well and Simon are missing. They claim that the architecture does not matter, I believe that it does. If you are going to create human like intelligence, it seems only logical to me that it should be created with human like architecture and not a digital computer. I argue this partly from the fact that a connectionist network is capable of much more than a digital computer is, learning for example.There are objections that can be raised against what I have just stated. Many people believe that it is totally irrelevant as to what type of architecture computation is performed on. They believe that computation and intelligence can be arrived at by any means as long as an end is met. I feel that this is not the case. Yes, it is true that computers arrive at their desired ends, but this is not human like intelligence. Connectionists networks also arrive at their desired ends but in a much more human like way. They follow the architecture of the brain. This pattern has lead to concepts that the digital framework cannot achieve, such as human like learning and a strong reliance upon it's environment. Part 5: Conclusion I do not believe that the argument I have given for the accuracy against the physical symbol system is fully complete. What I do claim, however, is that I have shown that there are weakness in the theory of physical symbol systems. Overall, I believe that, to say anything that displays intelligent action must be a physical symbol system, such as one described by Newell and Simon, is not fully justified. This being because of the examples stated above. Word Count: 1, 421...
