I would say he takes a functionalist stance. This is the point I have been trying to get across.raw_thought wrote:Dennett disingenuously takes an eliminative materialist stance and then an Epiphenomonolist stance.
Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
Don't ignore Ginkgo, and pay attention to me, I'm easy to dismiss with my, calling a spade a spade, routine. Pay attention to Ginkgo, he's supplying his logical thought on the matter, as one that is familiar with Dennett's arguments.raw_thought wrote:Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer. For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
raw_thought wrote:Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer.
Not at all, why do you consistently ignore memory, as a recording, that one simply refers to, and then compared to others, so as to extrapolate. Which is all physical in nature.
Human intention is born with the need of subsistence, all living things are aware of that on some level. Does not a plant absorb water and nutrients by design. There's your intention. We are just a bit more capable, that we can pick up our roots and move to a more hospitable environment, without necessary relying on another generation. Intention is, in the purest of cases, simply meeting needs, unlike mankind's twisting it to include wants and desires.
The ability to feel things, that you seem to be hung up on, is simply a "physical" sensor, like the other four, so that it helps to spell out need and thus intention.
Surely when you say, "matter lacks the ability to refer" You are forgetting to take simple matter and making it complex, with all it's incarnations. Remember that we are simply a particular combination of elements, albeit a very complex combination, and the only difference between elements are the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons, which seem to be relatively simple, yet quantum physics might disagree with you. It's the complexity of the combination of simple matter that's throwing you a curve ball. In it's physical complexity, matter can easily refer. You nor I just don't understand that complexity, so some invent non physical things, in its place. Like qualia for instance. They feel the need to put some hoodoo or is that voodoo, ghosts, goblins, gods, demons, etc, in there to answer for their ignorance of the extremely complex physical truth, that we have yet to completely understand.
To argue for something beyond the physical, screams of ones need to believe in a god.
For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Here are both definitions:
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and should not be confused with intention."
"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought." Both definitions are courtesy wikipedia.
They are exactly the same thing. They are both simply "IF, THEN" statements. IF, this and/or this, THEN I shall do/propose this. Otherwise known as reasoning. All of which are based upon the physical process' of the brain. To compare bits of data contained in memory and/or against new data, so as to choose the one that fits the need the best. Purely physically computational by the machine. No ghost, god, or qualia are required!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:raw_thought wrote:Umm no, I am not claiming that one cannot run the program without pressing the key. Which is in a way true but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your metaphor has nothing to do with what we are talking about.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Well of course he's saying that the program can't run until someone presses the enter key.
I am saying that intentionality cannot be physical because matter lacks the ability to refer.
Not at all, why do you consistently ignore memory, as a recording, that one simply refers to, and then compared to others, so as to extrapolate. Which is all physical in nature.
Human intention is born with the need of subsistence, all living things are aware of that on some level. Does not a plant absorb water and nutrients by design. There's your intention. We are just a bit more capable, that we can pick up our roots and move to a more hospitable environment, without necessary relying on another generation. Intention is, in the purest of cases, simply meeting needs, unlike mankind's twisting it to include wants and desires.
The ability to feel things, that you seem to be hung up on, is simply a "physical" sensor, like the other four, so that it helps to spell out need and thus intention.
Surely when you say, "matter lacks the ability to refer" You are forgetting to take simple matter and making it complex, with all it's incarnations. Remember that we are simply a particular combination of elements, albeit a very complex combination, and the only difference between elements are the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons, which seem to be relatively simple, yet quantum physics might disagree with you. It's the complexity of the combination of simple matter that's throwing you a curve ball. In it's physical complexity, matter can easily refer. You nor I just don't understand that complexity, so some invent non physical things, in its place. Like qualia for instance. They feel the need to put some hoodoo or is that voodoo, ghosts, goblins, gods, demons, etc, in there to answer for their ignorance of the extremely complex physical truth, that we have yet to completely understand.
To argue for something beyond the physical, screams of ones need to believe in a god.
For example, the ink pattern "on" does not refer to an on light.
See "symbol grounding problem".
You are obviously confusing the philosophical definition of "intentionality" ( that something refers to something else) with the common defintion (that I do a purposeful act).
Here are both definitions:
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and should not be confused with intention."
"Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought." Both definitions are courtesy wikipedia.
They are exactly the same thing. They are both simply "IF, THEN" statements. IF, this and/or this, THEN I shall do/propose this. Otherwise known as reasoning. All of which are based upon the physical process' of the brain. To compare bits of data contained in memory and/or against new data, so as to choose the one that fits the need the best. Purely physically computational by the machine. No ghost, god, or qualia are required!