[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Tue, 3/16/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Did you know Dennett believes Deep Blue actually beat Kasparov at chess 
>> -- not Deep Blue's designers at IBM? 
> 
> 
> I do, too. The designers designed and built a machine and
> that machine acted in the world and did what it did. Of
> course if it won,  it beat Kasparov. The designers
> didn't play in the game, face the particular plays Kasparov
> made. 

I believe the designers at IBM created Deep Blue as a tool for beating Kasparov 
at chess. They, not Deep Blue, beat Kasparov. 

Deep Blue has what Searle would describe as as-if or derived intentionality. 
The human designers have genuine intentionality. Dennett fails to acknowledge 
that important distinction, perhaps because his philosophy leads him to take 
the "intentional stance" toward Deep Blue.

I classify computers as tools. Philosophically, they differ in no important 
respect from any other kind of tool.

When you open a can of soup, who/what opens the can? Does the can-opener open 
the can? Or do you open it using the can-opener as a tool?

-gts





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

Other related posts: