Thanks for the comment, but let's try to keep this discussion friendly and not ad hominem. I'd politely disagree that my comment was a sequence of empty statem

Thanks for the comment, but let's try to keep this discussion friendly and not ad hominem. I'd politely disagree that my comment was a sequence of empty statements, but allow me to provide some clarifying details that might help your understanding. The debate I describe is actually critical. If humans are not fundamentally different, than the field should be able to model more simplistic animals (such as a rat), and slowly build up to a model of human level intelligence. On the other-hand, if there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals, then simply modeling other animals will not scale, and will leave the field wanting. I don't think we have to get too specific to debate this. I would point to Winston, Tattersall, Chomsky as three widely respected individuals who present the case that symbolic language (and the uniquely human ability to combine two concepts into a new concept, indefinitely) is the keystone that separates humans from other animals. In your second criticism, we agree exactly. As you can see in my previous comment, I agree that "commonsense" is an arbitrary term. Here, I was simply providing an example of how debating commonsense is not a useful exercise. Finally, in my last paragraph I was providing an example of how attempting to use "simple animals" as a basis for modeling human behavior has not effective. The previous commenter said that we haven't reached "lizard level" and pointed to the OpenWorm project. I pointed to a related project, from Brooks, that had a similar mission. It did not work, perhaps, because modeling simple animals (such as a rat or lizard), won't scale to humans. I did not meant to draw a general conclusion (since I said that it is simply another case, not a proof). As to your final line, let's keep this a lively discussion and not a personal attack.