5.3 An Architecture Diagram for Human-Like General Intelligence 103

5.3 An Architecture Diagram for Human-Like General Intelligence 103 concreteness, but of course the architecture is intended to be extended more broadly. In the hierarchy corresponding to an arm, for example, the lowest level would contain control patterns corresponding to individual joints, the next level up to groupings of joints (like fingers), the next level up to larger parts of the arm (hand, elbow). The different hierarchies corresponding to different body parts cross-link, enabling coordination among body parts; and they also con- nect at multiple levels to perception hierarchies, enabling sensorimotor coordination. Finally there is a module for motor planning, which links tightly with all the motor hierarchies, and also overlaps with the more cognitive, inferential planning activities of the mind, in a manner that is modeled different ways by different theorists. Albus [AMO1] has elaborated this kind of hierarchy quite elaborately. The reward hierarchy in Figure 5.6 provides reinforcement to actions at various levels on the hierarchy, and includes dynamics for propagating information about reinforcement up and down the hierarchy. LANGUAGE SUBSYSTEM PERCEPTUAL HIERARCHY : ) | MOTOR HIERARCHY Fig. 5.7: Architecture for Language Processing Figure 5.7 deals with language, treating it as a special case of coupled perception and action. The traditional architecture of a computational language comprehension system is a pipeline [JMO09] [Goel0d], which is equivalent to a hierarchy with the lowest-level linguistic features (e.g. sounds, words) at the bottom, and the highest level features (semantic abstractions) at the top, and syntactic features in the middle. Feedback connections enable semantic and cognitive mod- ulation of lower-level linguistic processing. Similarly, language generation is commonly modeled hierarchically, with the top levels being the ideas needing verbalization, and the bottom level corresponding to the actual sentence produced. In generation the primary flow is top-down, with bottom-up flow providing modulation of abstract concepts by linguistic surface forms. So, that’s it — an integrative architecture diagram for human-like general intelligence, split among seven different pictures, formed by judiciously merging together architecture diagrams produced via a number of cognitive theorists with different, overlapping foci and research paradigms. Is anything critical left out of the diagram? A quick perusal of the table of contents of cognitive psychology textbooks suggests to me that if anything major is left out, it’s also unknown to current cognitive psychology. However, one could certainly make an argument for explicit inclusion of certain other aspects of intelligence, that in the integrative diagram are HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013019