On 7/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. Erik is wrong even in theory. An arguement can fault in two aspects:assumption and logic. His arguement faults on the former, even his logic is iron clad. He assumed the existence of an Oracle, which we all know is incorrect.
'We' seem to be drifting away a bit here... Adaptation is something that is easily observed with relatively stupid entities. To some extend I agree that such an observation probably indicates some kind of intelligence, but on the other hand, the world is full of adaptive systems which for some reason several of the earlier posters here would not consider to be intelligent. Once the level of intelligence of some artificial system would move far beyond the level of the observer he may no longer be able to observe the adaptation or learning (and with human observers in complex domains we probably don't even need to go to oracle-level for that). However, does that mean the system would now be considered unintelligent, or stupid, just because adaptation stopped or because we simply can't detect it? I don't think so! I guess most ordinary humans might even consider this system to be incredibly intelligent. But how do they get to that conclusion without observing any adaptation or learning? E. BTW Oracles are a useful tool for theory. Moreover, in practice they can be constructed for sufficiently small well defined finite domains such as small board Go, six-men chess (end)games, etc. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
