Author: Don Dailey
Date: 18:44:42 01/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
I still have a feeling everyone is not talking about the same thing. Everyone is stating their point of view but no one has yet defined intelligence. Bruce did give it a shot (and I like it) but it's still very general. I have a feeling we might all agree on whether programs were intelligent or not if we had the same definition in mind. But what does everyone THINK intelligence is? Obviously some of us think playing chess is, others think it is not. Or at least the way it's played by computers vs humans. And yet we all know exactly how a chess program actually works. So there is some point where we disagree on the definition. - Don On January 28, 1998 at 21:28:57, Don Dailey wrote: >On January 28, 1998 at 21:02:23, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Sprry for the long title, but it seems that at least part of the >>discussion about this issue just happens becauise a confussion between >>human mind with human intelligence andf human intelligence with >>intelligence as such. Human mind is a complex design where many levels >>of adaptative capacities, beginning with sensorial ones, are >>interrelated in such a complex way -including emotions- that in fact >>human intelligence cannot be understioood without them. Thee recent book >>Descarte's error by Mr Antonio R. Damasio show convincingly that. >>Nevwerthelles, wwhat cannot be separated in the human domain does not >>means that cannot be separated in any other domain. Intelligence is just >>a kind of behaviour we can define as a capacity to solve adaptative >>problems, that is, in academic exopression, to solve problems. That's >>all. Of course from the point of view of human experuience of >>intelligence, any other form is a kind of imitation, something >>artificial, specially if we have designed it. But intelligence is >>intelligence, no matter if: >>a) Operates separated or united to other functions >>B) if operates in an organic neural network or a sintetic one >>C) if it is of high or low level intelligence >>D) if his fdomain is wide or narrow. >>Also, on the ground of a value definition, we have the right to define >>intelligence only to anything that is equal to human intelligence, but >>that kind of reasonning does not go to anywhere, is not scientific as >>much does not let room for further discussion. >>I think chess programs are Intelligent devices, artificial if you wish >>to call that way, but in any sense intelligent, even if they are not >>VERY intelligent beyond a very narrow scope. And why ther are son? >>becasue they solve not only problems, but different problems. Inside the >>chess domain, each posiition is a different problem. To think they are >>not because they operates on the basis of rules is like to say we are >>not intelligent because we operate on the ground of aristotelian logic >>rules, Descartes rules, scientific method rules and so on.
This page took 0 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.