We are reviewing the article by Daniel Dennett. The main topic is about Intentional system, it is a system whose behavior can be predicted by relying on it beliefs and desires, this is part of theory of mental content proposed by Dennett, which become the fundamental of his later work on free will, consciousness and evolution. It does raise a significant philosophical issue such as the existence of mind and its consciousness which has been debated so long by many philosophers and logical scientist such as John Searle and Alan Turing. Dennett believes that our mind is an imaginary list of instruction that anyone can predict or know about what we know.
Physical stance is simply the standard laborious method of the physical sciences, in which …show more content…
Kasparov. Deep Blue is a kind of Artificial Intelligence created by a human known as a programmer. The programmer has a desire to win the chess competition against Kasparov and this desire make the Deep Blue having an intentional too which is more to “as if” intentionality. Meanwhile, Kasparov also has a desire and belief to win the game. Kasparov intentional stance is known as original intentionality, which is an innate program for human being. Daniel Dennett claims that human lacks of original intentionality and only derived, and there is no distinction between original intentionality and derived. He also claimed that there is no such thing as original intentionality.
Dennett (1990) has this to say regarding the first question:
Where, though, do we get our ‘original’ and underived intentionality? From God, as Michelangelo suggests? Or is it a mistake to ask such a question? After all, if our intentionality is truly original (‘urspru¨nglich’ as a German might say) then it is not derived from anything at all, but rather an ultimate font of meaning, an Unmeant
Meaner. I take it that this is Searle’s view. If it is not, then he certainly owes us an answer to the question of whence cometh our own intentionality. (p. …show more content…
Stephen Stich points out that people often have beliefs or desires which are irrational or bizarre, and Intentional System Theory doesn’t allow us to say anything about these. It is possible to formulate a predictive strategy specific to a person, if the person’s environmental niche and the possibility of malfunction in their brain are being closely examined. This is the steps that is taken to predict someone who behave unpredictably such as pedophile, claustrophobic and lesbian. Simply to say that this irrationality can only be dealt by contrasting it against the background assumptions of rationality. This is completely weakens the first premise of the intentional stance
Physical stance is simply the standard laborious method of the physical sciences, in which …show more content…
Kasparov. Deep Blue is a kind of Artificial Intelligence created by a human known as a programmer. The programmer has a desire to win the chess competition against Kasparov and this desire make the Deep Blue having an intentional too which is more to “as if” intentionality. Meanwhile, Kasparov also has a desire and belief to win the game. Kasparov intentional stance is known as original intentionality, which is an innate program for human being. Daniel Dennett claims that human lacks of original intentionality and only derived, and there is no distinction between original intentionality and derived. He also claimed that there is no such thing as original intentionality.
Dennett (1990) has this to say regarding the first question:
Where, though, do we get our ‘original’ and underived intentionality? From God, as Michelangelo suggests? Or is it a mistake to ask such a question? After all, if our intentionality is truly original (‘urspru¨nglich’ as a German might say) then it is not derived from anything at all, but rather an ultimate font of meaning, an Unmeant
Meaner. I take it that this is Searle’s view. If it is not, then he certainly owes us an answer to the question of whence cometh our own intentionality. (p. …show more content…
Stephen Stich points out that people often have beliefs or desires which are irrational or bizarre, and Intentional System Theory doesn’t allow us to say anything about these. It is possible to formulate a predictive strategy specific to a person, if the person’s environmental niche and the possibility of malfunction in their brain are being closely examined. This is the steps that is taken to predict someone who behave unpredictably such as pedophile, claustrophobic and lesbian. Simply to say that this irrationality can only be dealt by contrasting it against the background assumptions of rationality. This is completely weakens the first premise of the intentional stance