This is very similar to Dennet's recent use of "aboutness" in his last book (which I have not finished). This is perhaps a less loaded term than representation.
Well the question would be where you draw the line, or if you think intentionality is continuously graded. If you grant it to the thermostat, what mechanisms are *not* intentional, and why not?
-
-
According to Dennett, which I follow, a thing is has intention if it is useful to regard it as having intention. This pragmatic in the philosophical sense.
-
Yeees… that view is popular outside the field, but was not widely accepted within it. Problem is it doesn’t help explain anything about “how do minds/brains work” which is what cogsci wanted, nor does it give any purchase on the philosophical questions.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, I think this is better not done on twitter! The Varela, Thompson, Rosch book is probably as good as any (although I haven’t read it since it was first published, so I can’t remember exactly their positions in the debates). The SEP articles are probably understandable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.