On Aug 16, 2009, at 10:51 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
> What we mean when we say x intends, is merely to say that person
> will act or person will not act according to what he knows and
> desires, there is no special faculty of intention that separates
> persons from non-persons, etc. In short, i don't think intention or
> intentionality exists as anything other than shorthand for knowing
> our own desires and realizing them in the world. And really, that
> is all we need, we don't need 'intend' anymore than we need 'will',
> except as literary constructs. To design then, does not require to
> intend, it merely requires knowledge/thought/desire+action which is
> equivalent to planning+action.
Jeremy: I think Ken got it right. There is a faculty that separates
persons from non-persons, animals from objects. It is the executive
function of the frontal cortex in humans. You can't dismiss it with
sophistries like "knowledge/thought/desire+action which is equivalent
to planning+action." It is the mind/brain that implements such
things. Intention is a single word that encompasses and integrates
the cognition involved in desire/knowledge/attentional selection/
conceptual thought/interpretation/potential actions/evaluation of
results/ adaptive assimilation and reuse. Purposeful thought and
design is "intentionally" guided based on needs and desires perceived
within the situations we confront. We dismiss intentionality and the
cognition it directs at our peril.
Chuck
|