"The large ball crashed right through the table because it was made of Styrofoam. What was made of Styrofoam? (The alternative formulation replaces Stryrofoam w

"The large ball crashed right through the table because it was made of Styrofoam. What was made of Styrofoam? (The alternative formulation replaces Stryrofoam with steel.) a) The large ball b) The table" And a very large styrofoam ball can crash a comparatively small table made of wood, all depends on relative definition of 'large' right? I think the problem is that everybody can pick his favorite feature and define it as the key of 'general intelligence'. Some say Anaphora, some say machine learning; I like Hofstaedter he says that it is all about analogy. http://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinking/dp/0465018475 http://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinkin... Also: The problem is that these statements can't be proven; it is all about opinions and dogmas; I think the argument is s question of power: the one who wins the argument has the power over huge DARPA funds, or whoever else gives out grants for this type of research. The run after defining problems (expert systems, big data) in AI might have something to do with the funding problem. The 'Society of Mind' argument says that there are many agents that together somehow miraculously create intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind This argument sounds good, but it makes it hard to search for general patterns/universal explanations of intelligence. On the one hand they have to focus on some real solvable problem, on the other hand that makes it very hard to ask and find answers to general questions; I don't know if there will be some solution to this dilemma.