On 08 Feb 2005, at 7:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 at 1:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without including some sort of physics module in the AI.
A human pool player is not a pool-playing robot.
And that's the whole point.
Both a human and a pool-playing robot (like, say, Deep Green -- http://www.ece.queensu.ca/hpages/faculty/greenspan/) have to solve exactly the same problem, which happens to be a problem of applied physics.
So one solves it with neurons and one solves it with silicon. What makes you so sure the process is so fundamentally different?
Your observation applies to *any* human action. I'm typing right now, which involves the physics of the design of my computer keyboard, as well as calculation of movements of my hands and arms and so forth.
But that's trivial, and not a significant part of the act of typing.
And if physics is not significant to typing, how can it be significant to art?
Do you consciously think about grammar when you speak?
Is grammar significant to communication?
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
