--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote: > The question is how do we get intentional reporting? I assume you are asking: What must be in place for a being to be intentional? And I agree, a brain, or something comparable. The questions: 1. How do we decide that an entity should be treated as an intentional being or not (who or whatever we meet in our future travels through the universe, or, for that matter, when a mutant is born)? Ans: We have our behavioral criteria. We don't crack open the skull. 2. Do we shift from a causal to an intentional account when we decide this being is intentional? Ans: I say "Yes", and you say... > Something causes what we call intentionality in us. Which leaves me in the position you describe as... > Here we are tied up in knots by our desire to express things > in language in a certain way when that way doesn't quite work. Namely, on the one hand, the person is freely acting in terms of future plans, on a psycho-social level and yet every thought and act is caused by a brain event. You see this also. That's why you are continuously shifting your terms. > ...a brain at the source of that person. And how we have "source." It matters not whether we speak of causes, conditions, source or what have you. What matters is whether you can effectively read current brain research as "bottom up", i.e., the brain causes us to experience joy, or "top-down", i.e., who use our brain to enjoy life. Bruce wrote: > > Or do you hold that we are programmed computers that utter sounds "its > > red" when the brain part is stimulated. And hence the word uttering is > > the last step in he causal chain. > Nope. What are you negating? a- We are programmed computers b- Our brains run on causal chains, c- The mind isn't part of the chain. bruce ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/