Yeah. I forgot to mention that robots are not a"alive" yet could act indistinguishably from what is alive. The concept of alive is likely something that requires inductive type reasoning and generalization to learn. Categorization, similarity analysis, etc could assist in making such distinctions as well.
The point is that agi is not defined by any particular problem. It is defined by how you solve problems, even simple ones. Which is why your claim that my problems are not agi is simply wrong. On Jun 28, 2010 12:22 PM, "Jim Bromer" <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern* ways, and *predictably.... This presumption looks similar (in some profound way) to many of the presumptions that were tried in the early days of AI, partly because computers lacked memory and they were very slow. It's unreliable just because we need the AGI program to be able to consider situations when, for example, inanimate objects move in patchy patchwork ways or in unpredictable patterns. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
