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…
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
According to Dennett, in order to be culpable of moral responsibility one must have higher order intentionality.
There is almost no doubt that there is a relationship between psychology and philosophy. Indeed, many people actually considering that the philosophies related to and concerned with the mind and thought are the precursor to modern psychology. Of course, most of these philosophies were decidedly western, or popular in the west. However, the problem with our western views of consciousness in philosophy and psychology is that often times the way we view the conscious process leads to a so-called "infinite regression." That is to say, if we see consciousness as a set of rules guiding our experiences in life, there must also be another set of rules that defines how we know when to use those rules, and so on and so forth. (Kurak 2001, 18-19). In this paper, I will attempt to show how we can turn to Buddhist principles to help us gain a better understanding of human consciousness.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
The key assumption of cognitivism is that people have different mental states, each of which can lead to a different response. The manipulation of these different states can be described in terms of algorithms, all of which have become the defining paradigm of psychology (Sperry 1993). One major contribution that cognitivism had on the study of psychology as a science came in the form of psychological theories. It returned the conditioning theory as well as comparative psychology back to a position where they recognized the there were a number of qualitative differences between the psychological processing of humans and animals (Greenwood, 1999). This is as a result of the empirical problems faced by the behaviourists, in which the overestimated the ability of the conditioning theory and presumed that it enabled us to explain every form of behaviour, including complex ones such as language, in humans and animals....
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.
2. Asimov, Isaac, and Karen A. Frankel. ROBOTS: Machines in Man's Image. New York: Harmony Books, 1985. p 2.
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
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.
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."
...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.