Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:09:10 11/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2002 at 13:27:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 03, 2002 at 21:23:01, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>From the Chessbase website: >> >>"Computer science is ruthless - the final goal is to teach the computer the art >>of intuitive thought." > >There is no final goal to science. The above statement is therefore vacuous. > >>Really? I don't recall anybody talking about intuitive thought on this bulletin >>board. Did they? > >They have. Posts about "Do computers think" have floated by from time to time. Seriously, I wonder whether or not any of the internal activities of computers could be considered to be "intuitive thought." For that matter, the same question could be asked about "conscious thought." Human thought is generally regarded as being unconscious and conscious thought. Intuition presumably falls into the unconscious catagory. Would that make sense for computers? In other words, is it useful to catagorize different types of chess engine internal activities as being "thought," "unconscious thought, "conscious thought," "intuitive thought," or similar human-related concepts? Or, is there a better way to think of computer "mental activities"? [Does a chess engine have a mind of it's own?] Bob D.
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.