On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will take a third position and point out that there is no real > distinction between these two categories, or at least if there is you are > doing it wrong. One of the amusing and fruitless patterns of behavior in > the AI community is the incessant categorization of various processes into > nominally distinct buckets in the absence of a theoretically justifiable > reason for doing so. The above is such an example.
Well, my motive was not so much theoretical as pragmatic... > As a general comment, the computer science literature on the D-oriented > side of things is *much* deeper than the S-oriented side of things, and the > literature that theoretically integrates the two is thin on the ground > indeed. This is probably a reflection of the observation that competency at > D is far more widely distributed than S, or at least that far more competent > people have worked on D than on S. ...as you say, existing theory and practice tend to be short on ways to integrate the two. But having said that... > It should actually be pretty obvious, even without really hammering out the > theory, how the "Deliberative" part can be trivially expressed in a > "Spatial" solution -- the former can be correctly viewed as a narrow > instance of the latter. This isn't at all obvious to me, I have to admit! (Assuming we're talking in a practically useful sense, not recapping something like "logic gates are a special case of neurons".) Certainly biology had a long hard job going from S to D, and human engineers haven't had much success with it yet. I'd be very interested in how you propose to do it? ------------------------------------------- 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
