TalkChess.com

[Jef Kaan]

[quote="Daniel Shawul"][quote]
the neurons maybe, but not consciousness.
That is still being argued[quote]

yes indeed and its not such an easy problem.
but to put it simple: artificial intelligence
depends on the software which is running on such
a comp no matter how fast, and how parallel or not.
and guess what, so far most of our software is
deterministic unless we build in some random
generators of course, and yes then we get
the problem of so-called free will. to see how far current thinking
goes you might like to have a look at eg:
http://brainvoyage.com/RBC/2Ed.php
(and btw i also gave some input to these guys;
and i still disagree a bit about the title but for the
rest the content is interesting although i'm more into
string theory then into quantumconscious stuff and
so on; but then there still are things physics is missing)

irrespective of my writing style.
[/quote]
Just to be clear, that was a joke which you picked on immediately
>I write worse than that most of the time.[/quote]

ah ok well your writing style is clear if people know who
a bit more about who you are i guess, something which often
the case in communication btw, also something which
computer software really hardly cant do; they even cannot
translate properly yet, let alone try to understand people.

if it theoretically would be possible ?
well a biological and philosophical question again.
chess might well be solved up to the level that
1.Nh3 and 1.g4 are losing, but before we have thinking
robots we are at least thousand years further imho.
luckily because of the ethical implications.
which goes a bit further than cheating quesions
for the Fide whether the players or their toilets
have houdini chips implanted.


jef
_________________
jefk