From: erayo@bilkent.edu.tr   
      
   Don Geddis  wrote in message news:<40ce7a51$1@ne   
   s.unimelb.edu.au>...   
   > That's unlikely to matter.   
   >   
   > You seem to be imagining that this is something like subatomic physics, where   
   > if only the world built a bigger collider, then physicists could resolve some   
   > outstanding questions.   
   >   
   > But physics has a huge amount of successful theory already.  Many parts of   
   > the theories are well-understood and already experimentally verified.  A   
   > new massive collider would be able to address some very specific remaining   
   > questions.   
   >   
   > AI isn't like this.  There aren't just a couple of holes to plug in an   
   > otherwise comprehensive theory.  Nobody knows what the computational   
   structure   
   > of AI will look like.  You can't even imagine experiments today (even with   
   > some new large computing cluster) that would answer any of the interesting   
   > questions.   
      
   I agree. The required advance will be in the theory, not in the   
   implementation or management.   
      
   A while ago, promising theoretical research for strong AI was   
   discussed on this group. I suggest we review this research again.   
      
   Best Regards,   
      
   --   
   Eray Ozkural   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated.  To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]   
   [ that fails mail your article to , and ]   
   [ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)