On 9 Feb 2005 at 0:27, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > 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?
Because either way, it has nothing to do with the *art* of the game. > > 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? It's axiomatic in that enables speech to carry information. That doesn't means grammar has any significance to the meaning of any particular utterance (though it certainly *could*). -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
