What needs to be explained/modelled and how can we check that we have good requirements specifications?
E.g. some people think that what needs to be explained about vision is simply how a depth-map is computed -- distance to contact in all directions. Others believe that the function of a visual system is to segment retinal images and recognise objects. Three more very different alternative requirements specifications are found in Marr, in J.J.Gibson and in the work of people who emphasise dynamical systems. It is arguable they have all done only a partial requirements analysis for vision (or more generally perception).
Similar things can be said about what needs to be explained/modelled regarding: learning, motivation, affect in general, linguistic ability, reasoning, action control, consciousness, etc.
In particular work on empirical evidence from very young children, unusual humans (e.g. people with brain damage) or other animals can be useful in helping to avoid narrow thinking based on what normal adult humans (in our culture) can do.
What other animals do may provide evidence about evolutionary precursors and about unnoticed sub-systems in human capabilities.
[I.e. *merely* reporting on what some system has achieved is not appropriate for a GC5 symposium.]
[This is not the place for discussion of lucas/searle/penrose arguments as to whether AI is impossible. We are concerned with how it is possible, if it is. ]
There are potentially profound applications that could follow from significant progress with GC5, not just in the obvious areas of building new smart robots and other machines, but in connection with applications arising from a deeper understanding of how humans work, including new ways of doing education, counselling, therapy, diagnosis of brain disorders and other kinds of mental disorders, and perhaps new forms of treatment. I am especially interested in ways in which understanding better what enables a toddler to grow up to be mathematician could revolutionise mathematics education in primary schools. But I suspect that discussing all this is premature.