On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > > > I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
> > > > allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
> > > > form of decision, learning, or reinforcement.
> > > OK, let's take Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, According to you, Kasparov's
> > > decision making was meaningful, while Deep Blue's was not. Yet, Deep Blue
> > > won. Is this the kind of meaninglessness you are talking here?
> > Yes. Deep Blue didn't know the difference between winning or losing,
> > let alone care.
> The fact remains that good decision making can take place in a
> deterministic world. Some decision-making you will label as meaningful,
> some as meaningless. But good decision-making nevertheless. You cannot win
> chess withouth making good decisions.
I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess, it just
compares statistics and orders them according to an externally
provided criteria. It is a filing cabinet of possible chess games that
matches any particular supplied pattern to a designated outcome. We
are able to project our own ideas and expectations onto our experience
of Deep Blue, but that doesn't mean that there is any actual decision
making going on. There is no decision, only automatic recursive
A programmer could easily change Deep Blue to lose every match or to
command a robotic arm to smash it's CPUs. How can good decision making
be claimed if it can just as easily be programmed to make bad
decisions? There is no symbol grounding.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at