@trysts: Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy.
Why on earth can't they be programmed? Are doubt and empathy special emmanations from the soul? I think they are simply by-products of a sufficiently powerful self-awareness. If a machine can be programmed into full self-awareness it'll be a doubting, empathetic machine, or at least _capable_ of such. IMO.
Consciousness is one of the deepest mysteries of all. To me only rivalled by the question of why anything at all exists.
@trysts: Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy.
Why on earth can't they be programmed? Are doubt and empathy special emmanations from the soul? I think they are simply by-products of a sufficiently powerful self-awareness. If a machine can be programmed into full self-awareness it'll be a doubting, empathetic machine, or at least _capable_ of such. IMO.
It can't be "programmed into full self-awareness", JG27Pyth. The "ghost in a machine" is a philosophical, linguistic metaphor. It is not a fact. Doubt and empathy cannot be programmed into a machine. Now, if you were joking, your opinion is understandable
you can't say that seriously
@trysts "It can't be "programmed into full self-awareness", JG27Pyth."
Sez you!
I wasn't joking at all... indeed by one definition machines have already achieved consciousness. We are conscious, and we are big bio-chemical machines -- A brain is a bio-machine... Consciousness arises from the material functioning of the brain. Or do you think consciousness arises from outside the functioning of the brain? Given that consciousness arises from matter, -- the brain -- there's no theoretical reason why an electro-mechanical (or for that matter purely mechanical -- A thinking pile (huge pile!) of levers!) device can't acheive self-awareness.
Do you have any examples, preferably of an instance when your definition wasn't covered by the dictionary one?
I've got one! I was just thinking about the irony of manavendra's avatar: "A.I.". Now I thought how that refers to artificial intelligence=fake intelligence. Computers it is claimed, will be able to "think". But I suppose that is a claim dumbed-down, and believed, because people don't consider what thinking is. Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy. Therefore, "intelligence", in the context of my joke about "irony" above, would equate with "thinking". And "thinking" would manifest "doubt", and "empathy".
LOL, Truly trysts's skillful observation,
…one flew east, one flew west,
One flew over the cuckoo's nest.
To me, my avatar(AI) is special and signifies many things. If you see the avatar deeply, you would see two sides/persons/machines or a combination of any of these two standing together. They both are looking in the same direction, upwards. That direction can be anything based on your interpretation, like a direction to growth, a direction to destiny, or maybe a direction to Checkmate{statement 1}. Also, they reflect two opposites of everything, even extremes opposites like truth/false, yes/no, do/don't?, win/lose/(draw?). ["Draw" can be assumed as the central point of balance between these two extremes.{statement 2}. The central point does not include those games drawn by 3-fold repetition.{statement 3}].
This quality of opposites is also aptly reflected in Chess like, for example, the opposite in colors; Chess conventionally and undisputedly has always chosen White and Black in various combinations but not the intermediate colours. Perhaps, because Chess is just a calculated game of extremes trying to gain the balance of power. It's true that machines today do not feel the emotions felt by humans during such games and that is what leads some of the people to understand more about life processes, or subtle feelings called "emotions". In a distant future, this quality can be roughly quantified and the measurement units can be given any name by the generation of those living in that period in the large multi-dimensional equation of life process (where emotion will be a unique and significant quantity in the equation). This will also lead to evolution of new languages for greater communication during that time, erasing the boundaries of present generation languages.
Chess is related to this equation in another aspect too, the central point of balance. The equation too like Chess measures the vibrations/disturbances/moves/music/work or any other quality of the central life process which generally occur when the central point of balance is in motion,or rather when life is in motion.
I personally termed it as 'avatar of Chess and Life'. Although, number of Chess games are finite, the number is large enough to keep the human thought process engaged during his life.
<< trysts wrote: "Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy. Therefore, "intelligence", in the context of my joke about "irony" above, would equate with "thinking". And "thinking" would manifest "doubt", and "empathy"."
They can't be programmed today doesn't mean it is not possible in future. Actually, life process has sublte ways to make dependency on machines in human being, starting from stone age civilization. Machines are programmed to collect all possible data, even the data coming from the extraterrestrial. It will take considerable time to give meaning to such data which are subtly inter-related to the life process.
Artificial Intelligence, what you call as fake is really a subject of genuine and interesting study of life process, although in computing terms this subject might appear to be uninteresting to many.
@trysts "It can't be "programmed into full self-awareness", JG27Pyth."
Sez you!
I wasn't joking at all... indeed by one definition machines have already achieved consciousness. We are conscious, and we are big bio-chemical machines -- A brain is a bio-machine... Consciousness arises from the material functioning of the brain. Or do you think consciousness arises from outside the functioning of the brain? Given that consciousness arises from matter, -- the brain -- there's no theoretical reason why an electro-mechanical (or for that matter purely mechanical -- A thinking pile (huge pile!) of levers!) device can't acheive self-awareness.
