Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 05:08:04 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 04:01:41, Terry Ripple wrote:
>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
That's the point. The baby is like the guy in the room.
I regret I don't have enough time to explain further my views on this matter...
Christophe
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.