> I think an implied or stated intent of the paper is to find some > fundamental processing/solution core that could be shown to be > objectively legitimate, and must be included within any solution, > regardless of which heading (symbolic, emergent, hybrid) if falls > under.
Not really.... More so, to outline the core issues that any AGI solution must grapple with, and then review the key solution directions currently being pursued... > The approaches to AGI vary wildly. How can one know which is > correct, if there is no AGI really working? But there must be some > core assumptions that each approach shares, even when comparing > something as drastically different as CYC and AIXI. I'm not sure.... There could be very different approaches, each achieving the same high level goal.... The time-worn analogue is airplanes, helicopters, and blimps and rockets. All achieve flight, but with different particular strengths and weaknesses, and using quite different methods. Of course, all exploit the same core aerodynamic principles, though. -- Ben ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
