On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Robert Wensman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few things come to my mind: > > 1. To what extent is learning and reasoning a sub topic of cognitive > architectures? Is learning and reasoning a plugin to a cognitive > architecture, or is in fact the whole cognitive architecture about learning > and reasoning. > If "cognitive architectures department of AGI research" is to be usefully delineated, then these are not its subtopics. But neither they are plug-ins. It is "in this chapter I introduce you to the overall structure of the system. From other chapters you know that..."
> 2. I would like a special topic on AGI goal representation. More > specifically, a topic that discusses how a goal specified by any human > designer, can be related to the world model and actions that an AGI system > creates? For example, how can the human specified goal, be related to a > knowledge representation that is constantly developed by the AGI system? > Yes, more work needed on lifelong goal structures, Pollock's master plans, integration with motivational system (which in the primitive form is "spreading activation"). > 3. Why do AI/AGI researchers always talk about "knowledge representation". > It gives such a strong bias towards static or useless knowledge bases. Why > not talk more about "World modelling". Because of the more active meaning of > the word "modelling" as opposed to "representation", it implies that things > such as inference etc. need to be considered. Since the word "modelling" is > also used to denote the process of creating a model, it also implies that we > need mechanisms for learning. I really think we should consider if not > "knowledge representation" is a concept straightly borrowed from dumb-narrow > AI, or if it really is a key concept for AGI. Sure enough, there will always > be knowledge representation, but the question is whether it is an > important/relevant/sufficient/misleading concept for AGI. > Agreed. I think that "knowledge representation" label should not be abandoned, but should be grown towards "how the system accomodates the sophisticated semantics of natural language and/or its formative domain" where "formative domain" can be "social environment", "programmistic environment" etc. > 4. In fact. I would suggest that AGI researchers start to distinguish > themselves from narrow AGI by replacing the over ambiguous concepts from AI, > one by one. For example: > I neither agree nor disagree with your suggestion, I just thank for clarifying your ideas here considerably :-) ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
