align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The Denver Philosophy Meetup Group Message Board › The Intentional Stance

The Intentional Stance

Dan
danlg
Group Organizer
Broomfield, CO
Post #: 1,383
Right.

Are thinking tends to see these quantified knowns in a casual way.

We often confuse them with the non-existant things, much the same way, through grammer.

Are english language is designed in such a way to retrofit into substitution not only things and places in place of nouns, but also abstracts, ideas, and even emotions.

But let's not stop there. Intention as well.
A former member
Post #: 1,028
Dan: Right.

Are thinking tends to see these quantified knowns in a casual way.

We often confuse them with the non-existant things, much the same way, through grammer.

Are english language is designed in such a way to retrofit into substitution not only things and places in place of nouns, but also abstracts, ideas, and even emotions.

But let's not stop there. Intention as well.

Dan, what is your take on Quine's double standard: intention does not exist (i.e., like dog poop exists) but is an indispensable concept for our language (i.e., "Today I shall avoid stepping in dog poop").

Regards,
iDave.
Dan
danlg
Group Organizer
Broomfield, CO
Post #: 1,384
Dan:
Right.

Are thinking tends to see these quantified knowns in a casual way.

We often confuse them with the non-existant things, much the same way, through grammer.

Are english language is designed in such a way to retrofit into substitution not only things and places in place of nouns, but also abstracts, ideas, and even emotions.

But let's not stop there. Intention as well.

IDave:
Dan, what is your take on Quine's double standard: intention does not exist (i.e., like dog poop exists) but is an indispensable concept for our language (i.e., "Today I shall avoid stepping in dog poop").

Regards,
iDave.
Dave, you use Quine's ontological indeterminacy theory incorrectly.

If you had said "that 'thing' exists" and then followed up with either "Today I, intend, to avoid stepping into 'that thing'..." or subsequently "Today I, intend, to avoid stepping into that doggy poo I previous called 'that thing'..."

Quine's objective with the double standard was 1.) to place into effect an indispensability argument to force belief in the existence of mathematical objects (such as classes) due to their indis- pensability to our best theories of the world, and 2.) argues that the existence of vacuous names and unnamed objects demonstrates that names cannot be taken to be the primary bearers of reference; because names exist without objects, and object without names, we can draw no ontological conclusions from the presence (or absence) of a name in the language used to name.

This being Quine's take on Russell's 'abstract objects' that later Wittgenstein expressed 'to understand the meaning of a term, we must first look at its use'.

A would say that J.L. Austen Plea for Excuses might bring out the light in the matter you guys have been arguing over.

I have a feeling Jeanette might enjoy this paper for its simple approach at understanding what an 'intention' is....

And likewise what it is not.

I may leave a word document later under the files list of the same paper.


A former member
Post #: 1,029
Dan:A would say that J.L. Austen Plea for Excuses might bring out the light in the matter you guys have been arguing over.

I have a feeling Jeanette might enjoy this paper for its simple approach at understanding what an 'intention' is....

1. How does this article bring out the light in (shed light on) the matter we have been arguing over?

2. How does this article help us understand what an intention is? What is the simple approach we can use?

Regards,
iDave.
A former member
Post #: 1,030
Positive Well-Being to Higher Telomerase: Psychological Changes from Meditation Training Linked to Cellular Health

Here is a fun article for mind-body enthusiasts. The researcher is hesitant to admit that meditation directly changes physical states; rather, it must change mental states first and those mental states then alter physical levels of telomerase via the standard woo woo conduit.

"We have found that meditation promotes positive psychological changes, and that meditators showing the greatest improvement on various psychological measures had the highest levels of telomerase," said Clifford Saron, associate research scientist at the UC Davis Center for Mind and Brain.

"The take-home message from this work is not that meditation directly increases telomerase activity and therefore a person's health and longevity," Saron said. "Rather, meditation may improve a person's psychological well-being and in turn these changes are related to telomerase activity in immune cells, which has the potential to promote longevity in those cells. Activities that increase a person's sense of well-being may have a profound effect on the most fundamental aspects of their physiology."

http://www.sciencedai...­

Regards,
iDave.
Dan
danlg
Group Organizer
Broomfield, CO
Post #: 1,385
Dan:
A would say that J.L. Austen Plea for Excuses might bring out the light in the matter you guys have been arguing over.

