From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
[...]
>>Chess computers meet all of these criteria (including all of the above
>listed concepts of the three stages of the game), and therefore, must
>possess [i]some form[/i] of “intelligence”. After all, it took
>studying the game fervently for many years in order for me to reach the
>level of correspondence chess candidate master, yet, I can no longer beat a
>chess computer program that costs $50 (I have a couple based on the Fritz
>chess engine - not on the lower-level ChessMaster 3000, 4000, 5000 series).
You've brought up a very good point, which relates to one that was discussed
just before you joined the Reflector. What exactly are "intelligence" and
"intelligent design"? Do they necessarily involve conscious agents? ID
proponents do not tell us.
I would agree that a chess-playing computer is, in a sense, intelligent.
But, in the same sense, the algorithm of random variation and natural
selection is intelligent. If a chess-playing computer counts as an example
of ID, then so does the algorithm of random variation and natural selection.
In that case, detecting the presence of ID in living organisms will not
demonstrate anything interesting.
>>One of the criteria for recognizing "intelligence" is contingency, and it
>seems to me that it is easily satisfied. For each move a
>“player” makes, there are typically 20 to 40 live possibilities
>from which to choose. Each time “player” A makes a move,
>“player” B then has numerous live possibilities, and from
those,
>makes a choice (in fact, it has been calculated that there are more
possible
>ways of making the first 10 moves in chess than there are stars in the
>observable universe). For example, in the ending position of the above
game
>(after black’s 18th move), white has 41 legal moves from which to
>choose. When white made his 19th move (not listed), black then had 30
legal
>responses.
>>
>>Complexity (in the form of small probability) also seems to be satisfied.
>As a rough estimate, let us suppose that each side had 30 alternatives for
>each move. The probability of following the same series of moves, at
>random, to arrive at the last position given (after move 18), is then
30^36,
>which is a little better than 1 in 10^53.
>>
>>The final position could have been reached by transposition of random
moves
>also, but still the probability of the final position being obtained is
very
>small. For example, an alternative method would be estimate the
probability
>of each piece being on the particular square it happens to be on after move
>18. The probability of the white knight being on the d5 square instead of
>any other is 1/64. With 30 pieces remaining on the board (and neglecting
>conditional probabilities – the white knight and a black pawn cannot
>both occupy d5 at the same time), a rough [i]maximum[/i] probability
>estimate would be (1/64)^30, or a little better than 1 in 10^54 (very close
>to the other estimate).
>>
>>So going through Dembski’s EF, we pass nodes one and two – the
>chess position is not attributable to law (there is no chess law that says
>this position must be reached after 18 moves) or chance (if we use a
>“local” as opposed to a “universal” probability
>bound: keep in mind, though, that chance can still be the
>“winner” if the event is not specified).
>>
>>Unfortunately, I cannot state with certainty that the final position is
>specified in any sense. This seems a bit odd to me as each of the 18 moves
>by each player was specified in that of the 30 or so alternatives, a single
>choice was made – but not just [I]any[/I] choice, an
>[I]“optimal”[/I] choice - one with the best interest of the
>“player” in mind. This selection of the good and rejection of
>the bad was made even though there are no rules in the game of chess that
by
>themselves specify which move to select – only knowledge of the
>underlying theory can do that.
>>
>>Ahah! I just remembered that I find specification based on the following:
>>
>>[quote]"Not only do we need to observe that a choice has been made, but
>also we ourselves need to be able to specify that choice. It is not enough
>that one possibility has been chosen and others have been ruled out. We
>ourselves need to be able to make the same choice. ... In hearing a
>Chinese utterance, someone who understands Chinese not only recognizes that
>a choice was made from the range of all possible utterances but also is
able
>to specify the utterance that was made as coherent Chinese speech.
Contrast
>this with someone who does not understand Chinese.
>>In hearing a Chinese utterance, someone who does not understand Chinese
>also recognized that a choice was made from the range of all possible
>utterances. But this time, because the person lacks the ability to
>understand Chinese, he or she is unable to specify the utterance as
coherent
>speech. To someone who does not understand Chinese, the utterance is
>gibberish. ... This choosing of one among several competing possibilities,
>ruling out the rest and specifying the one that was chosen encapsulates how
>we recognize intelligent causes, or equivalently, how we detect
>>design." (William A. Dembski, Mere Creation, InterVarsity Press, 1998,
>p109-110)[/quote]
>>
>>Since I do speak "chess-ese", I can see the specification (as could other
>chess "geeks"). I just can't communicate it to “non-chess speaking"
>individuals.
You're not applying Dembski's method correctly. You have to formulate the
specification and calculate the probability of *any* outcome matching the
specification. The specification here would be something like "any set
of moves which is recognizable as a reasonable set of moves". Of course, you
can't calculate the probability based on such a vague formulation of the
specification. You would have to formulate it in a way that allows you to
say whether any given set of moves counts as a reasonable set of moves or
not. As a thought experiment, let's say that you have such a
formulation. There would no doubt be a vast number of sets of moves that
would count as reasonable, so the probability of the *specified* event would
be a lot larger than the 10^-53 that you calculated. Nevetheless, I suspect
it would still be small enough to allow a conclusion of "design", given a
suitable local probability bound. My point here was not to challenge your
conclusion of design, but to correct your misuse of Dembski's method.
>One might argue that the computer itself does not possess intelligence, but
>rather merely takes the place of the people who programmed; that a chess
>computer is no more than a ‘puppet’ and has no intelligence of
>its own. I disagree with this as being totally accurate in that computer
>chess programs “learn” from their mistakes: they adapt to
>situations based on their past “experiences” (and in neural
>nets, a related topic, the computers do “learn from scratch”).
>And even if computers were merely “puppets”, they would still
be
>“intelligent puppets”. Can one teach a dog, or a cat, or a
>dolphin, or a tree, or a bacterium, or a virus, or a rock to play chess
>well? No. These listed entities don’t have the ability to retain
the
>vast amounts of information needed, or the ability to process that
>information properly, to play chess well. But computers do have those
>abilities, which sets them apart from!
Yes, the argument that you dismiss (that the computer doesn't count as
intelligent because that intelligence was provided by the programmer) is one
that is sometimes made by IDers, but, as you say, it is not a tenable
argument.
>>So, after all this, what are others’ views on whether a chess
>computer possesses some form of intelligence? Have human intelligent
agents
>already created a new form of intelligence that is not biological?
Yes (given a suitable definition of intelligence).
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 07:41:17 EDT