I don''t see the two approaches as being contradictory and I did suggest their similarity not state that they were identical. Subsumption architectures were implemented by Brooks using FSMs not neural networks, though as a methodology the ideas can be translated over. Brooks froze each layer before building the next layer on top of it, each layer, operating ansynchronously, performing one behaviour (which is a pretty subjective statement). I don''t think I''ve dived a million miles away from the subsumption architecture Brooks proposed in comparing it to what''s being discussed. If you could point out the differences I''d be happy to admit I''m wrong (though that happens sooooo rarely
As to the papers, Brooks wrote intelligence without representation first (back in ''87) but both papers "Intelligence without reason" and "intelligence without representation" were published in ''91. Both are quite similar in content but I can''t remember the exact differences as I read them back to back over a year ago. Look here for a reference http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=intelligence+without&cs=1
Freezing the lower behaviours when building the higher behaviours seems mad to me as well. Hence my statements about having everything work as a cohesive unit and evolving the choice modules together as a final step with building a quake bot. Brooks also never used GAs as far as I know and builds everything by hand. It seems like many people in this field do some good work then go a bit mad and screw it up by re-adopting old methodologies or crazy ideas (Brooks, De Garis, Warwick). But then I am indoctrinated to the Sussex approach to evolutionary science and behaviour based robotics and they''re pretty darn indoctrinating in terms of the _right_ way of doing things.
I do love the idea of intelligence starting with reactive behaviours as a rule though. From the day I first understood Braitenberg vehicles and how complex behaviour could arise without any intelligence at all I fell in love with this approach. It''s true that Deep Blue will beat any ANN hands down in a game of chess using representation but this doesn''t make it the right (most robust, most potential filled) approach.
A question though, what makes my description a hybrid architecture? What are the differences between what I described and what you consider subsumption to be (in an absolute, precise sense).
I look forward to your reply.