I have a feeling Jeanette might enjoy this paper for its simple approach at understanding what an 'intention' is....

IDave:
1. How does this article bring out the light in (shed light on) the matter we have been arguing over?

2. How does this article help us understand what an intention is? What is the simple approach we can use?

Regards,
iDave.

I'll get to that later. So far as I have discerned, I see there two matters.

1st.) the necessity in prioritizing a solipsistic interpretation of what an 'intention' is to the pragmatic public discussion of what an intention is.

2nd.) In order to detail what intention is, we must discern from ourselves 'our intention' and nobody can discern that but the one 'who intends'.

So we are left here in the dark, sort of speak, with claim 'intention is x' and counter 'how do I know you intended x, rather than mistakenly intended y, but x happened'.

That is any observer will see intention in 'human behavior' so long as they communally agree upon the same metaphysical picture 'internally'.

Like, I step on you foot Dave. Ken says, 'that was an accident' you say 'you did that intentionally' while Jeanette says 'I don't know which.'

If we prioritize the public interpretation over the private, although we may believe we know some intentional behavior from some non-intentional behavior, then we fail to locate intention.

But he intended it in his head before he stepped on my foot?-->Post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Dave you'd recall my counter claims to moral agency metaphysics, or the err involved in it. There is no 'doer' of a deed before the deed, but that the doer is tacked on after the fact, so that blame may be thus dealt to the doer by punishment (public intention interpretation), and responsibility placed on the deed by discerning 'intention' from 'accident' (by way of the public interpretation) in the deed in relation to the doer. See Genealogy of Morals, Essay One, selection 13 for further analysis.

Now, I could say, "Mea Culpa. I din't mean to step on your foot Dave, I meant to step on the ground where you foot 'inadvertently' was."

My plea for excuses would thereby reverse such a priority of interpretation, that the private interpretation takes precedence over the public interpretation of intention.

But by conceding to that point, the discussion of 'what is an intention' is over! For an internal rubric determining what's intended and what's not has no public analysis (linguistically logical scrutiny). My beetle in my box could be what I define 'intention' or it could not be? How would I know after the fact? What rule would I appeal to to check whether it was or not, or whether my guessing it so was correct, incorrect?

I might just as well scramble up Augustine's format (What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.), "What then is 'intention'? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.

Now, to the article's relation. Austen makes a distinction between 'something done purposefully' by that 'done accidentally'. Which our public option. We might define intention by saying it is a deed done with 'purpose', or we might say 'it is a deed done without any accident in it'.
Dan
danlg
Group Organizer
Broomfield, CO
Post #: 1,386
IDave:
Po­sitive Well-Being to Higher Telomerase: Psychological Changes from Meditation Training Linked to Cellular Health

Here is a fun article for mind-body enthusiasts. The researcher is hesitant to admit that meditation directly changes physical states; rather, it must change mental states first and those mental states then alter physical levels of telomerase via the standard woo woo conduit.

"We have found that meditation promotes positive psychological changes, and that meditators showing the greatest improvement on various psychological measures had the highest levels of telomerase," said Clifford Saron, associate research scientist at the UC Davis Center for Mind and Brain.

"The take-home message from this work is not that meditation directly increases telomerase activity and therefore a person's health and longevity," Saron said. "Rather, meditation may improve a person's psychological well-being and in turn these changes are related to telomerase activity in immune cells, which has the potential to promote longevity in those cells. Activities that increase a person's sense of well-being may have a profound effect on the most fundamental aspects of their physiology."

http://www.sciencedai...­

Regards,
iDave.
I don't know who this is suppose to be addressed to, but I for one really don't care to engage in debate on the topic of meditation, or 'positive thinking'. To me, it works on those weak minded folk that could use placebo suggestions to get them motivated or change their health etc...

So what if the health of someone changes from such activities? I caught a campus crud bug last week. Without a large dose of antibiotics, and if I preferred using meditation techniques to treat the campus crud bug purely I would have died.

I mean maybe we might strike up the topic of the meditation of tummo?

