems that you know lots of things but understand little. If that is what you want from philosophy, that is fine with me, but it is not what I want.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't think you understand how science works.

I think I do. Perhaps your conception of science is mistaken?

I don't think you know how to make coffee.

From growing the plants to brewing the drink. I have a pretty good idea.

But I am happy with my coffee machine too.

I don't think you understand the difference between a person and a machine.

In general - I don't think there is any difference.
In particular - That's a truism. No two things are ever the same.

I welcome whatever similarity/difference you draw.

You seem to think that making links to Wikipedia and other websites constitutes an argument.

No, I don't. I just think it's a good starting point from which you can pick up and educate yourself on where the human body of knowledge stands on such issues.

You don't have to agree with it and I don't care to argue with you to convince you.

It is where humanity stands, and what humanity understands when it comes to such things.
It's merely an indication of how much catching up you have to do if you wish to stand on the shoulders of giants.
If the topic interests you then you are welcome to follow the references to the in-depth scientific research - usually found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles.

It seems that you know lots of things but understand little. If that is what you want from philosophy, that is fine with me, but it is not what I want.

Before you can make such claim, first you need to have a clear conception of what it means to "understand" and a clear understanding of what "philosophy" is and isn't. I subscribe to RIchard Feynman's standard when it comes to 'understanding', which (I believe) is the highest standard of 'understanding' possible: What I cannot create, I do not understand.

I don't know what you want out of philosophy (in particular), but I am pretty good at figuring out what people want (in general).

What I do know is that philosophy is not science. And I am a scientist.

[A_Seagull]

I don't think you understand how science works.

I think I do. Perhaps your conception of science is mistaken?

I don't think you know how to make coffee.

From growing the plants to brewing the drink. I have a pretty good idea.

But I am happy with my coffee machine too.

I don't think you understand the difference between a person and a machine.

In general - I don't think there is any difference.
In particular - That's a truism. No two things are ever the same.

I welcome whatever similarity/difference you draw.

You seem to think that making links to Wikipedia and other websites constitutes an argument.

No, I don't. I just think it's a good starting point from which you can pick up and educate yourself on where the human body of knowledge stands on such issues.

You don't have to agree with it and I don't care to argue with you to convince you.

It is where humanity stands, and what humanity understands when it comes to such things.
It's merely an indication of how much catching up you have to do if you wish to stand on the shoulders of giants.
If the topic interests you then you are welcome to follow the references to the in-depth scientific research - usually found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles.

It seems that you know lots of things but understand little. If that is what you want from philosophy, that is fine with me, but it is not what I want.

Before you can make such claim, first you need to have a clear conception of what it means to "understand" and a clear understanding of what "philosophy" is and isn't. I subscribe to RIchard Feynman's standard when it comes to 'understanding', which (I believe) is the highest standard of 'understanding' possible: What I cannot create, I do not understand.

I don't know what you want out of philosophy (in particular), but I am pretty good at figuring out what people want (in general).

What I do know is that philosophy is not science. And I am a scientist.

Funny that you should mention Feynman, as I am a big fan of his too. One of his major gripes was that some people would learn science as a litany of words with little or no understanding of the science behind the words and little idea how to use the science described by the words. Which I guess is pretty much what the OP of this thread is all about.