Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:50:36 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 17:27:13, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 17:22:42, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>>>Why should I have to define all my terms? There simple enough to grasp. >>> >>>Appearently not. >> >>Then reason it out. I know a computer can't do that. None in 2002 that is. > >This is what Russel and I have pointed out. If you define your terms as >'something a compuer can't do', then yes, there's no point at all in arguing >over this, and you're always going to be 'right'. That actually wasn't my point, but yes there are things computers can't do yet and it's why humans are there masters. Even in chess (A clear problem), we can exploit their weaknesses. > >>>My brain is just neurons firing away. You can actually simulate that within >>>a computer program. >> >>Only on a very limited scale. I haven't met "Data" yet. > >Sure. But it's the same principle :) Hmmm....it's the biginning, so is an amino acid:) > >>Then I pity you, as I am not so simple in my design. > >It's an entirely human treat to think more highly of yourself :) > >-- >GCP That is silly, as I'm not thinking more highly of myself in those terms. Of course you and I are far more advanced then anything we have yet created. Also it is demeaning to be lowered by machines through other people's eyes. We are higher than the best machine yet by miles, except for speed and maybe memory on the greatest of supercomputers. But they are as crude as and dumb as a "hammer" compared to us. In a thousand years, it may be the other way round. This is a useless conversation. Neither can learn from the other in this fashion. Best of Luck to You and Your Chess Programming Career! Terry
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.