Author: David Dory
Date: 10:49:53 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 11:37:03, karen Dall Lynn wrote: >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. > >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?" > <post snipped> Karen, what Jose is referring to is the inhuman workings of a binary digital computer, the kind we all use today, regardless of software. He is not referring to a new computer architecture. Jose, what Karen is referring to is that in the future, computers may be built using an entirely different design than what we use today. They might be analog and not be limited to 0's and 1's. When and if the computer is built that understands jokes, does that make it OK to distract it with limericks while playing chess against it? I need all the advantage I can get! <grin> Dave
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.