Intensionality? Huh?


    Sponsored Links


  • 1. End of Part IV was End of Part III was End of Part II was End of Part I was Writing a book on AI Assistants in holographic computing
    So we looked at VMWARE and virtual computing, where you put an operating system in a window and run programs in it. Then we looked at what software we can use to make 3D objects and how to get 3D Objects and we arrived at 3D Studio Max as being the best option. We found out where and how to get all the objects we need for free. We looked at VPNs, virtual private networks, like the torrent system. We looked at some of the ideas that might work and how to script some things etc and a bit about the reality of the present, and how we might improve things in the future.

Intensionality? Huh?

Postby Ron Ayoub » Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:57:37 GMT

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. However, on
occassion I develop a mild interest and read a book or two. One thing
that confuses me is this thing called "Intensionality". I can
completely understand that consciousness itself is a very perplexing
question/mystery. But when it comes to intensionality I fail to see
where the mystery is. Assuming the physical world exist, we have a set
of phyiscal sensors. We collect information from the world around us
with those sensors and that information is somehow represented/stored
in our brains for later retrieval. When we want to recall an event we
query that information store. When we want to imagine something we use
a 'LIKE' clause in our query and then construct our imaging from
simpler components. Disregard my assumptions. What I'm trying to get it
as that I fail to see how collecting and storing information with
sensors is a big problem. Digital cameras have intensionality. I'm not
baffled at all by how a digital camera can take a picture and store a
picture in flash memory. What is a complete mystery is the unity of
consciousness and other such things. Could someone please explain to me
why intensionality is considered a hard problem?

Re: Intensionality? Huh?

Postby J.A. Legris » Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:31:03 GMT

One reason it's a hard problem is because the term itself is confusing.
Are you asking about "intensionality" or "intentionality"?


Re: Intensionality? Huh?

Postby Sphere » Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:57:46 GMT

I can see that this whole subject is confused and messed up.

Intent need not be onto.  An atom intends to persist as an
atom without need of plans for projecting its atomness upon
otherness.  The intent of an oxygen atom to grab hold of
a couple of hydrogen atoms is merely a convenient method
of describing what is likely to happen when a free oxygen
atom is in the presence of a couple of free hydrogen atoms --
just as when a free male is in the presence of a couple of
free females.  One can reject intentionality and cloud their
descriptions with excess verbiage or embrace intentionality
and provide direct descriptions.  Of course, if not carefully
monitored the intentional stance can drift into animism --
but animism is a pretty good religion all-in-all, so it isn't
such a big deal.  (I don't happen to be animist myself.)
No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.

Similar Threads:

1.Uh huh?

whats all this stuff?

ok,ok,we have the idea that human life and thought and feeling as are
special and singuar (unless we blab to a mate in a gossip mob)

If youre thinking purposefully about bonding with a group then?
well...hmm let me think on it... I'd have to guess that the people who
form those groups have a lot of knowledge about human relationships
and may have simplified those bonds into 'sects' and 'species' and
'groups' instead

all those can be reduced mathematically...but do they really have
anything to do with the develo[pment of material for exploration into
so called 'higher spheres' or reasoning or intelligences?


2.And then theres area 57, huh?

and aborting the disabled fetuses

Return to AI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guest