On 28/02/2008, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/28/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note I want something different than computational universality. E.g. > > Von Neumann architectures are generally programmable, Harvard > > architectures aren't. As they can't be reprogrammed at run time. > > It seems that you want to build the AGI from the "programming" level. > This is in contrast to John MacCarthy's "declarative" paradigm. Your > approach offers more flexibility (perhaps maximum flexibility), but may not > make AGI easier to build. Learning, in your case, is a matter of > algorithmic learning. It may be harder / less efficient than logic-based > learning. >
Algorithmic learning is hard. But just because the system is based upon programs as its lowest level representation, does not mean that all learning is going to be algorithmic learning. It is possible to have programs that learn in any fashion within the system. If it makes sense in the system, you could have a logic based learning program. Just that it will be in competition with other learners to see which is the most useful for the system. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
