Author: Will Singleton
Date: 00:48:34 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 18:21:27, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On December 16, 1999 at 16:06:08, Dan Homan wrote: >>That's a real problem. Maybe the way to say it without defining intelligence >>is "computers can preform well at tasks that require intelligence for humans, >>chess for example". This leaves the conclusions about intelligence up to the >>reader. > >And what exactly do you win by this? Now people will fight what tasks require >intelligence for humans. :) Does driving a car for example require intelligence? >Looking at the number of people who actually have a driving license one could >tend to answer this question with 'not really' at least. :) > >I think the definition of intelligence you posted some messages ago is the best >one so far. Being able to learn and act reasonably in situation you never >saw before. (not your exact wording) > >Kind regards, > -sargon I would disagree (surprise). The only real definition of intelligence is awareness of self. That's what separates man from machine, and man from animal. Once one is self-aware, then real understanding is possible. Will
This page took 0.02 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.