We should think of a machine as part of a conversation between its creators and its users. It's like the mechanial parts of our talking activity - the noises, the physiology, the writing technology. They might break down, they might take different forms, but their character is given by their intentional content.
A machine's character is also given by the intentions of its creators, and the 'sharing' or 'communicating' these with its users. It is not given my any physical description.
This applies most clearly to 'ideal' machines, such as Turing machines.
A real computer is part of a complex conversation between 'programmers' and 'users' - or, more correctly, between different classes of users.
The 'limitations' of these machines can only be given, in any intelligible way, in terms of the 'limitations' of intentional ascriptions - of 'rule following'. If we say that there must be some rule which underpins the possibility of intentionality, we are making a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment