> "You would require visual intelligence to build these nanobots."
Not necessarily visual, but spatial. They are not synonymous. > "It is impossible to bootstrap perceptual grounding from a purely symbolic AGI. It does not know how to build 3D robots." Ah-ah-ah... be careful here, remember the big long discussion that transpired a few months back? If you go down far enough, pretty much anything can be represented with a symbol. The fact that the word is relative is often neglected. My entire design rests on this principle. As long as your symbolic ontology permits the representation of data that is CONSISTANT with how spatial data should be treated, you're set... Since my design hinges on this, I am obviously biased towards this line of thinking. Though I can't necessarily prove it is possible so early in my research, you surely can't prove it isn't. The KR lingo I've been working on for the past couple years is based around the ability to encapsulate spatial knowledge with everything else as a side-dish... so I especially find that statement of yours unfounded. I have yet to develop a working POC, but this particular problem was what I spent the majority of my high school days working on. > "Purely symbolic ontologies can produce unsatisfying results." Generalizations... yum. Remember, you can take symbols as far down the rabbit hole as you fancy. - Regards, Joe ------------------------------------------- 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
