Thanks for the summary. Net, I was afraid of some such. I.e., IMHO, it won't even start to work. Here's my first-cut architecture: The core of the intellige

Thanks for the summary. Net, I was afraid of some such. I.e., IMHO, it won't even start to work. Here's my first-cut architecture: The core of the intelligence is some concepts and relationships between them. The relationships are based on historical input data from experience since birth. The concepts are close to nouns in language. The relationships are close but not as close to verbs in language. The relationships are closely related to what we regard as causes. The relationships can be moderated or qualified by, right, adverbs. And, sure, adjectives can modify the nouns. Then, start like a baby does, with just nouns and then some simple verbs with sentences of just two words. As for say, kitty cats, early on the input is not in words or language at all -- actual language as a way to get input data, say, fairly directly to concepts with nouns, is later. For rational and deductive reasoning, that is just a special case where the causal relationships are taken much more seriously than usual. For vision, to do at all well, need to do at least fairly well with concepts -- that is, vision needs to identify objects for which the intelligence already has, or at least is in the process of learning, concepts and, say, recognizing a 3D object from just its 2D image. I'm busy with my startup now, but later maybe I'll try to code up what I just described. Here I'd be using electronic logic; how biologic logic does such things, e.g., search the collection of 3D internal visualizations of concepts that are 3D objects, I don't have a clue.