On the suggestion I went back to Nick & Pat's paper, but don't find the departure from a normal sifting of categories (philosophical conversation) that science broke from ages ago, and that Nick's own sharp questions about things with homing trajectories represents. I'm a designer, among other things, and while I understand the need to stretch the meanings of common words to raise new issues, I think 'design' and 'intentionality' can't be done by systems that don't make 'images'.
You might stretch it to say that natural systems and their behaviors ARE images of their environments (though that's not what we mean when we refer to the mental state the word refers to), but I don't think it's right to say natural systems or their behaviors HAVE images, or designs on, their environments. That just seems to take us back to teleology. If 'intentionality' is to be read into complex systems that probably don't have vast reflective worlds of projected imagery seated in a central control structure, I think it'll disagree with the natural meaning of the word and be confusing. We grope for how to describe how things without brains can act as a whole, but I vote we not use 'intentionality'. To say that non-cognitive systems don't 'have designs on' other things isn't to say that the 'designs of nature' aren't real. They seem to be the main source of human 'invention'. Maybe the disconnect, that nature has design, but doesn't do design, is telling though. I think it's one of the most widespread errors of thought, that we use the same words for things in nature and in our minds, and don't distinguish... To think the world is in your mind does give you a peculiarly enthralling feeling of power, no doubt, but as a lifestyle it actually leaves you quite powerless. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:42 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] Intentionality - the mark of the vital > > > > I have finally read the article "Intentionality is > the mark of the vital". It contains interesting > remarks about the mind/body problem, about the > relationship between mental and material "substance", > and nice illustrations (for example about lions and gnus). > Well written. > > If "intentionality is the mark of the vital", > are artificial agents with intentions the first > step towards vital, living systems ? Agents are > of course used in artificial life, but in the > context of the article the question seems to > gain new importance. > > -J. > ________________________________ > > From: Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] self-consciousness > > For those rare few of you that are INTENSELY interested by > the recent discussion on self consciousness, here is a paper > on the subject which asserts that every organism must have a > point of view. > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/id14.html ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
