In article <932248614.491.68 at news.remarQ.com>, "Gary Forbis" <forbis at accessone.com> wrote:
>F. Frank LeFever <flefever at ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:7mq3vk$l6q at dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com...
>> Here's that broken record again--me, asking for definitions!
>> "Intentionality" = ??
>Please, not that. Anything but that. Oh please. Please.
>I don't think I can put it into words. Webster defines "intentional" as
>"b : having external reference." I'll go with that for now.
Well, how about intent as such?
See, intention is a simple case,
and if we can not even resolve that much,
then what are we going to say about ANYTHING
even remotely related to intelligence,
as INTENT is simply unavoidable.
>> My off-the-top-of-my-head response: very early
>> in my grad studies, there was an ambitious attempt to deal with what
>> PERHAPS you "intend" here, by--Pribram, Galanter, and Miller?
>> Ironically, (if I recall correctly) they were trying to account for
>> "purposeful" behavior in living organisms (without invoking
>> teleological explanations of "goal" seeking) in terms of concepts from
>> cybernetics... That is, using the "intentionality" of computers with
>> real-world interfaces as a model for "intentionality" of living
>> organisms.
>> (n.b.: I am leaping to the conclusion that you mean all kinds of
>> goal-directed behavior, not just the intent to convey meaning)
>>um... I guess.
>Does the systems of thermostat and heater statisfy your defintion of
>"goal-directed behavior" such that it can intent to keep the temperature
>in a given range?
Yep, just like a toilet flushing mechanism.
