[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:00:13 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> Dennett doesn't even touch it since according to him intrinsic
> intentionality is not something studied by the intentional stance.
Quite right. So there is no mystery for Dennett. He eliminates the
need for intrinsic intentionality, and thereby disolves the mystery.
> I think you haven't bothered to read Searle's book _Intentionality_.
There is nothing in that 1983 book to remove the mystery that Searle
created in his 1980 Chinese Room argument, where he gave magical
properties to intentionality.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
