[Wittrs] Re: Original and derived intentionality
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:09:38 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:
>
>
> In other words, if our account of intentionality is the firing of
> multi-layer complex of representational networks then the person is
> superfluous. But now we have a brain that is intentional and have
> returned to a vitalistic biology.
No, not quite.
It's not "the brain" that is intentional in that case, it is certain
inscriptions in the brain, when processed by the brain, within an
environmental embedding, all of this constituting an agent and/or
agency, or something along those lines.
And the term then is not "vitalistic" but "naturalized".
This is by analogy, a Pentium processor chip in the box is not
"intentional" so we say "a brain" is not intentional,
but (just perhaps) when set up in a proper workstation,
powered on, and running a particular program, the composite system
built including the Pentium chip,
by means of some of the details of its composition and certain
brute causal processes, may just be intentional.
Josh
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
