Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:55:27 08/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2002 at 22:01:30, Matthew Hull wrote: >>Back to CC. :) >> >>I wished we could establish a journalism where real analyses are more important >>than just reporting who came in first or second. I wished to read something >>competent about chess in modern CC. But for such nonsense ChessBase does no >>sponsoring. Critical questions are being censored. So we have no investigative >>journalism at all. Then you are right. It's just about quickly evaporating fun. >>And hoping for the next generation of processors. Archeologists in future will >>have some real work to do... >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >> > >Okay. Let's see. (This should be CTF right? Don't worry, no one will read this >anyway). Surely not! What have Jesus, Israel's military forces or war to do with chess or computerchess? Of course our topics are general and on a meta level above pure technical CC. I thought such thoughts could influence CC and its engineers. > >"...we should try to realize that philosophically our individual life and that >of the human race has no real meaning at all." --Rolf > >"So, the meaning of what we're doing lies in the perfection how we're doing >it.", --Rolf > >which according to the first statement, _still_ means nothing. _Only_ if you are thinking in a typical 1 or 0 dualism. Because I'm not at all a professional writer my definitions, the moment you quote them as such, are not exact enough. Will you inspire my writing qualities? Perhaps you see it too complicated. We live our life. It has no superior meaning. Or meta-levelled meaning. The meaning can only be living with as much ethics as possible. But we cannot answer questions like 'What are we living for? What is the meaning of me being German?' Science is the solution for many questions we have, but the more answers we find, the more new questions arise. And the answers are too difficult for most of us. > >Well for me at least, that statement takes all the fun out of just about >everything. It would seem then, from your point of view, that science is an >escape or diversion from the disagreeable reality quoted above. "Therefore >sciences are so interesting..." No, science isn't an escape, it's the actually best solution to deal with the many questions we have and the answers we get. Reality isn't disagreeable either. No matter the level, if you are doing your job carefully and with inspiration you will get the recompensation automatically. Perhaps this is difficult to understand because most of us have lost all the fun in our schools, where the socially wanted fraud must be trained, but where the thoughts I mentioned, better tried quoting them, are unknown. To breed animals or grow vegetables could be "fun" and likewise it is "fun" to solve differential equitations. These differentiations in human life are already fun enough. Or how would you explain why some people have that yearning for mastership in different fields? Of course the reality of for mathematicians passing their 30s or 40s life can be dull when even with best talents you can't find new discoveries. So forcedly you're looking around. On the other hand having administration responsibilities requires demanding socially superior ease. > >This is making sense to me. Before, I couldn't figure out why you were trying >to find so much scientific, investigative depth of discussion in CC. Somehow >you just picked CC to sublimate the escape from an uncomfortable reality. >That's okay. I can understand that. But it's not the truth! Perhaps you can take a look in http://members.aol.com/mclanecxantia/myhomepage/rolfsmosaik.html, where I have explained how I came to chess and CC. But also after this reading you might not change your view. > >And now, to help you on your quest. From my point of view, the topic here has >been explored pretty thoroughly to the point of being done to death. If there >_were_ any substantive, meaningful, scientific value in the subject, it would >have been found by now. The well is pretty much dry. I mean, it's just a >technical discussion about being able to find the scintilla of good answers out >of the countless zillions of losing answers in a game tree. It's not worth the >full set-piece scientific assault and monitoring you seem to suggest. It's just >a nice little brain teaser--perhaps to distract us from the disagreeable...well >never mind. You remind me - only for the last paragraphe here - of a typical bureaucrat who has the typical final answers. 'We already did it; we have done what we could; we always did it this way...' etc. With such an attitude you could close most of the sciences. Because how would you deal with changes in whole p*a*r*a*d*i*g*m*s? With the mind police? You seem to have difficulties with the psychological side of all that. If you have the blues, you have blue spectacles on your nose, at least it seems so, while the other times you have red or violet glasses. The reality is almost always the same, but you see two different versions at different times. > >I think what would really be a better vent for your probative gifts would be a >good forum on AI in general. Not CC. CC is such a narrow and unimportant >corner of the subject. Thank you. I will think about it. But as I said, it's also satisfying to do something good where you are at the moment. >But I guess even that is problematical, since AI in >general is such an embarrassing failure. I mean really, a fruit fly has more >impressive computing power and intelligence than the sum total of computer >creation. Yes, but exactly because of this, it's so much fun trying to cope with all the problems in computer sciences. Because hopefully we'ld become more and more successful with our technical copies. Not in your lifetime, but in that of your children's children perhaps. Remember the meaning question? With blue spectacles or the burning-out syndrome etc. you see disagreeable darkness... > >Maybe the only AI research that _has_ had any success worth noting is chess. A >stupid game. That's it. This is wrong! Read for instance the almost 200 postings big thread in CSS forum about CC and AI, I once inspired with a quote from Searls. Not knowing you I can tell you that your depressive view is a result of your lacking of new challenges! And before too long you'll find new inspirations and hopes, no matter how old you are. Take John Nash's "remission" from schizophrenic depressions. In his old age he started with computer sciences and at the same time he began to care for his ill son. He once was a mathematical genius and half of the people with his difficulties commit suicide! But his talents always helped him to find something new in maths and in social competence in the end. Isn't this _fun_ after all? > And buddy, if that's what you're pinning your hopes on >for (dare I say) meaningful, to say nothing of investigative, journalistic, >scientific, probative analysis, then perhaps you are barking up the wrong game >tree. That tree only has losing answers. > >So what to do? Searching for some new glasses? ;) > You've read Confucious and Montaigne and one assumes you are not >hanging out at the Confucious/Montaigne forums. Very smart hypothesis. KANT never travelled! He always stayed at Königsberg. :) > >A suggestion perhaps? The "no meaning" torpedo you launched above is what's >sinking your ship, mate. Perhaps it would be best to cease fire on _that_ >subject. You're killing yourself. Impossible! In a way it's part of one's character staying alive! And character is a question of responsibility inspite of one's genes and environment. > >As for CC, you can do better than to spend your considerable intellectual energy >on it. There's nothing there to find, except maybe checkmate once in a while. > >Regards, >Matt Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. Feeling better now. Rolf Tueschen
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.