DEREK ZAHN wrote:
Richard Loosemore writes:
The best we can do is to use the human design as a close inspiration
-- we do not have to make an exact copy, we just need to get close
enough to build something in the same family of systems, that's all --
and set up progress criteria based on how well we explain and
understand that design.
Sounds like a good approach, if we have much of a solid understanding
of human intelligence. How do we define "close enough"
and which of the many half-baked theories defining the "family of
systems" should we use, and why? Should we start with Dennett or
Fodor or Kant or what?
Dennett, Fodor and Kant?!
None of the above.
I am talking about distilling the essential facts uncovered by cognitive
science into a unified formalism.
Just imagine all of your favorite models and theories in Cog Sci,
integrated in such a way that they become an actual system specification
instead of a dog's dinner. Then imagine a lot of hard work.....
Richard Loosemore
-----
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
