Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:54:45 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 12:07:39, Christophe Theron wrote: >I have no problem to agree that a random algorithm has some sort of >intelligence. A random algorith is just a descripion of the laws of nature. >Actually the whole life process is based on a random algorithm. Both asexual and >sexual reproduction are a way to randomize. It's a trial-and-error process based >on randomness. And look at the achievements of this random process! On the contrary, the main characteristic of life is a fight against randomness. Nature is random. At least, that is the destiny of nature, chaos and randomness but life is order. If an entity does not fight against randomness, then it cannot be said that is "alive". On the other hand, some life processes use or take advantage of random events. Intelligence is also a sort of fight against randomness. >In the case you describe, doing something, even at random, is more "intelligent" >than doing nothing. If you do nothing you don't solve the problem, if you do >something at random, you solve it. IMHO, I would not call that intelligence. That is just the second law of thermodynamics. Even a molecule of gas will find the exit just by random chance. Doing nothing is just doing something at random. That is the default, "standing still" is actually more difficult. A random algorithm is trying to mimick the laws of nature. I will not call that intelligence, otherwise, anything is intelligent. Regards, Miguel > > > > >>IE I would say that finding a mate takes no real intelligence. A pure search >>can do it given enough time. But to choose between two moves that don't lead >>to mate requires something "else". >> >>The intelligence debate is hopeless. Since "intelligence" has never been >>adequately defined, there is no point in arguing whether a computer can >>exhibit it or not... But it does make for a lively conversation topic. Good >>way to torque off an AI guy in a discussion. :) > > >It's hopeless if you stay in the frame. > >Jump out of the frame! > >And the first thing to do is to give up the idea of defining what is intelligent >and what is not. Maybe a more useful idea is to try to define how you determine >that behaviour A is more intelligent than behaviour B. > > > > 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.