Author: Tony Werten
Date: 12:25:44 03/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 17:27:28, Christophe Theron wrote: >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". A lot of people seem to think that humans are more intelligent. No matter at what. If there is a task that computers do better than humans then by there definition this task has nothing to do with intelligence. (because humans are more intelligent ) Selffullfilling proffecy I think it's called (but not written that way, I'm sure ). For years people said a computer would not be able to play chess, because it lacks intelligence. Now it can play decent chess and suddenly chess has nothing to do with intelligence. Tony > > > > 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.