--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:

> "There's nothing in the process of perception which is ultimately
> mysterious or outside the normal causal system. When I stand in
> front of a display of apples, every last little scintilla of subtle
> redness is capable of influencing my choice of which one to pick up."

> This is a Dennett quote, I presume.

I'll note that I have no disagreement with the above quote, even though
I don't agree with Dennett's intentional stance.

> Note, he says "influence", not cause. This difference may be trivial
> to you but it is the whole story for me.

The difference is trivial. If you don't see it as trivial, then you
probably have the wrong idea about cause.

> Intentional Stance. I'm influenced, persuaded, guided by reasons (but
> not cause-determined) to see an entity (human or man made) as having
> an inner-life, purpose and decision maker based on reasons. Further
> experiences may influence me to shift my stance. Also, I may be
> undecided. This happen in the case of the woman we saw on TV who
> could have been smiling but medically was found to be brain dead.

But what is meant by "inner life". The intentional stance has to do
with inner operations, and whether those can be said to constitute an
inner life is of no importance. What matters is that those inner
operations manage the external behavior.

> Causal Stance: I'm influenced, persuaded etc (not cause-determined)
> to see a physical process (an entity functioning) as absent any
> inner life, self-aware purpose or reason. Any change is directly
> caused by a prior condition with no mediation of an aware self.

Again, I think you are misusing "causal" here. That "directly caused
by a prior condition" part is just as applicable to a person as it is
to a mechanical robot.

I have no doubt that a computer has some sort of inner life. As a
computer scientist, I program some of that inner life. Presumably you
will deny that "inner life" is the appropriate terminology, but that is
not relevant. What matters is that what goes on inside manages the
external behavior.

The problem for a computer is whether it has an outer life. That is,
the important question should be whether the inner life (inner
operations) properly connect with the external world.

Take that traffic light down the street. Its inner operations do
connect with the outer world. And we know that they connect because
traffic engineers created the connections. So there is a traffic
sensor under the road signalling information about the traffic to the
computer that controls the light.

But now suppose that there is an accident that blocks the north bound
lanes. So the northbound traffic is diverted to use the southbound
lanes (while heading north). We no longer have any confidence that the
traffic light is connecting with the external world, because we know
that the sensors it uses are in the wrong place to detect the north
bound traffic. So we call in a policeman to manage the traffic flow.
And we have no problem trusting that the policeman's inner processes
suitably connect to the external world, even though our traffic
engineers did not design those connections for the policeman.

Regards,
Neil

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:

>
> > Note, he says "influence", not cause. This difference may be trivial
> > to you but it is the whole story for me.
>
> The difference is trivial. If you don't see it as trivial, then you
> probably have the wrong idea about cause.

Or, perhaps, you do. The match doesn't influence the paper to burn. The
paper has no choice. My wife influences me to burn the paper. The choice
is mine.

> But what is meant by "inner life".

That one acts on the basis of reasons (as me above) and not simply by
causation, as the burning paper does.

> That "directly caused by a prior condition" part is just as
applicable to a person as it is
> to a mechanical robot. I have no doubt that a computer has some sort
of inner life.

That is wonderful that you have created a being (in the form of a
computer) with an inner life of choice and reason. If I ever met your
computer I would treat it with the respect it deserves as a person. As
for my computer, it simply responds to key strokes like a Zombie.

Obviously I disagree with your STANCE. But I recognize it as an option.
You can elect to treat everything and everyone as determined by prior
programming and external causes. But one question. Did you freeoly
choice this stance or was it caused by whatever and hence you had no
option?

bruce

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:

> Dennett's view is there is no special entity called "intention",

Who holds that an act (taking a stance) is an entity. Two questions. Who
takes a stance? In what sense can a stance be caused.

> What is an "aware self" in your lexicon?

What everyone else means by the term, a person who freely acts on the
basisw of reasons, in part. In contrast to a mechanical thing (like the
brain) which doesn't reason any more than my big toe, as you are fond of
saying. Apparently Dennett wants to shift the meaning. Can he?

> The Dennettian model is suggesting that it is just the interplay of
certain functionalities in the brain.

Claiming that the brain is vital for taking a stance may (or may not)
shift the meaning. I'm comfortale with "I use my brain to reason", just
as I use my hands to play the piano. But that is not your use.

> As a result of these a self is generated...

which means all that I think and do is produced by prior causes in the
physical sense you go on to say. I've asked, and I'll see if you get to
it, do you freely choose to see your self as caused by your brain?

> But there is no dissonance between a claim that a conscious self is
physically derived
> and a claim that intentionality, understood as part of a conscious
self, is a matter of imputation

Right! Completely consonant. You can say of others, if you choose, that
there so-called free intentionality is a myth and, as been suggested by
another Post, they are simply products of programming. But can you say
that of yourself?

> But I treat you as a creature with an inner life, a mental life, on a
par with my own,

Did you choose to think this or was it caused by your brain? And how can
you tell the difference? If one can't, the Dennett's model of brain
causation is indeterminanat.

> Since I don't take a "causal stance" toward you or other creatures
like us,

You don't think of my mental life as caused by my brain activity?

> Nothing about the model of mind I have been explaining here implies
that I must, to be consistent,
> treat you or myself as automata, without real minds, without the
ability to make choices, etc.

Really? You have a mind, in the ordinary sense, ability to reason, make
choices, and yet all this is caused by brain activity. That which is
freely done is caused? Where else in the physical world does this
happen? Does the sun refuse to rise?

As I've suggested before. Dennett's dread of spirit entities in the
skull has prompted him to attribute to the brain, a real physical thing,
if you will, all that others attribute to mind, making choices, etc. but
then cover his tracks by talking about causation -- which upon
examination bears little resemblence to physical causation.

bruce

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/