Intention Consists of Belief, Intention Does Not Entail Belief
In this paper, we will discuss both Gilbert Harman’s and J. David Velleman’s theories of intentions. The central dispute between their two theories of intention is that Harman holds that intention entails belief, while Velleman holds that intention consists of belief. Velleman constructs a model of intention in which intention consists of belief in order to explain the apparent spontaneity of an agent’s self-knowledge. Harman, on the other hand, rejects the thesis that intention consists of belief because of an example involving an insomniac. My goal in this paper is to show how Velleman’s theory of intention can avoid the problem posed by the case of the insomniac. The conclusion will then be that Velleman’s theory is more plausible than Harman’s, because it is able to successfully explain more about our commonsense observations of agents, namely, how an agent’s self-knowledge is spontaneous.
In Harman’s model, intention entails belief in that when one intends to A one believes that one will A. According to Harman, intentions are the result of practical reasoning and beliefs are the result of theoretical reasoning. For example, if I intend to write this paper, I must know that it is within my power to write this paper. Since knowing involves believing, I therefore must believe that I will write this paper in order to intend to write this paper. Thus, one comes to have a belief that one can do something, such as the ability to write a paper, as the result of theoretical reasoning, while one comes to have an intention, like writing a paper, as the result of practical reasoning. Simply put, the process goes as follows: practical reasoning forms intentions dependent upon the conclusions (beliefs) of theoretical reasoning.
Now that we have an understanding about how intentions are formed in Harman, it is necessary to discuss what he thinks makes an intention an intention. According to Harman, an "‘act’ of forming an intention is always a means to end" (Harman, 157). Stated another way, an intention is always a way of doing something else. This feature of intentions is what leads Harman to conclude that intentions are self-referential, in the sense that one must intend to intend. That is, one always forms an intention intentionally. An important feature of intentions that Harman derives from this observation is that intentions are a means of guaranteeing that an agent will act in a particular way.
In conclusion, Frankfurt’s account of free will is, despite it’s initial attractions, ultimately unsuccessful. I have argued that when we consider the case of a brainwashed agent we see that Frankfurt’s account is missing something important – a consideration of the agent’s reflective capacity. There is, therefore, more to free will than Frankfurt’s account suggests and it is, consequently, unsuccessful.
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
The harm principle states that all individuals have the free will to carry through any action they desire to make, as long as it does not hamper or effect the rights of others. Mill has arguments, although inconclusive to many, that support his position.
Belief whether or not the mind and the body are distinct substances have split the philosopher community in two: the dualists and the monists. In this essay, I will discuss how the mind and body are not distinct based on Rene Descartes’ arguments in The Meditations Of First Philosophy. First, I am going to introduce a few of Descartes’ arguments and his position on the matter. Then, I will pick the most appealing argument and put it up against logical reasoning with other philosophers’ points of view. Finally, I am going to conclude how the 17th-century philosopher proposes a fallacious argument which tests his Cartesian dualism theory.
...and greatest” mentality. Consumers throw away perfectly good food, electronics, etc. Society has conditioned to think objects and materials show wealth and stature. We are raised to except trash and garbage as anything that is be out dated, or slightly imperfect. High standards and expectations from relaters and consumers force us to buy excessively. If you don’t acquire these fancy popular gadgets then you are not living the normal state of living, giving the impression you can’t afford or poor. If one lacks the newest and coolest phone or gadget they are looked down on. This mentality is extremely toxic to our pockets and society. In conclusion it is crucial that we implement less damaging and toxic waste management disposal system.
The Civil war cut our nation in two, Americans fighting Americans, brother against brother. A key battle fought westward was the turning point in the war: the Battle of Vicksburg.
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
Despite having contrary qualities and fundamentally opposing natures, the mind and body are intertwined and interact with one another. Interactive dualism hold the idea that the mind is eternal and has the ability to exist apart from the body. Descartes holds the idea that if the physical realm in which the body material body exists ceased to exist, the mind would still be. However, if a circumstance arose which annihilated his ability to think, he would cease to exist. Interactive dualism explores the idea that the body is simply an extension of the forms of the individual in the physical world, that the demise of the material body does not render its fundamental nature to be obsolete. Interactive dualism can seem to diminish the importance of the material body, but it does not. Descartes states that the mind and body are united and interact so closely that it seems to create one whole. This unity is expressed by when the physical body experiences pain. If the mind simply related to the body in the manner a sailor relates to a ship, the mind would simply perceive pain through
I will commence by defining what makes a mental state conscious. This will be done aiming to distinguish what type of state we are addressing when we speak of a mental phenomenon and how is it, that can have a plausible explanation. By taking this first approach, we are able to build a base for our main argument to be clear enough and so that we can remain committed to.
The questions about the existence of life and the creation of the world are always mind-boggling and fascinating, however, the real answer to these questions may never surface. All there is to rely on are the myths, stories and legends passed on from generation to generation by ancestors and the clues they have left. This essay will try to uncover the ancient Mesopotamian and Hebrew views on existence and creation by looking at sources like the Genesis and other ancient Mesopotamian texts and poems. Mesopotamians and Hebrews had contrasting views on how they explained the events in their lives, and through analysis of ancient sources, those differences will be outlined. In such populated and booming areas, human conflict was inevitable and some of the law codes that were placed in effect to establish order within the society will be examined. Throughout it all, god and religion played a central role in these ancient civilizations.
Cigarette smoking stay the top preventable cause of sickness and early death in the United States because not only it asserts over 400,000 lives a year but it enhances the danger of someone dying from illnesses such as heart disease, stroke emphysema and a diversity of cancers (Douglas E.Jorenby) . Despite information about the bad side effects of smoking on health, 25% of adults in the United States keep on smoking. One of the reason why people seems to not easily quit smoking and continue to do it has to do with the addictive nicotine, a substance found in all types of tobacco products.
Descartes suggests that there is a gland inside the brain in charge of the ‘interaction between the non-physical and physical substance, he maintains that “from there it radiates through the rest of the body by means of the animal spirits” (Descartes, 1649/1984, p.341). In other words, Descartes suggests that it is in the pineal gland of the brain that both substances interact. But this explanation does not successfully address the problem of interaction; however, although controversial, the Cartesian’s concepts of ideas, mind, material bodies, the Cartesian plane or person, are still very influential notions in philosophy today. P.F. Strawson reacted against the view of a person that results from this Cartesian view, and proposed quite a different sort of
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
Over the years, there has been an extended running controversial debate as to whether free will truly needs an agent to encompass a definite ability of will, or whether the term “free will” is simply a term used to describe other features that individuals may possess, which leads to the controversy of whether free will really does exist. The result of free will is assumed to be human actions, that arise from rational capabilities, which as a result means that free will is depended normally on are those events, which leads us to believe that the opportunity of free action depends on the leeway of free will: to state that a person acted freely is simply to say that the individual was victorious in acting out of free choice (Van Inwagen 1983).