Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:06:48 03/19/01
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: >> [deleted] > >>>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. No, because I do not think that there is a line. I think that there is a blurred limit that you cannot draw any line. However, in the extremes you can certainly tell that a human is intelligent and a piece of stone is not. >> 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". You can't define what is more intelligent because intelligence is not characterized in only one dimension. My opinion is that you can say when somthing has signs of intelligence or not. It is like defining life, or sports. We know that soccer is a sport and watching TV is not. But there are things in between that are not so clear. Regards, Miguel > > > > 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.