[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:06:55 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@> wrote:
>
>
> > The Dennett quoted above doesn't sound like the Dennett presented
> > here.
>
> It's the same Dennett.
>
>
> > And just what is he demystifing?
>
> He is attempting to demystify intentionality. Those who see it as a
> bit of a mystery, including Searle, distinguish between original
> intentionality and derived intentionality. It is original
> intentionality that is taken to be mysterious. In "The Intentional
> Stance", Dennett is arguing that there is only derived intentionality,
> so there is no mystery.
Funny, but Searle offers a theory of Intentionality which involves intrinsic
and derived intentionality. Just because Searle argues for intrinsic
intentionality doesn't mean he is a mysterian about it! On the contrary: It
is a mystery for Dennett how to account for intrinsic intentionality. Does one
deny intrinsic intentionality by playing the ordinary language philosophy game?
Note that linguistic practices cannot serve as premises for or against
intrinsic intentionality. If they could, then it would be as if there need be
no argument for intrinsic intentionality. It is assumed by the very fact that
there is possible public discourse.
Cheers,
Budd
Ps. Is it okay to leave the rest below so that one sees that the above is
concerned to make a little fun of seeing intentionality as mere attribution
nonseriously or seriously meant?
>
>
> > I say he is questioning the need to view consciousness as either
> > the manifestation of some spirit or the causal end-product of a
> > neurological event.
>
> He is not discussing all of consciousness in that book. He is
> concerned only with intentionality (aboutness) which is usually seen as
> one aspect of consciousness. He is taking the position that
> intentionality is nothing more than attribution. That's a position
> often taken by AI people.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
> =========================================
> Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
