m
> *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:20:45 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig:
>
> *What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are
> inorganic), what are organic atoms?
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 1:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:20:45 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote
On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:20:45 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig:
> *What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are
> inorganic), what are organic atoms?*
> *
> *
> What are 'atoms'?
> (IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion
On 11/1/2013 1:20 PM, John Mikes wrote:
liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig:
*/What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are inorganic), what
are organic atoms?/*
*/
/*
What are 'atoms'?
(IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion of the unknowable
infinite exp
liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig:
*What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are
inorganic), what are organic atoms?*
*
*
What are 'atoms'?
(IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion of the
unknowable infinite explained during the latest some centuries of human
egroups.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Chris de Morsella
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf O
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:38 PM
To: everything-l
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Chris de
ups.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Chris de Morsella
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf O
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:32 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Chris de
ent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
>
>
> On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of
>
> intellectual development.
>
&g
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, LizR wrote:
> You mean "too" nice, I assume :)
>
> That's debatable. For example, research shows that countries with negative
> population growth are ones that have taken equal rights for women
> seriously. So being nice to the female half of the population leads
@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I have some hope that violence diminishes at
oups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> ** **
>
> On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> I have some hope that violence
But we are also perfecting our tools of violence as well.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/27/2013
You mean "too" nice, I assume :)
That's debatable. For example, research shows that countries with negative
population growth are ones that have taken equal rights for women
seriously. So being nice to the female half of the population leads to less
babies being born. Also, a lot of religious fund
On 10/28/2013 3:44 PM, LizR wrote:
I would like to see a phase transition. But the buildup to reach the tipping point would
still be incremental, which is what we are (apparently) seeing at present. Hopefully
this is a sigmoidal curve...
Inline images 1
Once some "bioterrorist" creates a high
I would like to see a phase transition. But the buildup to reach the
tipping point would still be incremental, which is what we are (apparently)
seeing at present. Hopefully this is a sigmoidal curve...
[image: Inline images 1]
Once some "bioterrorist" creates a highly infectious retrovirus that
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:45 AM, LizR wrote:
> I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on
> average, over historical time, that is to say the proportion of people dying
> violently and being injured by violence has tended to decrease over time. I
> believe the number of
ups.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Chris de Morsella
> wrote:
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
>
Well, the facts (as I was told them) is that violence and war have steadily
declined, on average, over the past few centuries. Also, there are
apparently far less autocratic rulers now than was the case in the past. My
personal theory is as I described in my last post, but it is purely a
lay-person
On 10/27/2013 8:45 PM, LizR wrote:
I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on average, over
historical time, that is to say the proportion of people dying violently and being
injured by violence has tended to decrease over time. I believe the number of wars has
decre
I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on
average, over historical time, that is to say the proportion of people
dying violently and being injured by violence has tended to decrease over
time. I believe the number of wars has decreased over historical time, and
continue
On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of
intellectual development.
I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a
species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in.
Steven Pinker just w
> Yes… I can see how one could assume that. But not exactly what I assume
> though. Who knows if there is a real world?
>
> All I know (and even that is open to question) is I experience my
> existence as occurring within this (shared) high fidelity environment that
> in my experience – for m
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Chris de
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30:34 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:34:04 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> > Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of belie
On 26 Oct 2013, at 12:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of
believing they
are
intelligent?
In parallel to Bruno's
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:27:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 201
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> > Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they
>> > are
>> > intelligent?
>>
>> In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with n
On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> > Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they
> are
> > intelligent?
>
> In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with naif AI is one
> that you may sympathise with: it is mostly built
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wr
> Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they are
> intelligent?
In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with naif AI is one
that you may sympathise with: it is mostly built with symbols that are
directly imported from humans. So if there is some
"isIntelligent(
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat
machines,
even the most
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
> even the most powerful computer currently available.
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more
combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree
ap
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
AI. In an
On 10/25/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
for a computer to
.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
>> AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
>> for a computer to beat a GM at
On 10/25/2013 2:09 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm not sure intelligence is a binary property. I would rather ask the
question "when computers win at GO, will AI have advanced"? The answer
is: it depends.
