Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
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.
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