Your "givens" are from the 17th century. And your opinion is science-fiction. There is a way to remedy your enthusiasm. Write a letter to M.I.T. and ask the faculty: 'Why can't you make the world like it was in "The Blade Runner"?' If a response does not occur, immediately, then go through the history of Philosophy on the subject of consciousness, matter, the mind/body problem, and technology. You may even wish to look into the Philosophy of Language. Concentrating on metaphor and analogy. Finally, if you have the energy, read about how grants are given to university studies, what commercialism means, and also, the various ways propaganda allows for the suspension or hinderance of human thought.
To clear up the things, tonydal's posts were indeed deleted by a chess.com administrator and not by him.
Well, that definitively answers the question of whether tonydal's posts were acceptable on chess.com.
Does it though? How does manavendra know any more than you or I do?
Well, there are two possibilities. Either the chess.com administrators deleted the series of posts, or tonydal did and then attempted to deceive us about it. Take your pick.
To clear up the things, tonydal's posts were indeed deleted by a chess.com administrator and not by him.
Well, that definitively answers the question of whether tonydal's posts were acceptable on chess.com.
Yes definitely acceptable, if you are thinking in lines of fluid mechanics.
Do you have any examples, preferably of an instance when your definition wasn't covered by the dictionary one?
I've got one! I was just thinking about the irony of manavendra's avatar: "A.I.". Now I thought how that refers to artificial intelligence=fake intelligence. Computers it is claimed, will be able to "think". But I suppose that is a claim dumbed-down, and believed, because people don't consider what thinking is. Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy. Therefore, "intelligence", in the context of my joke about "irony" above, would equate with "thinking". And "thinking" would manifest "doubt", and "empathy".
Hi trysts,
Cool! There is certainly a case to make for the, lets say, emotional part of (and force behind?) thinking - even if this part isn't explicitly excluded from the dictionary definition ;-)
In fact, the distinction may be useful in answering the original question: is it more rewarding socializing with intelligent people than with less intelligent ones? If it means 'more empathizing', I would say: probably yes. If the intelligence is more of the artificial intelligence - symbol processing kind of thing, I'd stick to discussing chess with it.
Well, there are two possibilities. Either the chess.com administrators deleted the series of posts, or tonydal did and then attempted to deceive us about it. Take your pick.
Yes, I'd agree that there are only two possibilities, however I think you need to narrow it to just one before you can say it definitively answers the question.
I may need to check my dictionary though.
Do you have any examples, preferably of an instance when your definition wasn't covered by the dictionary one?
I've got one! I was just thinking about the irony of manavendra's avatar: "A.I.". Now I thought how that refers to artificial intelligence=fake intelligence. Computers it is claimed, will be able to "think". But I suppose that is a claim dumbed-down, and believed, because people don't consider what thinking is. Thinking has qualities that can't be programmed into a computer, i.e., doubt, and empathy. Therefore, "intelligence", in the context of my joke about "irony" above, would equate with "thinking". And "thinking" would manifest "doubt", and "empathy".
Hi trysts,
Cool! There is certainly a case to make for the, lets say, emotional part of (and force behind?) thinking - even if this part isn't explicitly excluded from the dictionary definition ;-)
In fact, the distinction may be useful in answering the original question: is it more rewarding socializing with intelligent people than with less intelligent ones? If it means 'more empathizing', I would say: probably yes. If the intelligence is more of the artificial intelligence - symbol processing kind of thing, I'd stick to discussing chess with it.
Hi, Tom_van_Diepen.
How about when people say he/she is intelligent because they make a lot of money, but have the ethics of a maggot. Is that intelligent/thinking/empathetic or pure calculation? Something you could program in a computer.
Well, there are two possibilities. Either the chess.com administrators deleted the series of posts, or tonydal did and then attempted to deceive us about it. Take your pick.
Yes, I'd agree that there are only two possibilities, however I think you need to narrow it to just one before you can say it definitively answers the question.
I may need to check my dictionary though.
That's hilarious!
Sure, pop across the Atlantic any time, tony.
Let's agree we all make mistakes (I can certainly be oversensitive). But if you think you've received a snide remark, deal with (or report) the remark rather than making personal insults, to comply with the rules of the site.
And now, a question: Has anyone ever investigated a relationship between chaos theory and chess? It may be possible to create a model to explain certain aspects of positional analysis.
@mavanendra It's an interesting question, which i'm completely unqualified to consider, beyond this: I think there's an order of magnitude's difference (or several orders) between the incalculability of a complex chess position and the incalculability of turbulence.
I too think there is rather a big difference between a deterministic finite game and a chaotic continuous process. Did you know that there is a $1,000,000 prize available from the Clay Mathematical Institute to the person who can "make substantial progress toward a mathematical theory which will unlock the secrets hidden in the Navier-Stokes equations"? I think a big problem is that the precise flows are simply not predictable, but macroscopic properties of them must be, or jet planes would have a lot of problems. But how do you pin down the aspects of a flow that are predictable?