MaximRecoil wrote:
Do you think there is a difference in function between a digital
representation of a chess position that the computer generates and
references, vs. physical chess sets?

Er, you're kidding, right?


Either one is tangible.

Webster's gives three definitions of `tangible'

1) (a) capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch
(b) substantially real

The computer's representation certainly isn't capable of being
perceived by the sense of touch. My RAM chips feel exactly the same
to me whatever is stored in them. If you feel that they are
`substantially real', I'd be interested to see an argument that says
that chess calculations I do in my head aren't also `substantially
real'.

2) capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
(e.g., `her grief was tangible')

Well, I can perceive the computer's calculations just as well as my
own so there's no difference there.

3) capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value (e.g.,
`tangible assets')

Neither the computer's chess calculations nor mine have any financial
value so this seems to be irrelevant.


BTW, with robotics, a computer could easily set up and manipulate
pieces on a physical chess set

It could, yes. But, get this: IT DOESN'T!


but what would be the point, aside from the novelty aspect, when
their internally generated digital representations of chess
positions accomplish *the exact same thing* in a functional sense?

So do my analyitical thoughts. The only difference is that I hang
pieces more often.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Solar-Powered Laser (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intense beam of light
but it doesn't work in the dark and
it could explode at any minute!