[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:21:03 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
Stuart, I'm still not clear how the words "static" and "dynamic are
being used. As you say, Charlie has to tell us.
On the matter of the two meanings of intentionality, I'm also a bit
perplexed, as you rightly see.
> As noted before, the philosophical notion of "intentionality" is the
notion of "aboutness" as in thinking about,
Why do you call it a "philosophical notion", rather than just one usage?
OK. Let me state it in my words. Here, on this List, you are only
interested in "intention" when it refers to "thinking about" and not
when the "thinking about" is about a motive or goal, or in a situation
where a person is thinking nothing in particular but does have a goal.
I'll try to respect this distinction. But the bottom line for me is
this: Can the cause/effect concept found in the physical sciences be
intelligibly applied to either? Yes, one can say "You caused me to think
about" or "You caused to redoubled my efforts." But this sort of
causation requires the mediation of a person who understands what you
saying to him. This sort of account violates the objectivity of physics.
> The philosophical question...asks how our instances of knowledge can
be about the things we know.
That question must come from a discussion that passed me by. Quite a
queer question. If our knowledge isn't about things we know, what in the
world is it about.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
