[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:52:51 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
>
> > Dennett doesn't even touch it since according to him intrinsic
> > intentionality is not something studied by the intentional stance.
>
> Quite right. So there is no mystery for Dennett. He eliminates the
> need for intrinsic intentionality, and thereby disolves the mystery.
But not quite meaningfully in my opinion! A joke for any mavens here.
>
>
> > I think you haven't bothered to read Searle's book _Intentionality_.
>
> There is nothing in that 1983 book to remove the mystery that Searle
> created in his 1980 Chinese Room argument, where he gave magical
> properties to intentionality.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
Well, it turns out that you haven't read that target article either! If you
did, you wouldn't find any magical properties there attributed to
intentionality by Searle. I can also predict that you won't be able to go to
the source and find one single sentence that would refute my assertion. I've
read it. You haven't. And I have proof because I have a memory as well as a
source I can refer to.
But prove me wrong if you can. Beats a prank call!
Cheers,
Budd
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