It is something studied scientifically. We see the real effects, and the feats of the body to the extreme temperature of cold, and the rigor practice of meditating with the tummo.
A former member
Post #: 1,031
iDave: Here is a fun article for mind-body enthusiasts...

Dan: I don't know who this is suppose to be addressed to, but I for one really don't care to engage in debate on the topic of meditation, or 'positive thinking'.

Since it says who it is addressed to, you must be acting out again, but that's OK, we still love you.

If meditation makes you uncomfortable, you should probably stop debating it; otherwise, you could become ill.

Dan: I mean maybe we might strike up the topic of the meditation of tummo?

The correct name of this style is tummy meditation. It takes this name from the practice of rubbing one's tummy. This causes an increase in body heat, especially near one's tummy. You would enjoy tummy meditation.

Regards,
iDave.
Jeanette M. N.
wickedatheist
Denver, CO
Post #: 3,258
I'm sorry, Dan, but that John Austen guy's excessive use of commas, as a means of stretching run-on sentences, is so distracting to me, that I was unable to read that essay, at least beyond the first few paragraphs, which didn't clarify for me what intention might have to do with this discussion. (Though concentration has been harder than usual lately.)

Can you just come right out and tell us how you think it relates to this topic?
__________________

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a thing may be greater than the sum of its parts (at least unless you include as parts the processes and conditions of the combination of those parts), and even to say that we may often be practically unable to reduce a thing to its parts, but something else to say that the resulting thing does not reduce to its parts. It may not reduce simply, and it may be impossible from a practical standpoint, but that's beside the point.

To be able to work backward and break something down into not just its elements but also the subtleties of the processes it has undergone to allow new properties to emerge would be very difficult even if you were talking about something very simple. You could analyze a butter cookie and determine its components, but you would have to know a bit about baking to conclude from its texture whether the butter had been creamed in or melted in. But even if you can't practically reduce a particular thing, that doesn't mean it's theoretically impossible.

What about if randomness is part of the process? Doesn't that change everything? It certainly does from a practical standpoint, because that makes it even more difficult (and less likely) that you would be able to work downward and break a thing into its lower-level components and processes.

But does it undermine determinism? Do random elements at the quantum level necessarily make an act of reduction theoretically impossible? I don't know.

I don't know if anything is truly random, or if things just seem random to us because we don't know enough about them. Whether a batch of cookies turns out can seem arbitrary if you don't have experience baking cookies. And even seemingly random events still conform to probability, when all other factors are eliminated as pushing the odds one way or the other. Maybe that's true of random events at the quantum level, too.


But aside from all of the above, it seems funny to me that emergentism isn't said to cover everything, but mostly just consciousness. It looks like instead of making observations and coming to a conclusion, emergentists started with a conclusion (a questionable one, that there is some kind of mind/body "problem") and then tried to find facts to "explain" that questionable conclusion.
__________________

On this that you posted, Dave... http://www.sciencedai...­

...yes, the mind is a fascinating "thing."
A former member
Post #: 1,032
Dan ... If we prioritize the public interpretation over the private, although we may believe we know some intentional behavior from some non-intentional behavior, then we fail to locate intention... My plea for excuses would thereby reverse such a priority of interpretation, that the private interpretation takes precedence over the public interpretation of intention.

But by conceding to that point, the discussion of 'what is an intention' is over!

Dan, I think the only one here struggling with 'what is an intention?' was Ken. Daniel Dennett is not struggling with it. I'm not struggling with it. Frogs are not struggling with it.

The Intentional Stance is just the public (3rd person, from the outside) interpretation of what another agent (person, frog, amoeba, etc.) is doing. It works so well in evolutionary terms that we are able to discuss 'what is an intention?' today. Cool.

Unless you are trying to fool me, your private and my public interpretations coincide. In evolutionary diachronic scales, your private interpretation is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter what the frog "really" thinks and it is not at all certain that you "really" know what you are doing anyway, so relax and have a Pepsi.

Your argument here seems essentialist, like you are going to find a Platonic form called "intention" by rolling up some verbs in Austin's paper and lighting up.

Have a little vision, mahn. wink

Regards,
iDave.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy