Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 11:10:45 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 13:22:39, Terry McCracken wrote: >On October 15, 2002 at 12:49:18, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On October 15, 2002 at 12:18:41, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>Machines have _no_ intelligence. >> >>I always found it amusing that people are quick to conclude that machines have >>no intelligence, but when asked to give a definition of what intelligence really >>is, they fail miserably. >> >>Sargon > >I have no need to give a definition. You're not really cooperative. ;) All I asked you was to define the terms you use when you claim something. That sounds only fair to me. Your "I have no need" is a bit.. well.. :) A frequent reason when people discuss a matter is that the terms used are not properly defined. That usually means that the participants have a different understanding of what a certain terms means, and therefore it's not a surprise that the discussions don't lead to anything. If anything, they resemble a mud fight - just w/o the naked girls. =) >It's plain silly to think a computer thinks! A very convincing argument. ;) >Ask a computer the definition of intelligence, it can't explain it. Well, you fail to do so too, so what's your point? [snip] >The computer won't understand that. It doesn't understand anything, period. Let me guess.. because in order to understand it it would have to be intelligent? We kinda run in circles don't we? It seems to me that you define intelligence as something the computer is not capable of. Naturally no computer _can_ be intelligent, if you define it that way. >Intelligence is comprised with many many elements, none except memory >apply to the machine, and even that is quite different than human memory. There we have it again. It seems to me that what you refer to as 'intelligent', I refer to as 'being human'. Sargon
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.