On May 15, 12:47 pm, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > 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,
> I'm not sure what you don't see here.

But I am sure what you don't see.

> Deep Blue has several possible moves
> and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each
> move. And given that it eventually gets to check-mate, Deep Blue wins chess.

That's only the view of a human being who is familiar with chess. Deep
Blue is neither a human or familiar with chess. When you add 5+6 into
a calculator, it does not 'decide' that the answer is 11 any more than
a square peg decides it doesn't fit in a round hole. If Deep Blue had
a perspective, which it doesn't, it would have no idea who Kasparov is
or that he was the opponent. No clue that check-mating Kasparov is
good or that being check-mated is bad. The game of chess is in the eye
of the beholder, not in the computation of statistics.

> > 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
> > reactions.
> Deep Blue decides what piece to move and where to move it.  That counts as
> a decision to me.

I understand that, I'm just trying to tell you why that doesn't work.
Deep Blue decides nothing. We use Deep Blue to inform us what the most
mathematically efficient chess move is and then we can choose to
imagine that we are playing a game against an entity that is deciding
to make those moves. There is no entity there though. The computer is
a puppet.

> 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?
> Because Deep Blue wins chess? How else can you win chess except by making
> good decisions? Ultimately both Kasparov and Deep Blue make a move.

You can win chess by looking at every possible outcome of every
possible move and putting them in order of how few moves will likely
end the game in your favor. There is no decision at all, you are just
organizing a stack of finite patterns in order of probable efficiency.
There is nothing to decide, you just solve the math problem and report
the result as your move. It's an idiot's way of playing chess, albeit
a very, very fast idiot.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to