Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 20:16:40 03/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2001 at 18:46:57, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 19, 2001 at 17:21:45, Dan Ellwein wrote: > >>On March 19, 2001 at 01:45:25, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On March 18, 2001 at 23:19:24, Robin Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On March 18, 2001 at 21:47:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 18, 2001 at 15:29:12, Dan Newman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 16, 2001 at 22:18:23, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 15, 2001 at 05:41:33, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>snip >> >>>>>Sounds like chinese to me. :) >>>>> >>>>>Nice chinese BTW, but still... :) >>>>> >>>>>Seriously, I probably need to introspect a little bit more in order to try to >>>>>understand what some people find mysterious about "conscience". >>>> >>>>Imagine an alien race that flys to earth in a UFO and is studying humans. They >>>>hear humans talk about things being "funny", or "falling in love", or something >>>>is "beautiful" or that they are "afraid". But the aliens have no idea of these >>>>concepts. They have no equivalent to these concepts in their home world. So >>>>they decide they will disect a human to find out the meaning these words. But >>>>will they find "love" by disecting a brain or a neuron? Maybe, but not unless >>>>their technology is more advanced than ours. And if not, and when that doesn't >>>>work, lets say they study humans by doing a brain scan (MRI) of someone who is >>>>experiencing the emotion of fear. Will the brain scan help them understand >>>>fear? Sure, it will show what areas of the brain are active, or that the pupils >>>>of they eye have responded by dilating or that the sweat glands become active. >>>>But will they know what fear is like when it is *experienced*? Again, not >>>>unless their technology is more advanced than ours. Do you remember when you >>>>were young, learning the "facts of life" i.e. the mechanics of sex? You then >>>>knew all about what happens ... first you do this, then this happens ..... But >>>>when you *experience* it, it is something else again. >>>> >>>>Another way to think about it is in terms of computer programming. How would >>>>you go about programming a computer to feel afraid? Of course you have no idea, >>>>since no one does. You could program a robot to exhibit the same behaviors as a >>>>human that is afraid, but does this mean that the robot experiences the emotion >>>>of fear? Who knows. All we can see is the behavior. We don't know how to peer >>>>into and see the subjective experience of others. >>>> >>>>My grandfather used to pooh-pooh the idea of gravity. He would say "down is >>>>down and that is why things fall". Most people just accept the facts presented >>>>to them by their experiences without question. "Everyone knows" things fall >>>>down. But then someone asks "why" and if an answer to the mystery of why things >>>>fall is found, suddenly we have Newtons laws of gravitation. >>>> >>>>We all have these subjective experiences. But why? Brains, sensory organs, >>>>hormones, DNA; these all explain the mechanics of our existance, but NONE of >>>>this knowledge would lead us to inevitably conjecture the existance of >>>>subjective experiences unless we already knew about them. There is something we >>>>don't yet understand going on. >>>> >>>>Robin >>> >>> >>> >>>Subjective experiences are defined by the states of the information processing >>>entity. >>> >>>It's no wonder they cannot be transfered "as is" in another entity (which has a >>>different structure). So you are bound to look at "feelings" from the outside >>>and deduce what these feelings are only by the behaviour of the entity. >>> >>>Your examples about love, fear, humour, beauty are certainly very romantic, but >>>it - again - sounds very old fashioned to me. >>> >>>Some of these "feelings" will probably appear in very complex computing machines >>>and it will be possible to see it from the outside. >>> >>>At the time there were no computers, and machines were made of gears, people >>>could have wondered how a machine could gather informations and do anything >>>useful with it, but now that we have computers of such complexity and that we >>>are foreseeing gigantic advances in this complexity, I think it is time to >>>update our way of thinking... >>> >>>I'm not trying to contradict you by all means. It's just that I don't see >>>mysteries where you see them. >> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>hmm... >> >>maybe Gambit Tiger is really the human... >> >>and Christophe is the computer... >> >>:) >> >>PilgrimDan > > >:) > >I understand that what I say might sound a little bit too "dry". > >It's just because I start at the bottom (at the low level, simple components) >and try to go in the ascending direction (high level, complex entities). > >I assume as little as possible and try to see if it is enough to make a step in >the ascending direction. I don't add a new concept until it is absolutely >necessary. > >I do that also with computer chess. I have expressed several times this idea, >and rejected a number of common assumptions, on the ground that these >assumptions were not necessary and were just there to add complexity and >confusion to an otherwise rather simple model. > >One might disagree, but that's just the way I look at a new problem, generally. > > > Christophe well... i must admit Christophe... your reasoning does make sense... sort of like the ol' addage that says... 'too many cooks spoil the broth' chess gets so complicated at times... that we miss the sure and clear path... we let distractions get in the way and that clouds our reasoning... for instance, something as simple as asking a basic question: "what can happen on a move in chess?" sounds easy... we say, well... a piece can move from here to there... or a piece can capture another piece... but, wait a minute... there is also those special cases... en-passant, castling, and pawn promotion... and all of a sudden a simple question does not have such a simple answer... so we try to reduce this down to its basic elements... with something like the following: A Side B Side P1 (a-b) -- P1 (a-b) P2 (b-0) P1 (a-b) P2 (c-0) P1 (a-b), P2 (c-d) -- P1 (a-0), p2 (0-b) -- the first one is simply a piece moving from one square to a different square the second one is a piece capturing the opponent's piece the third one is en-passant (a variation of the 2nd one) the fourth is castling the fifth is pawn promotion (0 = off the board) notice that a piece moving, a piece being captured, and pawn promotion involves 2 squares... en-passant involves 3 squares and castling involves 4 squares... not sure if this is what your gettin' at, but i gave it a shot... :) PilgrimDan
This page took 0.01 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.