[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:07:13 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote:
> My point, should I have one, is that I rather favor the Searle view,
> that intentionality is really something beyond an attribution.
And I actually agree with that.
The problem with Searle's argument was that, in effect, he said that
even if your AI system gets all of the behavior right, it won't have
intentionality so won't be "strong AI." In my opinion he should have
said "your AI system won't succeed in getting the behavior right
because it won't have intentionality."
> In fact, it only now occurs to me, that Searle does offer his own
> purely attributional story in his Wordstar parable. He makes it
> out to be absurd, does he not?
For sure, his "Wordstar system" in his wall does not get the behavior
right.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