I agree. Deep Blue didn't advance AI significantly - but the early research in chess
playin
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
>> AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
>> for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningfu
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
> even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more
> combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the s
s.com
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> > My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
> > AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
> > for a computer to beat
googlegroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
>
> ** **
>
> So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but
> religion wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DAMON? DON"T
> BLOW THE MEET WITH MATSUI) :)
>
> **
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
On 10/25/2013 8:29 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Is this "Stephen Lin" a bot? certainly sounds machine generated Could also be a
methamphetamine soaked brain as well in which random neural mental zombies become
convinced they can touch the voice of god... one of the two.
The best way to dea
On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to
be developed along the way. I don' thing th
On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
> even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more
> combinatorially explosive than chess, so
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more
combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree
approach. This is strong empirical evidence tha
t;
>
> I agree, but to me the interesting part is *why* AI systems are different
> than we are. It's not so much about passing a test by sprinkling human-like
> errors into a computer to rough it up around the edges, it's about seeing
> that the entire cosmos is fundamentally based
thing-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Lin
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but religion
wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DA
n
and alienation from the Absolute.
Thanks,
Craig
Regards
> From: stat...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:11:47 +1100
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
>
> On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu
the local
perspective, absolute improbability looks like error or probabilistic
coincidence, but that is because our expectation is cognitive rather than
emotional or intuitive, and therefore it is specialized for virtual
isolation and alienation from the Absolute.
Thanks,
Craig
> Regards
>
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:11:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> >> You could say that human chess players just take in visual data,
> >> process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical
> >> signals to muscles that
te: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
> From: liz...@gmail.com
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
>
> On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>
>
> Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scop
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:46:54 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their
>> persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the
>> benefit of the doubt.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu
So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but
religion wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DAMON? DON"T
BLOW THE MEET WITH MATSUI) :)
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
> > On T
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>> On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Craig and Telmo:
>> Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
>> in advance (and evaluated a potential out
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Craig and Telmo:
> Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
> in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
> rejecting).
> What else is in "thin
about thought by changing its definition.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:52:39 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck
wrote:
>> Unfortunately w
-
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:35:05 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck wrote:
At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or
thinking
a
stem didn't make these mistakes.
Thats all we need to know to say that the two systems are not the same. All we
need to know to say the computer was not doing what children do.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:35:05 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck wrote:
At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or thinking about
grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking
as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we cognate is the only
ay we are? No they are not. You can broaden the
definition of thought and braininess to encompass it if you like, but that is
just philosophical bias. They do not do what we do.
Regards
> From: stath...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:11:47 +1100
> Subject: Re: Douglas
On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You could say that human chess players just take in visual data,
>> process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical
>> signals to muscles that move the pieces around. This is what an alien
>> scientist would observe. That's not
yep. organity is emergent.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their
On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their
> persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the
> benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled
> by anything other tha
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:16:55 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 25 October 2013 03:39, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
> >
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
>
> >
> > The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
> >
> > "
On 25 October 2013 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> You could say that human chess players just take in visual data,
> process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical
> signals to muscles that move the pieces around. This is what an alien
> scientist would observe. That's n
On 25 October 2013 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
>
> The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
>
> "...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess grandmaster
> Garry Kasparov. De
I want a computer that can play poker. And Bridge. And Go.
On 25 October 2013 12:11, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> http://www.the
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-thin
On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Craig and Telmo:
Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps in advance
(and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or rejecting).
What else is in "thinking" involved? I would like to know, because I have no
idea
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:47:15 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> I think what Deep Blue does is similar to what *parts *of the brain do,
> and it probably does *that* better (some "human computers" seem to use
> this facility in a more direct way than most of us can). However obviously
> somet
I think what Deep Blue does is similar to what *parts *of the brain do, and
it probably does *that* better (some "human computers" seem to use this
facility in a more direct way than most of us can). However obviously
something is missing - possibly the system that integrates all these little
"engi
Hi John,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:08 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Craig and Telmo:
> Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
> in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
> rejecting).
Sure. This issue though is that Deep Blue does this by br
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:08:26 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Craig and Telmo:
> Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
> in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
> rejecting).
> What else is in "thinking" involved? I would like to
Craig and Telmo:
Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
rejecting).
What else is in "thinking" involved? I would like to know, because I have
no idea.
John Mikes
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM,
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
>
> >
> > The Man Who Would Teach Machines to T
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
>
> The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
>
> "...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess grandmaster
> Garry Kaspa
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
"...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess grandmaster
Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue won by brute force. For each legal move it could
86 matches
Mail list logo
