On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Jim:I know that > there are no solid reasons to believe that some kind of embodiment is > absolutely necessary for the advancement of agi. > > I want to concentrate on one dimension of this: precisely the "solid" > dimension. My guess would be that this is a dimension of AGI that has been > barely thought through at all - On the contrary, it has been discussed at great length in the computer vision literature > Ben and other similar AGI-ers, (Voss?), ought to have some papers on flatlands vs real, solidlands... do they? I'd doubt it. No, because we are not computer vision researchers ... as discussed already ad nauseum, I do not think that robust perception/action is necessarily the best place to start in making an AGI However, our current work on embodying Novamente and OpenCog does involve 3D virtual worlds ... and, of course, my planned work with Xiamen University using OpenCog to help control a Nao robot also involves our 3D visual world... I extremely strongly suspect that one could make an AGI in Flatland, by the way... -- Ben ------------------------------------------- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
