Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 01:01:41 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 00:46:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >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... ----------------------- When a baby is born into this world, don't we in a sense program that child for it's future knowledge and behavior! Without training, and knowledge taught to this child, that child would turn out pretty dumb!!! Regards,Terry
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.