I am not agreeing with your argument, but let me play devil's advocate.
If somebody wanted to produce a real AI, every bit as intelligent as a human, he probably wouldn't go wrong by trying to reproduce in software what Pascal Boyer describes in his book "Religion Explained".
http://www.Amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origin...
Boyer fails, in my mind, in many ways, but at the very least by not providing a solution to the Frame Problem. The Frame Problem looms very large in all of Boyer's descriptions of folk psychology, and how the human mind works. Yet it is completely unaddressed.
For a good explanation of the Frame Problem, see Daniel Dennett's argument "Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI" in chapter 7 of "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence".
http://www.Amazon.com/Philosophy-Artificial-Intelligence-Oxf...
In this article, Dennett is his own worst enemy, in that he proves that AI isn't possible. (Nobody has solved the Frame Problem yet.)
If somebody wanted to produce a real AI, every bit as intelligent as a human, he probably wouldn't go wrong by trying to reproduce in software what Pascal Boyer describes in his book "Religion Explained". http://www.Amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origin...
Boyer fails, in my mind, in many ways, but at the very least by not providing a solution to the Frame Problem. The Frame Problem looms very large in all of Boyer's descriptions of folk psychology, and how the human mind works. Yet it is completely unaddressed.
For a good explanation of the Frame Problem, see Daniel Dennett's argument "Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI" in chapter 7 of "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence". http://www.Amazon.com/Philosophy-Artificial-Intelligence-Oxf... In this article, Dennett is his own worst enemy, in that he proves that AI isn't possible. (Nobody has solved the Frame Problem yet.)