My post did nothing other than a search and replace on Mike's own wording.
How can it possibly be an inaccurate paraphrase?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Why Symbolic Representation without Imaginative
Simulation Won't Work
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think one can now present a convincing case why any symbolic/linguistic
approach to AGI, that is not backed by THE SECRET SAUCE, simply will
not work.
I don't think this is an accurate paraphrase of Mike's statement. "X
is secret sauce" implies X to be _both necessary and sufficient_ (or
at least that the other ingredients are trivial compared to X) - a
type of claim AI has certainly seen plenty of. But Mike's claim, if I
understand it correctly, is that visual/spatial capability is
necessary but not sufficient for AGI. (A position I also hold.)
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
