On 3/16/07, David Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is "very complicated" a good reason to have 1 cognitive engine? Why not
have many and even use many on the same problem and then accept the best answer? Best answer might change for a single problem depending on other issues outside the actual problem area. Why put all the eggs in one basket? Is deduction the appropriate metaphor for all questions and thinking? Do you use only logical analysis or fuzzy logic for everything you think about? Let me concede that having a centralized cognitive engine may make the system kind of brittle. It may be the same reason why airplanes still have accidents but I've never heard of a birds having accidents during flight.
From my perspective I think building a "von Neumann" style AGI (ie with a
small number of "neat" modules) is much easier than the distributive approach. I'm not saying that the latter approach won't work, but it's just that I find the first route *much* easier (perhaps to me, particularly). Notice that I have outlined an agenda for building the "neat" AGI, whereas the distributive AGI is still at the stage of some very fundamental questions. If you can see the "logic" underlying a diverse spectrum of cognitive tasks, then you may be convinced that a central cognitive engine can handle it all. It was probably just as hard to believe that *rigid* planes could make a flying machine. In fact, the logical approach has been applied to diverse areas including natural language and vision. What I see is that some incremental change will lead us to success, whereas you see this as a dead end. Perhaps we can settle this issue by saying that *both* approaches are viable, and that exactly which approach is superior is a very complex issue. There are pros and cons on each side. YKY ----- 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/?list_id=303
