In article <9155d0$onl$1 at news.ox.ac.uk>,
"spambrolly" <spambrolly at softhome.net> wrote:
> If the semantic store is complex enough, and has extracted
> sound prototypes, then the problem is dual: how to traverse
> this semantic landscape, and how to convert to and from it.
> That is, how to think using the knowledge at our disposal,
> and how to add to, and act upon that thought / knowledge.
>> Presumably, the best Cyc can hope for is some form of
> Turing test-beater, with the input system reversed and
> compromised for the sake of conversation.
>> > > There is a shrinking faction within the AI community
> > > who is convinced that they can figure out intelligence
> > > on a level of abstraction higher than the neural level.
> > Quit the neural systems, you copiers. The only failure
> > there will be will be your own, because you don't
> > understand what you're making.
>> The similarity of Mentifex's mind project to a recurent
> associative neural network, such as that found in the
> hippocampus (Rolls & Treves 1998), is striking, if not uncanny.
Thank you for inspecting the PD AI, which is being ported to
Arthur T. Murray, mentifex at scn.org
http://www.cyc.com -- [ Some pertinent URLs, not my personal sig ]
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/mind4th.html Mind.Forth AI;
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/standard.html "Standards in AI";
http://www.netpedia.net/hosting/mentifex/theory5.html AI mind model.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.