Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:27:28 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 16:54:45, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>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.
I did not say that life was randomness. Life USES randomness.
I would say there are two main parts in the process of evolution (and here I
have invented nothing): randomness and selection.
Randomness is "responsible" for the creative way life expands. Selection is
"responsible" for its organization and order (even if it was not the primary
goal of selection).
>>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.
Here we go again. By this sentence you imply that you have set an arbitrary line
between "intelligence" and "non-intelligence". By doing this you fall into the
trap.
> 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.
That's the point. Every behaviour has some "intelligence", to various degrees.
Instead of trying to define what is intelligent and what is not, we should try
to define what is "more intelligent".
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.