🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26519@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.220055.20934@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> tjdavis@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au (Tim Davis) writes:
>>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>Not so. All they need (and all they have) is an internal
>representation of the fact and circumstances of being in check, in a
>form which is amenable the mechanical inferencing system employed.
>Indeed, in expert systems, knowledge representation plus mechanical
>inferencing systems are not only capable of chains of deductive
>reasoning, and making hypotheses and testing them, but of explaining
>what they are doing and why they are doing it in a persuasively
>rational manner.

If they can do this, they are conscious.

 And all without any consciousness at all. It could
>(as Babbage demonstrated) all even be done with clockwork.

Even if they are made of clockwork.

>
>One thing which artificial intelligence research has demonstrated
>conclusively is that these kinds of reasoning do not need
>consciousness. The fact that we employ consciousness in such reasoning
>is not relevant. We also employ consciousness to perform long
>division, but, fortunately for calculator manufacturers, consciousness
>is not an essential ingredient of mechanised arithmetic.
>-- 
>Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
>Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
>5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu