[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:59:52 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 3/19/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

> > Dennett's point about "intentionality" strikes me as pretty
> > sharp. There is nothing there in an important sense.

> He's an eliminativist, as I've said.

The question is, what does it mean to be an eliminativist? Is he merely saying 
we're talking about this in the wrong way (as I see him doing) or is he saying 
there's really no such thing as mind, consciousness, etc., as you and many 
others seem to see him doing?

> He denies the reality of intentionality, albeit in a subtle fashion. For this 
> reason he sees no important difference between Kasparov and Deep Blue.

Not in the context of that example, no. And I agree with his way of addressing 

> Also for this reason he calls Searle a dualist. But to eliminative 
> materialists like Dennett, everyone looks like a dualist, including many 
> (sane) materialists like Searle.

Except Searle is in self-contradiction because of his CRA. I call Searle a 
dualist for that reason and did so before reading Dennett, however I think 
Dennett sees the same thing I have referred to.

> Funny thing about it is that Dennett in his rush to avoid the stigma of 
> dualism makes himself into one. In fact many materialists do. More later...
> -gts

I'd like to see the argument that makes Dennett a dualist (though I think 
others have made it here before -- but let's see your take on it).



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

Other related posts: