Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!troi.cc.rochester.edu!ta2cs220
From: ta2cs220@troi.cc.rochester.edu (H. Y. Firooznia)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: computer life?
Message-ID: <12565@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 91 18:54:08 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.190553.20519@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <12548@ur-cc.UUCP> <1991Mar3.025707.16737@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Sender: news@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Lines: 30

In article <1991Mar3.025707.16737@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> dailey@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) writes:
>In article <12548@ur-cc.UUCP> ta2cs220@troi.cc.rochester.edu (H. Y. Firooznia) writes:

>I think the the computer is being used as an "extension" of the
>programmer's brain.  The computer itself is not truly showing
>intelligence, it is merely following instructions.

An "extension"?  Perhaps.  However, I think I disagree with you on the 
issue of whether or not it exhibits intelligence.  You seem to be defining
intelligence on the basis of internal operations, as opposed to behavior.  
I would say that Deep Thought may indeed be intelligent, when it comes to
playing chess, regardless of how it does it.  The problem here, I think,
is the definition of intelligence.


>>  How do you define "different"?  Would you say that Deep Thought plays
>>in a manner different from humans?  How different?
>
>Good point.  When the computer can no longer be viewed as an extension
>of the human programmer but rather as an independent force [but to some
>extent, as nothing is TRULY independent of everything else].  Is that
>reasoning clear?

I don't know.  Could you be more specific on what a computer would have to
do (or not do) to be an independent force?  Do you mean that it would
have to learn its game-playing techniques by itself?  What if a computer,
given no instruction on how to play chess, ended up learning to play 
as Deep Thought does?  What's the difference?

-Hoss