Give-Peace-A-Chance wrote:
that may be an unsuccessful attempt to get the thread back on topic Ozzie. your heart was in the right place, but the thread has been been hijacked by an ultimate wiseguy.
I'll do what I can to help.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
0110001101101000 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
I agree, from your point of view. Because we haven't experienced anything new, it's just the old repeating itself, in other forms.
But the old can end, oh, it can.
What lead up to this was actually the rational I used when I first decided I didn't believe god exists, because to me, God couldn't be a subset of anything, it would have to be completely other. Something infinitely unimaginable by definition.
Anyway, now you're telling me something completely new is imaginable, so I'm interested
Not quite. If it is imaginable, it is not new, it is old. That was the point before: an old state imagines a 'new' state, but what it imagines is still part of the old.
So where do new things come from?
First the old things must end. As long as imagination hasn't ended, the new cannot be. I am talking about imagination of things such as non-violence, with the accompanying belief that it's totally divorced from violence, the ending of imagination in the form of creating an imaginary 'opposite' of fear, as in 'courage' or 'bravery', along with the accompanying belief that they're truly opposites, and so on.
Creating an imaginary opposite, which is the basis of our thinking processes, must come to an end, before something new can happen.
Of course, it is. Imagination has its place. Just not here.
Of course, it is. It drops when you see the trick behind thinking in opposites, in this area. When you see that it's hiding an illusion of getting rid of fear, through 'courage', or 'bravery'. When you see that its's still fear, it's over.
May 17, 2016
0
#586
Oh. I mean thinking of something that doesn't have an opposite. Something that exists beyond our ability to classify.
That's the whole point: it's not thinking, which is why thinking in opposites has to cease.
Something truly new cannot be thought out, or else somewhere in memory, it has already been absorbed, being exposed to our society. So we can only think out something which has been previously thought, consciously or not.
Also, a new permutation of old elements doesn't make it new either.
May 17, 2016
0
#588
Anyway, I don't agree that thinking in opposites is the only kind of thinking that happens. I only agree that all concepts can exist (not necessarily always do, but can) as subsets of other concepts.
So it seems that thinking of something that can't exist as a subset of something else is impossible.
I said that. It is obvious. Within the process of thinking it is not possible.
Anything is possible, in imagination.
anything "imagineable" is possible to be imagined in imagination. there is a huge difference.
I magination must end first, including what we fancy a fella named Mathew said or didn't say, meant ot say but didn't quite, and so on. It's but a diversion from the fact that we are. We don't need anybody else, we all have a brain and to understand how it operates is all it takes--not how it operates according to experts, because they don't know either--they just speculate, under the pretense of scientific work.
I've never quite understood how a scientific brain such 23's can be so superstitious when it comes to life, where it is far more important to have a scientific approach than it is in science.
s23bog wrote:
The Kingdom of Heaven is beyond our imaginations.
That may be so, but it is our imagination that prevents us from tasting anything beyond that. Reading about Heaven and what not, one one hand, and ending imagination, on the other, are two different things.
It's very peculiar how man creates an image, raises it to a higher level of a non-image, then prays to it and imagines someone other than imself he's praying to..
Of course, he does that with himself as well, he raises himself to an above-the-image status..It's the same process.
The question is rather: to whom are we praying? We are forming an image in our head, and start a dialogue with that image, which we have created. Be simple.
We are praying to ourselves.
Y'all know this is going to get the thread locked, right?
Although I don't see why, does it matter?
May 17, 2016
0
#599
troy7915 wrote:
Anything is possible, in imagination.
What's interesting (to me) is that there are a class of things that are unimaginable and/or unthinkable. Not only that we wont think of them, but we can't think of them.
It's obvious when you hear it, but it's an intriguing concept I haven't played with yet.
I have already changed several of my prepared openings for both White and Black based on information from chess-playing software. Today's computers still have some problems with pattern recognition, but they perform calculations far more quickly than humans. This is why they have such spectacular tactical capabilities.
I have modified some of the information that appears in the "books" based on information I got from Houdini 3 Extreme, the chess-playing software I use to analyze games. One thing I found of interest is the endagme of game 19 between Spassky and Fischer in the 1972 chess world championship. I propose that Spassky should have played Rc7 on move 24. Only an indepth analysis can answer the question of whether Spassky had a forced win or if Fischer could have still drawn but with more difficulty.
For further discussion of this game, you can go to http://cloverchess.com/game-19
New way to frame the problem: Will a computer ever be created which will never lose to any subsequent computer?
I would argue the answer is no.
If anything less than omni-everything is creating the computers, and if increasingly complex games can be continually created (to avoid arriving at a solution to a drawish game), then I'd agree with 'no'.