zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) (03/14/90)
(Chris Malcolm) writes: >In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights. >If you regard this as a property of reality how is it a consequence of >the laws of physics? I am a Reductionist. These kinds of reductions are terribly tedious, but the basic format is: The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game. The rules of the game are the consequence of human perceptions of pleasure. Human perceptions of pleasure are the consequence of human nuero-chemistry Human nuero-chemistry is the consequence of the laws of chemistry. The laws of chemistry are the consequence of the laws of physics. This is obviously greatly abbreviated, and I have completly omitted the historical aspects of the game and of human culture, but time is included in the laws of physics. The basic idea is that everything was in the right place at the big bang for everything to turn out as it has so far. It wasn't guaranteed to turn out this way, but there was a non-zero, non-negative probability that it would, and it did. (Probablistic Determinism). ---Paul...
zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) (03/15/90)
(S. Narasimhan) writes: >>>>(Paul Mccarthy) writes: [Everything is a consequence of the >>>> of the laws of physics] >>>(Chris Malcolm) asks: [...How is {some aspect of chess} a >>> consequence of the laws of physics?...] >>(Paul McCarthy) responds: >> [Chess <-- Human Pleasure <-- Nuero-Chemistry <-- Physics... >> history of game, Probablistic Determinism...] >(S. Narasimhan) objects: > [ ...Laws of physics vs reality... ontology... Pitfalls of causality...] This is definitely straying very far away from my original statement. The original assertion was simply that arguments based on "emergent properties" do not convince me, since I am a reductionist. ---Paul... (The opinions expressed are obviously mine, unless you share them. :-)
cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (03/16/90)
In article <492e6ff2.1a4d7@cicada.engin.umich.edu> zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes: >(Chris Malcolm) writes: >>In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights. >>If you regard this as a property of reality how is it a consequence of >>the laws of physics? >I am a Reductionist. These kinds of reductions are terribly tedious, but >the basic format is: > The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game. > The rules of the game are the consequence of human perceptions > of pleasure... Well, yes, I know that this is the sort of thing Reductionists believe. What I was hoping was that you would be able to make this kind of mind-boggling assertion even slightly plausible.... Let me try a different tack. I think most people (even Reductionists) believe that ANY intelligent kind of creature beyond a certain level of sophistication will HAVE to understand basic arithmetic. So, to interpret this within a reductionist frame I'd have to say something like this (wouldn't I?): "the universe is such that the perceptions of pleasure of any intelligent technological being whatsoever will naturally lead it to the following kind of arithmetic (set theory, Euclidean geometry, etc)." Now that statement is so far from telling me anything interesting about intelligent creatures, the universe, arithmetic, etc., and so far from being interestingly falsifiable (i.e. not counting the trivial counter-example falsifiability of "here's a NY garage mechanic who can't do arithmetic"), that I'm tempted to regard it as simply an expression of religious faith. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
olle@sheoak.bcae (John Olle) (03/17/90)
(Chris Malcolm) writes: >In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights. I assume this means ... a king with only a king and two knights. I don't like to be pedantic but this is not true. It is possible. However, it cannot be forced. There are some positions where a king and two knights can force mate against e.g. a king and a pawn. In these cases the extra material converts a draw into a loss. This might be of interest. Chessplayers of the world unite. John Olle
sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn) (03/17/90)
> >>In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights. > >>If you regard this as a property of reality how is it a consequence of > >>the laws of physics? > > The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game. > (Ken Presting) writes: > The question of handling abstract rules in a physical system is very > important for AI. Inside a Von Neumann machine, everything looks like > symbols crunched according to rules (according to some writers). Inside > a neural net, nothing looks like symbols or rules (again according to > some). What is the relationship between processes, perceptions, and > rules? Get out your flame-throwers, guys. I think (at one level) rules = representation (symbols) = processes = perception You just add more time as you go across. E.G. a process is a "description" of relationships over time. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandra Zinn | "The squirming facts (yep these are my ideas | exceed the squamous mind" they only own my kybd) | -- Wallace Stevens
kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) (03/17/90)
In article <349@ntpdvp1.UUCP> sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn) writes: >> (Ken Presting) writes: >> The question of handling abstract rules in a physical system is very >> important for AI. Inside a Von Neumann machine, everything looks like >> symbols crunched according to rules (according to some writers). Inside >> a neural net, nothing looks like symbols or rules (again according to >> some). What is the relationship between processes, perceptions, and >> rules? > >Get out your flame-throwers, guys. I think (at one level) (From the marketing literature for "Implementationism":) "Are you sometimes at a loss to find your level of abstraction?" > > rules = representation (symbols) = processes = perception > "Do you find yourself asserting the identity of incomparable categories? > >You just add more time as you go across.. . . > "Have you ever been in a situation of acute algebraic embarrasment?" > >. . . E.G. a process is a "description" of relationships over time. > "Scare-quote supply running low...?" "You owe it to yourself to try our BRAND NEW, and IMPROVED Concept: !!! IMPLEMENTATIONISM !!! "Builds stronger theories, 12 ways!" "Just look: A process is an implementation of relationships over time. WOTTA CONCEPT! Makes almost any theory almost believable!" "(Think at your own risk. Scare-quote tradeins accepted)" Flames? What flames? I *agree* with Sandy! Ken Presting ("If it's funny, it can't be all wrong")