Author: karen Dall Lynn
Date: 08:37:03 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 10:44:31, José Carlos wrote: >On February 19, 2002 at 10:07:12, karen Dall Lynn wrote: > >>On February 19, 2002 at 09:24:07, José Carlos wrote: >> >>> As it has been brought up again and I didn't give my opinion in the past, I'd >>>like to say what I think about all of that. >> >> >> [DIET QUOTE PLEASE REFER TO THE PARENT POST ABOVE] > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean :( > >> I think it is good to distinguish between fast-dumb and slow-smart, and that >>>they can be cosidered two paradigms in computer chess programming, at least, two >>>schools (I don't know if this direct translation is correct in english). But >>>magic doesn't exist. It's all about 1's and 0's... >>> >>> José C. >> >> >>I agree with your detachment of two main "rationales" for chess programming. I >>also agree that so far chess programs may have all their routines reducible to >>even less than 010100101001101010 tapes, indeed to any set of tokens that >>restricts the whole processes to syntactical processing. >> >>But the philosophical point here is not that the chess programs, as similar >>behaviorial programs, lack psychological or intentional characteristics in their >>bottom; the interesting point is that in a blind experiment we humans can >>**remain in doubt** if our opponent is a program or not -- this doubt being >>imprinted on us for no more thant the syntactical competence of the program. >> >>In this sense, chess programs *do have* the psychological accent int heir >>rockbotom they lack. For all practical proposes, when some cyborg wins an online >>game while cheating by the use of a program, and the other complains: "you're a >>program" there remains the benefit of doubt when the cheater replies: "I am >>not", provided he/she is really cheating. >> >>Allan Turing was honored when contemporary cognitive philosophers gave his name >>to this test: Turing Test. A program is said to have passed in the turing test >>when, in the best of their effort, humans cannot be sure (again in a blind >>exeperiment) if they are playing chess against a program or against a human. >> >>Now, if some future chess programming will be smart in a different way - for >>instance, semantically (not only syntactically) smart - and if some >>unconvencional programming will come to use (for instance, fuzzy programming, >>paraconsistent programming etc) -- this would break your dichotomy between >>slow-smart and fast-dumb into a new qualitative category. But that's for the >>future, imho. >> >>Karen > > I agree. That category might exist one day. But my point is that even when >that happens, it still will be an illusion in the sense that behind all of that >abstraction we still will have the 1001001110... > > José C. Tks for replying. We cannot possibly know in advance that all future programming will be discretely syntactical, involving a huge generalization of a Turing Machine (a function-box that receives a continuous tape with one of two symbols of an alphabet; in each read, it either changes the symbol or keeps it unaltered). There are concepts that cannot be formalized that way - for instance, continuously graded concepts like the concept of "baldness" (What would be the 0/1 blend you'd attribute for a man - if 1 stands for "hair" and 0 for "no hair" in each of his head points - in order to start to call him a bald man?). Or - how could you formalize, in purely syntactical terms, the funny side of the following question: "Laden, where have you bin?" in the face of which most of the English native speakers would perhaps laugh? Some has said that the intelligent act must involve fuzzy concepts; in this case, future intelligent programs may not be able to restrict themselves to synthactical procedures and syntactical programming. Karen P.S.: [DIET QUOTE...] means I made your posting "thinner", supressing part of it so that my posting would not be too long. [...PLEASE REFER TO THE PARENT POST ABOVE] is a warn to the reader that he/she has to read your complete posting in the message to which mine was a follow-up (the "parent" post in the tree) in order to know the complete statement of your position. Karen
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.