Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 19:02:35 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 05:53:07, Andrew Dados wrote: >Indeed. So let's say learn thai chess in 20 years :) >Or create some other game. >Or _develop_ some idea of 'beauty' or 'goal'. See, now you are using the same arguments that people use to try to say that animals can't have any intelligence whatsoever. I think it's a matter of degree. Humans use their brains to adapt to change, but other creatures can do the same thing to lesser degree, I believe. Your comments are an attempt to tie intelligence to humanity and consciousness, and I don't agree with that. Clearly, if we're going to talk about machine intelligence, we get nowhere if it's stipulated that you have to be a human to have any intelligence at all. I think there are a great many problems that humans use intelligence to solve. In many cases that's how you solve these problems, so, within reason, if you are solving these problems you may be exhibiting it. I think that a program that writes music in the "human" mode exhibits intelligence. It's a hard problem, and a program is forced to generalize. I don't say that a program that exhibits intelligence is superior to humans, is human, is self-aware, etc. bruce >Somehow intelligent means 'transcendent' to me. > >And while chess program can play chess I would expect it to be able to play Thai >chess, too. Or to learn that N+R vs R is dead draw after few games. Or to >prepare against given opponent. Or study openings on its own.
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.