From: Joshua Fox (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 09:55:23 MST
I've actually been wondering this recently.
Human intelligence is built up on top of modules that are evolutionarily
older (and are found in non-human animals).
Contemporary serious AGI efforts (in my layperson's understanding ) are
indeed modular and layered, but they do not attempt to reproduce the full
functionality of the modules on the level of, e.g., a dog or chimp brain
before going for a (super)human mind, and I wonder why not.
The last step, the non-existent "magic dust of intelligence", would then be
a model linking up these modules.
2007/2/23, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <email@example.com >:
> Hi everybody,
> I'm new to this list.
> I wanna begin with a question:
> A case of formation of human intelligence is considerable for which the
> current trend of study of AI is not appropriate. Suppose our brain is highly
> modular ( every single intelligent capability have been provided in a
> module), in both structural and algorithmic aspects, and the unity we feel
> in our cognition is some kind of illusion (our mental activities are not
> transparent to us, but we think they are; as Churchlands propose)
> It seems in this case our endeavor is pointless, because our intuition is
> of no help and the only reliable source is neuroscience which is not good in
> giving big pictures.
> I'm asking, in this case (which is quite probable in my view) what can we
> do to construct AI?
> (Becarefull of the 'I' in AI ! that is the vague point in this situation)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:25 MDT