[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:40:37 -0700 (PDT)

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

>> I believe the designers at IBM created Deep Blue as a
>> tool for beating Kasparov at chess. They, not Deep Blue,
>> beat Kasparov. 
> Yes, but isn't this mainly an artifact of how we choose to
> look at it? 

No. In serious conversation about objective reality (I assume here perhaps 
wrongly that you subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth or something 
close to it) there exists a real fact of the matter as to who/what beat 
Kasparov at chess. Either Deep Blue beat Kasparov or IBM's programmers and 
engineers beat Kasparov. I challenge you to make up your mind.

> I certainly would say it seems to me that the machine beat Kasparov 
> though not in the way a human opponent would have done it. And, in a 
> sense, I would also say the designers beat him. 

Again, I think you need to make up your mind. 

On my view Deep Blue has only AS-IF intentionality and no claim to victory. We 
(meaning you and Dennett and me when I humor you) speak of Deep Blue *as if* it 
has intentionality, but of course Deep Blue has no intrinsic intentionality; 
that machine has no real subjective experience this side of science-fiction. 
Right, Stuart? 

Do you recognize the distinction between as-if and intrinsic intentionality? Do 
you even have an idea what I mean here? If you don't recognize this distinction 
then it hardly makes sense to discuss the CRA. 



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

Other related posts: