The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Richard Dawkins on Chess

Richard Dawkins on Chess
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, January 12 2014, 15:20:48 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

He says I'm wrong....

“The Blind Watchmaker”

“Some people fondly believe that chess-playing computers work by internally trying out all possible combinations of chess moves. They find this belief comforting when a computer beats them, but their belief is utterly false. There are far too many possible chess moves: the search-space is billions of times too large to allow blind stumbling to succeed. The art of writing a good chess program is thinking of efficient short cuts through the search space.” p 93

Hmmmm, am I wrong then when I say chess, whether played by humans, or machines programmed by humans, has nothing to do with intelligence....it just seems to. Since “artificial intelligence” is trying to mimic human intelligence it stands to reason that a computer program tries most to resemble human intelligence...and how does a human play chess? He, or she, certainly doesn't try “all possible combinations of chess moves”. Of course not. A human, I suppose, makes his moves depending on what his opponent does...or, tries to make his opponent do what he wants him to by tricking him into certain maneuvers....that's the same thing a computer program does....neither the computer nor human merely tries out “all possible combinations”...each tries out CERTAIN combinations, and those too are programmed into the computer, by a human who first thought them up.

Of course there are “far too many possible chess moves”...hell, you could move a piece into the bathroom, or in several stupid ways, and lose...but if you want to win, there are only so many...many, but only SO many, given any position you find yourself in, or want to put your opponent in....you have to make “intelligent” moves, not just “many”...

But, I'd be willing to concede to Richard Dawkins if he'll admit that when people, such as he, says something like “I haven't read the Quran, but....” and then determine that while all religions are bad, Islam is the worst, may, as he does, “find this belief comforting.....but their belief is utterly false”.

I'd say such notions are the result of a badly programmed human mind...one that believes that while all shit stinks, MINE does not. Actually, since Dawkins is fond of writing computer programs, let him write one through which a computer can decide which of all religions, in the modern era, has been and still is the worst. Surely we can pick some programmable definition of what is “worst” in the RESULTS of a religion...to be truly scientific, as Dawkins would wish us to be, we certainly aren't going to be fooled by propaganda....we want a program based on FACTS, on actual applicability in the real world, not Sunday School.

We would write the program to measure violence actually done, not “preached”, for or against....it could be reduced to mere body-count. Tally all murders caused by religions, as well as other forms of anti-human BEHAVIOR and let the computer decide....could Dawkins find “comfort” when this computer program beats him? Shows him to be wrong in his assessment, made with hardly any study, not even of history, that Islam is the religion we should fear most, based not just on words but actual DEEDS.

I wonder.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9