@Hans:
I’m confused. Does this mean that either birds or planes don’t use aero dynamics to fly?

Secondly, I don’t really feel happy with being looked down at. What about my system do you think is not AI research?

For those of you who would like to explore cognitive architectures, Carnige Mellon’s Act-R may be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT-R
http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/about/
There is also a version in python:
https://sites.google.com/site/pythonactr/home

Hey guys remeber “watson” from jepordy. if not then look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) not only does watson process natural language but also creates its own algorithms for problem solving and macheine learning….

Very intersting

Joseph Hopkins - Jul 8, 2012:

but also creates its own algorithms for problem solving and macheine learning….

I see no evidence of that at the URL provided.

Watson does not create its own algorithms. A large IBM team developed and tweaked how it operates.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/IBM-s-Watson-Supercomputer-Was-Developed-with-the-Help-of-Eight-Prestigious-Universities-183935.shtml

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/algorithms_team.shtml

http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/what-is-watson/science-behind-an-answer.html

IF…THEN…ELSE statements…

Hmmm… I really think that is the way a LOT of humans THINK!!

When it comes down to brass tacks, human thinking revolves around CHOICES.
IF I do this and Choose That, THEN things could work ELSE IF I choose a different
path THEN something ELSE will likely happen.

Not much difference for my two cents.

Just because a person has discovered ONE method that seems favorable, does not
preclude other people who might have equally viable methods as well.

It does not always have to be about acceptance but more about tolerance IMHO.

I might not agree or accept what you preach but I will have the courtesy to listen and respect your opinion.
Again…MHO. Thank you!

I’m reminded of an old saying,” There is not one road to success…there are as many as there are men (people) who are willing to build them.

Art Gladstone - Sep 22, 2012:

IF…THEN…ELSE statements…

Hmmm… I really think that is the way a LOT of humans THINK!!

Since the original remark was direct towards my contributions upthread from here, I am happy to report that the “IF…THEN…ELSE” method of AI coding has really blossomed recently in the Russian artificial intelligence at

http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html

in JavaScript for Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE). Specificially, I have found a way to retrieve the memory engrams of regular and irregular Russian verb-forms IF they match the concept involved, the grammatical number required, and the first, second or third person as required by the point of view of the thinking AI Mind and THEN to utter an idea in Russian. ELSE—if the exact verb-form is not found, the Verb-Phrase mind-module calls the VerbGen module to generate a regular Russian verb-form. This method works so well in Russian that I am going to use it also when I create Wotan the superintelligent god of all AI Minds in Valhalla and Cyberspace. IF…THEN…ELSE…INDEED!

Joseph Hopkins - Jul 2, 2012:

well if it has to match that then it is in fact thinking.

I agree with the earlier replies in this threat that: (1) The Turing Test concept is very outdated and is impractical; (2) Thinking is not just mapping patterns or symbols, but rather it involves understanding. Surely nobody believes that a two-layer feedforward artificial neural network that can only map its statistically learned patterns correctly is “thinking” or that it “understands” what it’s doing. I agree with Jeff Hawkins regarding Searle’s Chinese Room, in that a truly intelligent entity will be intelligent even in the absence of any demonstrated behavior, or equivalently, that intelligence is not defined by behavior (e.g., mapping, matching) but rather by “understanding”...

As I looked around my office that day, I saw familiar chairs, posters, windows, plants, pencils, and so on. There were hundreds of items and features all around me. My eyes saw them as I glanced around, yet seeing them didn’t cause me to perform any action. No behavior was invoked or required, yet somehow I “understood” the room and its contents. I was doing what Searle’s Chinese Room couldn’t do, and I didn’t have to pass anything back through a slot. I understood, but had no action to prove it. What did it mean to “understand”?
(“On Intelligence”, Jeff Hawkins with Sandra Blakeslee, 2004)

Where I differ from Hawkins’ opinion is that I believe understanding is more than prediction (his main hypothesis), since a person seeing a new object can still “understand” that object in terms of its visible attributes, even though there hasn’t been any experience with which to make predictions on that object.