[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:39:11 -0700 (PDT)

Yes, Searle introduced the idea of "as-if" intentionality but he did not 
introduce the idea of intentionality itself. As-if intentionality seems an easy 
enough concept to grasp. 

Kasparov has intrinsic (as opposed to as-if) intentionality: he has a conscious 
mind that contains contents about the state of affairs on the chess board, and 
about his chess strategy. 

Deep Blue has only as-if intentionality: although we might say there exists a 
sense in which Deep Blue "thinks about chess strategy", we cannot say Deep Blue 
has conscious mental contents. Deep Blue has no subjective life whatsoever. It 
acts *as if* it has intentionality when fact it does not have it. Agree so far?

Dennett gets it wrong I believe when he in effect denies Kasparov's intrinsic 
intentionality. On his view, as I understand it, he takes what he calls "the 
intentional stance" toward both Kasparov and Deep Blue. He implies, wrongly, 
that Kasparov has nothing that Deep Blue does not have.



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: