Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlah
So it's deep blue's turn and he calculates the EV for either moving its bishop to b6 or f4. Properly speaking what's the term you propose for either... option(?)? (I.e. Now you just defined option in a way that is incompatible with determinism, still the same semantic trick as with "choose" before.)
Also, while the outcome is determined, it clearly is dependent on deep blue being the player (I would have chosen differently from the set of valid moves and lost)... how is he not responsible in the outcome of Kasparov being defeated?
I think that this is a good question. I'm not sure. In the case of people, I think that we can make irrational decisions. So, when we choose the utility maximizing option, we are being rational and we choose that option for those reasons, but we had the ability to do otherwise (ie, be irrational). So, just because something is utility maximizing doesn't rule-out that it was free.
However, the Big Blue case seems importantly different. The computer could only select the utility maximizing option (and if there are equal options it will use a pseudorandomizing function). I'd like to reserve 'decision' for where there are genuine options...so let's not use that word.
Act? Big Blue 'acts' when it makes one move instead of another...but it could only have picked the one it was going to pick because it was determined to do so.
Big Blue is the reason why Kasparov loses, but it's not morally responsible. So, it would only be 'responsible' in the loose sense...but not in the specific sense that we're using wrt free will and responsibility.