Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 16:54:41 03/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2001 at 15:25:44, Tony Werten wrote:
>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
Good remark! :)
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.