Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!sandyz
From: sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Chess, Reductionism.
Summary: A rule by any other name....
Keywords: emergence, chess, reductionism
Message-ID: <349@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 90 23:10:07 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom DMS-10 Div., Raleigh, NC
Lines: 23

> >>In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights.
> >>If you regard this as a property of reality how is it a consequence of
> >>the laws of physics? 
> >     The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game.
> (Ken Presting) writes:
> The question of handling abstract rules in a physical system is very
> important for AI.  Inside a Von Neumann machine, everything looks like
> symbols crunched according to rules (according to some writers).  Inside
> a neural net, nothing looks like symbols or rules (again according to
> some).  What is the relationship between processes, perceptions, and
> rules?

Get out your flame-throwers, guys.  I think (at one level)

      rules = representation (symbols) = processes = perception

You just add more time as you go across.  E.G. a process is a "description"
of relationships over time.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
    Sandra Zinn              |   "The squirming facts
    (yep these are my ideas  |      exceed the squamous mind"
     they only own my kybd)  |         -- Wallace Stevens