..computer chess programs clearly make choices, and the result of those choices are just as clearly deterministic. The dichotomy between choice and determinism is therefore a false one.
You completely lose me here. Choice is a constant minute-to-minute reality among humans. Choice in a computer chess program has been removed from the program by a human programmer who has pre-made all the possible choices. The determinism has been infused by the programmer and bears not on our ability to choose.
This is simply not true. There have been programs that attempted to work out every possible move and counter-move to the end of the game, but these aren't successful against the best human players. Modern programs have rules of thumb to guide them.
But chess is a bad example because all the legal moves in any situation are stipulated. Much more interesting would be a poker playing program, or a car driving program. Such things exist, although admittedly not ready for prime time.
Tortoise can, and has many time, explained why the construction of a thinking machine is difficult. The difficulty involves the state of technology rather than theoretical possibility.
I disagree. A computer has a set of possible moves, calculates a score for each based on some criteria, and chooses the highest score. All based on rational rules.
Let's say you make a rational choice next November between Bush, Dean, and wasted vote. If the choice is rational, you are going to take a set of criteria, score each of the candidates on the criteria, and pick the best. Excepting the fact that you're probably more fallible than the computer, if you make the choice purely on rational grounds, it's no less deterministic than that of the computer.
An emotional choice, of course, might be less deterministic; there are laws of logic, but no laws of anger or envy or resentment. But then, if you regard determinism as a bad thing, you're almost required to abjure rational choices; and that's a very hard position to defend.