Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tim Crane, himself an impure intentionalist, explains this difference by distinguishing three aspects of intentional states: the intentional object, the intentional content, and the intentional mode. [34] [39] For example, seeing that an apple is round and tasting that this apple is sweet both have the same intentional object: the apple. But ...
Successful intentions bring about the intended course of action while unsuccessful intentions fail to do so. Intentions, like many other mental states, have intentionality: they represent possible states of affairs. Theories of intention try to capture the characteristic features of intentions.
But this view has various opponents, who distinguish between intentional and non-intentional states. Putative examples of non-intentional states include various bodily experiences like pains and itches. Because of this association, it is sometimes held that all sensory states lack intentionality. [65] [66] But such a view ignores that certain ...
The intentional stance is a term coined by philosopher Daniel Dennett for the level of abstraction in which we view the behavior of an entity in terms of mental properties.It is part of a theory of mental content proposed by Dennett, which provides the underpinnings of his later works on free will, consciousness, folk psychology, and evolution.
This is an interesting question; it is no surprise that it takes center stage in the philosophy of mind. Indeed, it is certainly an interesting question how minds, thought by those in the natural camp to be "natural physical objects", [1] could have developed intentional properties. In the mid-1980s, with the works of Ruth Millikan and David ...
“Those habits of thinking make us more capable of experiencing positive states, of relating to other people in friendly and supportive ways, and just managing and handling the difficulties and ...
Amy Robach knows that T.J. Holmes wants to be the one to pop the question.. While answering fan questions on the Dec. 8 episode of their Amy & T.J. podcast, the former GMA3: What You Need to Know ...
The problem here is that the intention to think about something already needs to include the content of the thought. So the thought is no longer needed since the intention already "thinks" the content. This leads to a vicious regress since another intention would be necessary to characterize the first intention as an action. [16]