Author: Graham Laight
Date: 10:04:58 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 11:43:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 10:05:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Bruce: >>I wonder if your statement about generalizing as the clue of the issue is enough >>precise for the task of approaching it. I am not sure a program that can handle >>specific positions in terms of a general kind of criteria is "generalizing". It >>sounds to me more as categorizing. Categorizing supposes that a category >>previously exist and that there are certain rules to allocate cases inside each >>of the boxes of the category. So it is, in a dregree, a mechanical task. >>Generalizing supposes, IMHO, not only that, but to create the category, to >>discover something common that was not aparent before. So a really intelligent >>act not only order the world, but order it in some different way. Of course not >>all days we can do that, but then maybe it could be said that no all days >>intelligent people behave as such. A great deal of our behaviours is just some >>kind of rutine, even if it is high level rutine. What I would accept for >>programs is that they use some kind of rutinized intelligence, pre-cooked >>intelligence. But, again, all this supposes a certain criteria about >>intelligence that maybe is mine but not yours. This is a very open case for >>debate. >>Cheers >>Fernando > >Programs take a position and produce a move. If the position is something >unexpected by the programmer, in many cases they still do fine. > >A human exhibits intelligence when he or see meets a new situation and makes a >joke about it. > >Human intelligence is much more generalized and much more complex, but this >isn't about whether the programs are human, it's about whether they exhibit >intelligent behavior. > >Playing chess is good enough for a program. So what if they can't brush their >teeth or have a social life? A lot of chess players can't either. > >bruce I think that human intelligence is both wider than most people think and narrower than most people think - all at once! Wider because most people have no idea how much computing power (hardware, software and data!) is required to live an everyday life in any society. Narrower, because listening to most people on almost any radio phone in program reveals an unbelievably widespread stupidity about many aspects of life (science/history/politics/society/sport/arts/business etc) to what I find to be an incredible degree. What I'm saying is that most humans do not have a "wide" domain of knowledge - they have a narrow domain of knowledge with which they live their everyday lives. Just like a chess computer. -g
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.