Pros and cons of chess

your comment made my day. thanks :)

Yes, they don't work on the 'electric level'. And yes, the cars I've seen are not equipped with CAMERAS! I guess children have a GPS system installed by GOD MOTORS

Elroch, are you a neurologist or psychologist

Why would one believe that a monkey, who is Shakespeare, would not write "Hamlet"?  Must be "preconceptions".

you are right but also wrong.Those type of cars with advancements are put on a equal level with robots, bot in that car the robot is the serial mechanical mechanism that drives the steer wheel at a arc circle angle of maybe 32.345 deg to take an obstacle. so THOSE CARS HAVE ROBOTIC ADVANCEMENTS (and not all cars have them) to and the control system drives a serial robot that has the aim to drive the car. Meditate on this, do not equalise a car to car advancements/add-ons. A car is a car.

it's funny that we, weak humans, with very inperfect senses, dare to proclaim what's real and what's not,

if a crane is driven to a certain angle by an positioning system then you cannot tell that the crane is a robot... as i know from school...

exactly. we dare to proclaim what's real because we live and interact with it, we make laws for it (mathematically) to explain ouselfs why that thing happend. but we never can be sure of it untill someone comes (eg. Einstein) and changes our laws and conviction.

I believe cars are very aware of your bigotry towards them. If a car somehow, out-performs a drone, you just say the car must have added on some feature that it wasn't born with! I know cars account for a good many homocides on the road(as well as animalcides), but that is no reason to think all cars lack morals.

anywayz thx for the post and see us at the next debate :) - good night all of you

Shakespeare was not a monkey, he was a monkey's cousin. Like the rest of us.

The difference between a monkey and a human is essentially in less than 2% of the genes - consider us the deluxe version of the same computer program, with rather lazy developers having been given the task of upgrading. If there is a Boolean difference between monkeys and us, it must have happened between one generation and the next at some point. If you believe that there was a conscious creature with a mother without consciousness, well, you're welcome to your beliefs. Myself, I believe "consciousness" is a fuzzy concept, like many, many important things.

Language is a skill which humans excel at (though none of us to the degree that Shakespeare did, I would assert). Monkeys are better than us at some things (they can make us look a bit stupid navigating through the forest canopy). But is a monkey conscious? I would say obviously, to a rather high degree. Psychological experiments would suggest so too.

Incidentally, chimps are better than humans at some computer games. Doesn't stop me playing Pacman (even if I should).

Are people still playing "Pacman", Elroch? Sorry to hear that But, since I myself, can be considered a "primatologist"(bartender), I thank you for that article It's primatologically relevant

 The border is hard to put between things. some consider a "intelligent" car as a robot and some consider robot the intelligent controlled mechanism that drives the car. I think that a robot is a intelligent mechanism from a process that you control  and NOT the whole process in which your robot is placed/involved (serial/mobile/parallel robot and so on).

Anywayz nice to have conversation with you folks. give an add as friend to talk further.

thx.

Wow. Three (or more) exhausted minds just for discussing just how far chess computers have come.

If we all spent this much thought and effort into each of our chess games, we should be grandmasters pretty soon.

I have to agree about Pacman. Best avoided. Your other comment reminds me of an episode of "Buffy the vampire slayer" where there was some enchanted beer that turned students into apes. [Pretty much the same as ordinary beer].

Let me let you in on something. 'After three drinks, get the other bottle'. "The other bottle", is their drink, cut in half, with water. So it is corporately written, so it is corporately done

What is this? This has nothing to do with chess.

Actually it did a few pages ago. That was before these three philosophy buffs started disproving one another over the consciousness of chess machines.

Interested parties might enjoy a rather good article on AI from before the turn of the century. The trends have continued, of course.

Interesting news is that it is possible to detect which word a person is thinking of using electrical sensors.

I think we could meet each other half way here. Sometimes, people use a concept that isn't well defined as a get-out-of-jail-free card to sustain their argument. In those cases, they should specify to defend the argument and not doing so would be sophistry. But on the other hand, sometimes the common definition is narrow enough to sustain a point. In those cases hammering continuously on narrowing it down further is unnecessary and can be seen as a sophist trick to stall the discussion.

I'm assuming you aren't (edit) into sophistry, so perhaps it is just a mild disagreement. I don't think it is necessary to completely halt discussion on the definition of 'intelligence', but I can agree that some added specifics would help. In short, I'm not sure if a broad concept always begs for active participation beyond the broad definition.

The book I linked you too is actually not so much a book on Kim's own contributions, but rather an introduction in several theories of mind. Jaegwon Kim himself mentions in the introduction that most philosophers agree with ontological physicalism, and I would bet he has some inside knowledge.

That being said, I'm not against some active participation on my side. Considering the fact that only dualism presumes there is more than ordinary matter, and the fact that there are many more theories that are being actively pursued, makes his belief seems reasonable. Furthermore, I think the arguments against dualism are stronger than those in favour of it, so I would expect most philosophers to favour physicalism.

Referring to the robot-automobile discussion:

I agree with tryst that neither robots nor cars should be expected to have a mentality. I disagree with the statement that it is ridiculous for any philosopher to believe a mechanical or electrical mind could be created. Quite to the contrary, I think most philosophers wouldn't have theoretical objections. Elroch is spot on in that respect: our mentality seems to stem from a physical object (the brain), and there is no apparant reason to assume that a physical object that copies all of its functions would not exhibit the same mentality.

That being said, I do think that creating an exact copy of the mind wouldn't mean we understood what a mind really is. In that sense, success there would only mean our technology is amazingly advanced. That, I don't foresee happening in the next 1000 years.

To understand exactly what it is we would create, and perhaps to create it in other ways than stupidly mimicking the human brain, would require more understanding. It is perhaps even harder to predict when (and if) we would reach such levels of understanding anytime soon.

The point of the argument was that, since brains are physical and have mentality, it is reasonable to assume that physical objects can be created with mentality. I do not think this is philosophically retarded or outdated. I would agree with tryst that to speculate about it being done is science fiction, as it strongly appears to be out of reach for the next 1000 years or more.

Referring to the current state of physics and quantum theory:

Actually most of this knowledge isn't that new. It dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. Some important things have been discovered recently, but in general philosophers have no excuse not to be aware of the current state of physics.

The quantum world provides room for exciting thought experiments, but currently there is serious doubt that quantum effects would influence the relatively huge brain cells that supposedly make up our mind. If they did, quantum effects still don't guarantee magical wizardry. Think about it, a dice roll is random but we can describe it pretty well can't we? Quantum mechanics is just lots and lots of dice rolls. The average numbers can be deduced fairly easy, and on any larger scale the averages start behaving as set values in systems that usually work deterministically.