From weng@cse.msu.edu  Wed Mar  1 21:28:37 2000
From: Dr John J Weng <weng@cse.msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:28:29 -0500 (EST)
To: wdl@cse.msu.edu
Subject: WDL Dis. #9

======== WDL Dis. #9 (Bcc: all WDL participants) ======

Stan,

Yes, SOAR does chunking.  It breaks a decision process
into smallest chunks and it allows human to specify how each
chunk can be solved.  This gives solution to larger chunks.
Solution to a chuck can be used in any other places where the
same chunk appears.  The best SOAR paper that I personally like 
is the Robo-Soar paper:

J. E. Laird, E. S. Yager, M. Hucka and C. M. Tuck,
"Robo-Soar: An integration of external interaction, planning
and learning using Soar,"  Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
vol. 8, pp. 113-129, 1991. 

However, it seems that, among other fundamental problems,
a basic fundamental problem with Soar (as well as other systems)
is the use of SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION.  With a symbolic 
representation, the representation must be assigned with meaning 
(by human) at the time of programming.  However, an algorithm 
for automatic development must automatically generate 
representation.  For example, an infant who is born in US is 
moved to China right after the birth will learn Chinese 
successfully.  If the developmental algorithm of the child 
(in his gene) is pre-built with symbolic representation of 
English, he will not be able to learn Japanese.   Thus, it 
seems that a system that can automatically develop MUST NOT 
use symbolic representation. 

In a non-developmental system, it is the programmer who understands
the task(s) that the system will deal with.  Think about a machine.

In a developmental system, it is the system itself to understand
the task(s) that the system will deal with.  Think about a human. 

Does automatic development just mean learn more and more?
Does automatic development require a revolution? 

Any comments from the participants? 

John