Ben, On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be > first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson
... to whose satisfaction? Here on this forum, there are only two groups of "judges": 1. The people who are actually writing the code, and 2. People who might fund the above. Note that *I* am NOT on this list. However, I believe that it is important for you to be able to speak to objections, even though your words may not dissuade the objectors, and to produce some sort of documentation of these to "throw at" "experts" that future investors might bring in. As I have mentioned on prior postings, it IS possible to overcome contrary opinions by highly credentialed "experts", but you absolutely MUST "have your act together" to have a chance at this. Note that when faced with two people, one of whom says that something is impossible, and the other saying that he can do it, that (having been in this spot myself on several occasions) I almost always bet on the guy who says that he can do it. That having been said, just what are my objections here?! They are that you haven't adequately explained (to me) just how you are going to blow past the obvious challenges that lie ahead, which strongly suggests that you haven't adequately considered them. It is that careful consideration of challenges that separates the "angels" from the "fools who rush in". Given significant evidence of that careful consideration, I would be inclined to bet on your success, even though I might disagree with some of your evaluations. Yes, I heard you explain how experimentation is still needed to figure out what approaches might work, and which approaches should be consigned to the bit bucket. That of course is "research", and the vast majority of research leads nowhere. Planned experimental research is NOT a substitute for careful consideration of stated challenges, unless coupled with some sort of explanation as to how the research should provide a path past those challenges (the "scientific method" that tests theories). Hence, I was just looking for some hopeful words to describe a potential success path, and not any sort of "proof of future success" I completely agree that words (e.g. mine) are no substitute for running code, but neither is running code any substitute for explanatory words, unless of course the code is to only exist on the author's computer. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
