Body is not a prereq.

Post #4,571 by tablizer 8/10/01 9:19:56 PM Reply	Body is not a prereq. >> We can't match a child's intellect in a machine today because we have basically two camps in AI "research":......<< A 3rd category could be the "magic formula" stance. "If we simply figure out the right linking formula/algorithm." I tend to stand in that camp. >> Neither group is going to get anywhere; a Turing candidate has to have a way to train its mind through its body. << Just because we are used to doing that way does not mean that is the only way. Hellen Keller was missing lots of feedback that most of us take for granted, but was quite sentient. A child with a severed spine can still learn. I will agree that it is tougher, but not a prerequisite. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #4,931 by tseliot 8/13/01 6:25:19 PM Reply	Give me an alternate solution or stfu. Saying, "there might be another way," without providing another way is ego-surfing at its worst. "Achieving Artifical Intelligence" is inherently a statement of anthropomorphic expectation. If you want some other sort of intelligence, talk about it in another thread. Dang, I'm getting tired of shotgun snipers... That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
Post #5,080 by tablizer 8/14/01 2:34:15 PM Reply	"human-like" vs. "smart" >> "Achieving Artifical Intelligence" is inherently a statement of anthropomorphic expectation. If you want some other sort of intelligence, talk about it in another thread. << This is terminology issue which probably could last forever, but there are two competiting definitions of AI. One is making machines "human-like", and the other is making them "smart". If a machine was Volcan-like, I would still consider it "smart", but not really "human-like". >> Saying, "there might be another way," without providing another way is ego-surfing at its worst. << The bottom line is that we don't know. It is like OO proof: without it all one can say is that they DON'T KNOW if X is objectively better than Y. (Note that OO being better for your own mind is not the same as being objectively better.) If you DO know for sure one way or the other, then please present your evidence. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #5,085 by pwhysall 8/14/01 2:43:41 PM Reply	On another tack There might be another way of achieving AI, just as their might be a way of making real strawberry jam without the need for strawberries, sugar, water or pectin; stating this is a completely worthless exercise UNLESS you are willing to discuss the mysterious "other way". Because it's bleedin' obvious that there MIGHT be another way. If you can't be arsed to think, at least have the good grace to not parade your intellectual laziness here. -- Peter Shill For Hire

Welcome to IWETHEY!