--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote: > responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6230 > Neil: > I don't believe that I ever suggested that consciousness could be > explained by invoking the term "intentionality." > SWM: > Here's the relevant text to which I was responding: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6207 > "The dualistic division leaves that part of the requirements of > intentionality absent from process B. And as long as thinking is > said to occur within process B, that leaves the thinking as without > some of the requirements of intentionality." I am wondering how you are reading that. I was assuming that intentionality is necessary for consciousness. As far as I know, that's not even controversial. The implication of what I wrote there was that if intentionality wasn't available, that would present a problem for consciousness. There was no claim that intentionality is sufficient to have consciousness. -------- > SWM: > An important place to start is in making sure that we define what > we mean by key terms or answer questions, if ambiguities or variant > meanings are identified, as is clearly the case with a term like > "intentionality". If I have not been clear enough in the past, then let me clear it up right now. My way of understanding consciousness requires a major reconceptualization. That implies that it requires concepts that I cannot precisely define in terms of the conventional conceptualization. The best I can do is give examples, analogies, etc, to illustrate how I am using the terms, hoping that readers can catch onto the needed concepts. If you want to insist on an explanation of consciousness in terms of the conventional conceptualization, then no such explanation is possible. Regards, Neil ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/