Fil
I
On 8/12/05 9:30 AM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I was also suggesting that an intention is static in that it is content,
> and that the reasoning agent, which is dynamic, changes the static
> intention. You wrote that "...intention as a process of resolution
> that is not always clear or fully expressed...." I'm just saying that I
> prefer to think of the 'process of resolution' not as intention but as
> operating on intention.
>
> In this way, there is a certain similarity between on the one hand the
> static intention and the dynamic cognitive agent (call it 'mind' for
> lack of a better word) and on the other hand a static real-word entity
> and the dynamic physical agents that operate on it.
I view intention as a "dynamic reasoning agent" (to use your language).
Plans, proposals specifications, artifacts, etc are "content" or "formal
states" that express an intention at some point in time when one seeks to
apprehend, express or communicate it. I think your use of "intention"
confounds "operation" and "state". You need other terms for the state that
you use to capture and objectify an otherwise unresolved process.
Best regards,
Chuck
|