:-) A lot of the reason why I was asking is because I'm effectively
somewhat (how's that for a pair of conditionals? :-) relying on Schank's
approach not having any showstoppers that I'm not aware of -- so if anyone
else is aware of any surprise show-stopper's in his work, I'd love to have
some pointers. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Paul Van Belle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages
Sorry yes you're right, I should and would not call Schank's approach
discredited (though he does have his critics). FWIW I think he got much
closer than most of the GOFAIers i.e. he's one of my old school AI heroes :)
I thought for a long time his approach was one of the quickest ways to AGI
and I still think anyone studying AGI should definitely study his approach
closely. In the end any would-be AGIst (?:) will have to decide whether she
adopts conceptual primitives or not - probably, apart from ideological
arguments, mainly on the basis of how she decides to (have her AGI) ground
its/his/her concepts (or not, as the case may be).
Personally I'd say that a lot of mental acts do not reduce to his primitives
easily (without losing a lot in the translation, to paraphrase a good
movie:) and mental acts are quite important in my AGI architecture.
Just personal opinion of course. =Jean-Paul
-----
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=e9e40a7e
