Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:46:10 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 13:42:59, Dan Ellwein wrote:
>On March 14, 2001 at 12:20:14, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote:
>
>>On March 14, 2001 at 10:39:30, William H Rogers wrote:
>>
>>>On March 13, 2001 at 19:06:27, HECTOR MUNOZ wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are some who might argue that a computer chess program is not a
>>>>demonstration of intelligence in particular, a program which uses Shannon's
>>>>Type A Approach. I need to present a solid argument that such a program
>>>>does involve intelligence.
>>>
>>>If we consider that logic is a main part of intelligence, then we can conclude
>>>that the amount of logic programmed into chess or other programs might be
>>>considered as intelligence. These types of programs examine a chess board, and
>>>after following all of the logical parametes that were put into them, they then
>>>make a decision based upon that logic, however flawed it might be or limited in
>>>its knowledge.
>>>In that many of todays chess programs are able to beat world "human" champions
>>>it must be acknowledged that they possess some intelligence. How many other
>>>people on the planet can beat the same human chess champions?
>>>Bill
>>
>> Please see ==> http://benbest.com/computer/ai.html JAFM
>
>thanks for the aritcle, Jose
>
>the most interesting part of the article for me was the following excerpt...
>
>
>"In 1980 philosopher John Searle wrote a paper describing a thought experiment
>of a person passing the Turing Test in Chinese.
>
>In this scenario, an English-speaking person who is ignorant of Chinese would
>sit in a room in which he/she would receive messages written in Chinese.
>
>Detailed scripts would describe what responses to provide.
>
>Even though the person in the "Chinese Room" might convince the Chinese
>interrogator that someone in the room understood Chinese,
>
>all that occurred in reality was symbol manipulation.
>
>Searle claimed that this is all computers ever do or can do --
>
>manipulate symbols without any real understanding of what those symbols mean."
That is where I so strongly disagree with Searle.
Christophe
>when i think of the different programmers that post here: Ed, Christophe, Bob,
>and others...
>
>and their respective programs... this is what in my mind is going on...
>
>these guys are imparting their 'intelligence' to the computer and the computer
>in turn is manipulating data as defined by the algorithms (modules) put there by
>the programmer...
>
>the computer, then, will exhibit intelligence to the degree that the programmers
>have effectively defined chess to the computer...
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.