3 ms·

That's a good point. It makes me think that strong AI would have to have both neural network and rule-based components. However, I think that the meta-function

That's a good point. It makes me think that strong AI would have to have both neural network and rule-based components. However, I think that the meta-function that decides when to use one or the other would have to be a neural network. I think that's the way it works in human beings. I think that is so because the realities that intelligence is supposed to deal with are such that they can't be fully described by any single or multiple systems of precise concepts. That was Wittgenstein's point, and also many other philosophers such as Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, Whitehead, Putnam, Strawson, Rorty, and all the Pragmatists.

bbctol 10y ago
I agree that a lack of precision with respect to correspondence with the real world is inevitable. I don't think that at all mandates a neural network (and artificial neural networks are only superficially similar to human neurons, and their performance often improves by making them even less analogous.) But the idea that the world can't be fully and accurately described by a simple system of precise concepts, as much as it would pain Leibniz, doesn't necessitate that an intelligent agent couldn't use strictly rule-based logic.