On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and > development environment that I am building. Your system would be just > as easy to build as any other.
... considering the proliferation of AGI frameworks, it would appear that "any other" framework is pretty easy to build, no? ok, I'm being deliberately snarky - but if someone wrote about your own work the way you write about others, I imagine you would become increasingly defensive. > My purpose is to create a description language that allows us to talk > about different types of AGI system, and then construct design > variations autonmatically. I do believe an academic formalism for discussing AGI would be valuable to allow different camps to identify their similarity/difference in approach and implementation. However, I do not believe that AGI will arise "automatically" from meta-discussion. My guess is that any system that is generalized enough to apply across design paradigms will lack the granular details required for actual implementation. I applaud the effort required to succeed at your task, but it does not seem to me that you are building AGI as much as inventing a lingua franca for AGI builders. I admit in advance that I may be wrong. This is (after all) just a friendly discussion list and nobody's livelihood is being threatened here, right? ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=79882049-5a2bf8
