On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:32:46 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> From the Quora >> http://www.quora.com/Board-Games/What-are-some-fun-games-to-play-on-an-8x8-Checkerboard-besides-chess-checkers >> >> This is interesting because I think it shows the weakness of the >> one-dimensional view of intelligence as computation. Whether a program can >> be designed to win or not is beside the point, as it is the difference >> between this game and chess which hints at the differences between >> bottom-up mechanism and top-down intentionality. >> >> In Arimaa, the rules invite personal preference as a spontaneous >> initiative from the start - thus it does not make the reductionist >> assumption of intelligence as a statistical extraction or 'best choice'. >> Game play here begins intuitively and strategy is more proprietary-private >> than generic-public. In addition the interaction of the pieces and >> inclusion of the four trap squares suggests a game geography which is >> rooted more in space-time sensibilities than in pure arithmetic like chess. >> I'm not sure which aspects are the most relevant in the difference between >> how a computer performs, but it seems likely to me that the difference is >> specifically *not* related to computing "power". To wit: >> >> "There are tens of thousands of possibilities in each turn in Arimaa. >> The 'brute force approach' to programming Arimaa fails miserably. Any human >> who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down." >> >> This to me suggests that Arimaa does a good job of sniffing out the >> general area where top-down consciousness differs fundamentally from bottom >> up simulated intelligence. >> > > If this game shows "where top-down consciousness differs fundamentally > from bottom up simulated intelligence" would you accept a computer beating > a human at Arimaa as evidence that computers had the "top-down > consciousness"? >
No, that's why I wrote "Whether a program can be designed to win or not is beside the point.". You may be able to build a screwdriver that is big enough to use as a hammer in some situations, but that doesn't mean that it is an actual claw hammer. Would you accept an AI matching a human in any task whatsoever as evidence > of the computer having consciousness? If not, why bother pointing out > computers' failings if you believe they are a priori incapable of > consciousness or even intelligence? > I point out the computers failings to help discern the difference between consciousness and simulated intelligence. I'm interested in that because I have a hypothesis about what awareness actually is, and that hypothesis indicates that awareness cannot necessarily be assembled from the outside. I think computers are great, I use them all day every day by choice and by profession, but that doesn't make them the same thing as a person, or a proto-person. Not only are they not that, they are, in my hypothesis, the precise opposite of that. Machines are impersonal. Trying to build a person from impersonal parts is like trying to find some combination of walking north and south which will eventually take you east. Thanks, Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
