Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!galaxy.cps.msu.edu!dailey From: dailey@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: <1991Mar4.143106.8838@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: 4 Mar 91 14:31:06 GMT References: <12548@ur-cc.UUCP> <1991Mar3.025707.16737@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <12565@ur-cc.UUCP> Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu Reply-To: dailey@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University Lines: 82 Originator: dailey@galaxy.cps.msu.edu In article <12565@ur-cc.UUCP> ta2cs220@troi.cc.rochester.edu (H. Y. Firooznia) writes: >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. So is a large database program intelligent? I'd say not. It just has the mechanics to calculate and then access a lot of information. It almost never makes inferences to find out more information unless the programmer specifically tells it to do so (including telling it HOW to do so). My definition for intelligence certainly goes beyond being able to do direct calculations from easy-to-access data. Remember some of my questions on the definitions of life and intelligence? For intelligence one of the questions I asked was about whether a plant that moves to tilt toward the sun during the day has intelligence. I am not sure, because I do not know how and why a plant does this. I would definitely say the plant shows intelligence, but I do not know if it actually HAS intelligence. [These two concepts are not mutually exclusive in my mind.] >>> 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 does a child have to do for us to consider it [at least partially] independent of its parents? They have to take steps of their own, growing separately. They make their own decisions. They look at the way other people do things, and then decide which is best for them. I would say that to actually have intelligence (and not JUST DISPLAY intelligence) a chess program would have to be able to learn... to go beyond the known and into the unknown... to evaluate its performance and be able to improve on that. I don't even care if it is a good chess player or not. [In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it were and would actually expect it to be a lousy chess player. :) ... but an intelligent one!] >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? Could it, though? It would have to come up with some strategy that would be [perhaps only roughly] equivalent. The difference is NOT in the way the computer/program plays chess. The difference is in WHERE THE STRATEGIES COME FROM! We believe that something is intelligence because it displays intelligence. If something displays intelligence, we often assume that it has intelligence because it learned how to do that. Isn't that why the Eliza and Doctor programs are so well known? Because they could fool people at least a LITTLE bit into believing that the computer had actually learned how to converse with you? Then when you learn the tricks used to create the program, you can then convince yourself that it was not intelligent. [Although the programmer probably was. :) ] I would say that today's genre chess program is no more intelligent than Eliza. >-Hoss -- Chris Dailey dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu __ __ ___ | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News __/ \/ \/ __:>- | \__/\__/\__/ | "Allein in der sand." -- me