We will discuss on the article of Intentional System Theory by a philosopher Daniel Dennett. The argument that we are going to use from this theory is about the intentional theory where Daniel Dennett thinks that both human and objects have beliefs and desires and from that the behaviors can be interpreted. From the article itself, Intentional System Theory is defined as an analysis of the meanings where people use the terms such as ‘believe’, ‘desire’, ‘expect’, ‘decide’, and ‘intend’ or in the terms of ‘folk psychology’ that we use to interpret, explain, and predict the behavior of other human beings including ourselves, animals and some artifacts such as robots and computers (Daniel, 2009).
From what we have read about Daniel Dennett’s
…show more content…
Intentional System Theory, there are three types of stances which are the physical, design and also the intentional stances. Physical stances are where designed objects can be explained and predicted with the principle of physics. For example, the application of Newton’s Gravity Law has been applied to all objects that are thrown from a higher level will fall down due to their own mass and the gravity just like what Daniel Dennett has stated about the fall of the stone from the level of his hand. The design stances are where the physical appearances of the object are being ignored while the main focus of the stances is the design and the function of the designed objects.
We don’t have to explain about how do the objects works because we know the purpose of the objects are designed like that. For example, we know the purpose of the hair dryer which it is use to blow dry our hair. Therefore you do not need any physics principle to explain to use it, in fact you just have to press the start button to use the hair dryer.
For our focal point of this assignment, intentional stances is where Daniel Dennett has assumed that objects are treated as an agents with beliefs and desires and given the rationality to do what it is supposed to do according to its beliefs and desires. In the article, Daniel Dennett said that in playing chess game with the computer, you have the prediction that it will move in a smarter way where it can beats you.
From what we have read, we have discovered a few arguments which are related to the intentional stances that we had our focus on. The arguments we found are:
i. All Living Beings and Objects Are True Believer
ii. All things and Objects has beliefs and desires but don’t believe about
it iii. Do we have to ask permission from the non-living things
Our machine showed physics in many ways. It used Newtons laws, collisions, and more aspects of physics. Our project showed ten different aspects in detail. This is our machine.
The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.
According to Dennett, in order to be culpable of moral responsibility one must have higher order intentionality.
Therefore, the human organism although made of multiple “swarms,” is different from other organisms or programs because of the capacity to make conclusions and make illogical and “unnatural” decisions not based on the rudimentary interworking of the brain cells. Therefore although multi agent distributed parallel processing programs, can produce emergent behavior that could possibly be equated to our illogical decisions and creativity, human behavior, although somewhat emergent, stems from a deeper consciousness not generated by the interactions of brain
As some believe that we humans have free will, they believe that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom of action. But, if all of our actions have a reason behind them, or if there is a causal explanation behind each of our choices, it is difficult to say that we actually have the freedom of will. For this reason, determinism challenges free will, as the determinist believes that all of our decisions are governed by some form of natural law, and that all of our behaviors are explainable by this law.
The purpose of this academic piece is to critically discuss The Darwinist implication of the evolutionary psychological conception of human nature. Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” will be the main factor discussed as the theory of evolution was developed by him. Evolutionary psychology is the approach on human nature on the basis that human behavior is derived from biological factors and there are psychologists who claim that human behavior is not something one is born with but rather it is learned. According to Downes, S. M. (2010 fall edition) “Evolutionary psychology is one of the many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior”. This goes further to implicate that evolutionary psychology is virtually based on the claims of the human being a machine that can be programmed to do certain things and because it can be programmed it has systems in the body that allow such to happen for instance the nervous system which is the connection of the spinal cord and the brain and assists in voluntary and involuntary motor movements.
"At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness” (Haynes). This studies reveals that fact that although we may be unaware the notion of free will is prevalent throughout everyday life in the actions we believe we choose to do.
This essay will look at the contribution of the free will/determinism debate and the idiographic/nomothetic approach and also how they apply to contemporary psychology.
I find it difficult to decide in some of these matters which way I "lean" as the matters concerned are complex and often clouded by the mists of nearly two millenia. I take some comfort in Kostenbergers attitude " .......without undue dogmatism on all sides."
(2008, January 1). They should have thought about the consequences: the crisis of cognitivism and a second chance for behavior analysis, The Free Library. a. The adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the a Retrieved January 01, 2011 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/They should have thought about the consequences: the crisis of.-a0175445637. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. (1958).
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
Critique of theory defines evidence-based nursing practice and denotes the congruence between the data from theory-generating research and current implementation (Fawcett & Desanto-Madeya, 2013, p. 313). Critiques must be non-judgemental and must attain the purpose of extending nursing research to address human complexity and nursing interventions. The writer’s purpose for this paper is to analyze Betty Neuman’s Systems Model Theory (NSM) using the criteria: theorist’s background, major assumptions, concepts and relationships, usefulness, testability, parsimony, and theoretical values in extending nursing science, as outlined by Wills (2002, pp. 118-122). The writer addresses the concepts of nursing, health, client, and environment,
The Neuman Systems Model (NSM) is a holistic and open system that involves the shifting relationship between a client / client system and its environment (Neuman & Fawcett, 2002). Because of Neuman’s holistic perspective, the model suggests that the client must be understood comprehensively by constructing the client system to include the physiological, psychological, sociocultural, developmental, and spiritual variables (Neuman & Fawcett, 2002). The client system is also shown in the model as circles to include a basic core structure (basic survival factors), lines of resistance (closest to the core and protects the system), normal line of defense (normal state of operating), and flexible line of defense (outer boundary
...lligent, intentional activity taking place inside the room and the digital computer. The proponents of Searle’s argument, however, would counter that if there is an entity which does computation, such as human being or computer, it cannot understand the meanings of the symbols it uses. They maintain that digital computers do not understand the input given in or the output given out. But it cannot be claimed that the digital computers as whole cannot understand. Someone who only inputs data, being only a part of the system, cannot know about the system as whole. If there is a person inside the Chinese room manipulating the symbols, the person is already intentional and has a mental state, thus, due to the seamless integration of their systems of hardware and software that understand the inputs and outputs as whole systems, digital computers too have states of mind.
...ocesses which are distinct from observable behavioral responses. Acts such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, and willing are defined by behavioral actions and by dispositions to perform behavioral actions. However, Ryle criticises Behaviorist theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic, just as he criticizes Cartesian theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic. While Cartesian theory asserts that hidden mental processes cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual, Behaviorism asserts that stimulus-response mechanisms cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual. Ryle argues that both the Cartesian theory and the Behaviorist theory are too simplistic and mechanistic to enable us to fully understand the Concept of Mind.