----- Original Message ----- From: YKY (Yan King Yin) To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Logical representation
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. I don't understand how bird's having accidents has anything to do trying to develop an AGI using only one "cognitive engine" or one data representation. Bird's obviously have "accidents during flight" and planes are made of many subsystems, each with their own structures and systems. If a single "cognitive engine" would work better than many, then my suggested methodology would still work. It would also work if a small number or a large number of cognitive engines were necessary. 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). Everyone is entitled to spend their time as they please, of course, but creating a flexible initial structure that can accommodate future unseen changes isn't that difficult. I have never created even a business application that wasn't designed in many ways that could be extended with un-expected new functionality. 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. Please elaborate on these "fundamental questions". Creating a predicate calculus kind of heuristic system has been tried many times without success. You say your proposal is like SOAR, so why not take SOAR and add your modifications? I think using "logic" for all potential domains is unworkable, even if it was possible, which I doubt. 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 sounds like you are asking me to just "believe" but I don't put much stock in beliefs (without supporting arguments or facts) at it's most basic level. 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. I don't think that creating airplanes is a suitable analogy for your proposal. The Wright bothers made many experiments and had the ideas and calculations of many other people to work with before they made their first plane. "Natural language and vision" are just a tiny part of any AGI and semantic understanding of natural language is embryonic. The best approaches for vision systems today use NNs and other approaches, not symbolic logic. 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. Your optimism for success through "incremental change" doesn't seem to be backed with new evidence or from past history. I can't say your approach can't work but it seems to have many problems before it starts. I don't see my approach as so much a particular approach (as yours is) but as a container where any number of techniques can compete to create an AGI. I can't see how I could agree "both approaches are viable" when my suggestions can include all of yours but not vise versa. I could agree that we just disagree however ;) -- David Clark ----- 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
