🚀 go-pugleaf

cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.010007.21214@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:

>>Second, it
>>seems advantageous to be conscious of pain (i.e. be able to think about it)
>>so that one can figure out why one is in pain. That way one can avoid similar
>>situations in the future, or one can choose to ignore the pain if the
>>situation requires. 

>There are chess programs which manage to figure out why they are in
>check, can learen how to avoid it in future, put up with it if
>neceessary for some greater purpose, etc., all without needing to be
>conscious of being in check. 
>-- 

I am somewhat confused by the second comment.  If in fact the chess
programs have no need to be conscious of being in check then what is
'it' that they are trying 'to figure out why they are in', what is 'it'
they will 'put up with if necessary for some greater purpose'?  The
game must be conscious of 'something' in order to develop these other
tendencies.


-- 

=============================================================
Timothy J Davis                 Email:  tjdavis@cit.gu.edu.au
Lecturer