On 5/17/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the huge flaws in the way you guys are talking about intelligence (and one of the reasons you do need a dual definition as I suggested earlier) is that you've reduced intelligence to an entirely computational, disembodied affair. But it isn't.
Mike: At least this judgment is not true for NARS. Since this is a separate topic (what "embodied" means), I won't argue for it now --- I try not to get into more than one big debate at a time. ;-) However, my opinions on that issue can be found in http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics.pdf and http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Misconceptions.pdf Pei ----- 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
