Talk:Intentionality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

My psych professor claims that intentionality means different things depending on whether or not it is capitalized. I think he said "intentionality" meant aboutness, while "Intentionality" meant consciousness -- though it might be the other way around. Anyone else heard of this? Maybe this is particular to one or two authors. --Ryguasu

There seems to be a conflict in how the term is used by Americans and by continental philosophers. Georg Henrik von Wright, according to Vincent Descombes, makes a distinction between "intentionalist" and "causalist" philosophies of action, which would make intentionality a philosophy. Searle's intentionality is more of condition or trait of something. Shoehorn 09:15, 30 January 2004 (UTC)

v. Intension

Uhh, I'm pretty sure these pages are a bit mixed up. What is described as Intension here should be on the Intention page. As in Intentionality. At least that is my understanding from reading.. (Page 58 onwards) "Why Humans Have Cultures" by Michael Carrithers, 1992, Opus / Oxford Uni. Press.

-- FeFiFoFum 22:43 Jan 8, 2004 (GMT)

I don't think so. If you want to argue the point, can you be more specific? Banno 23:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was really suprised Daniel Dennett wasn't added to the list, as he wrote on Intentionality quite extensively

There are three different things, which need three different articles:

- Intentionality as a feature of acts, i.e. voluntary as opposed to involuntary actions.

- Intentionality as a distinctive feature of conscious mental processes (Brentano, Husserl, etc.).

- Intensionality (with an "s") and extensionality as logical properties of expressions (this should include intensional logic).

Some have argued that there is a relationship between the first kind of intentionality and intensional statements, but this is controversial. It should be referred to in each of those articles. KD

No. Intension as defined here is properly referred to. Some logicians and philosophers have argued that intensionality and intentionality are the same, or that intensionality (connotation in definition) is a criteria for intentionality. I find your statement "What is described as Intension here should be on the Intention page. As in Intentionality" as a bit confusing. Amerindianarts 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's confusing, but note it was posted by someone else. As for your "No" - I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. This article states: "intentionality (-tion-) is not to be confused with intensionality (-sion-), a concept from semantics." I too think something needs to be said about the claimed link between intenSionality and intenTionality, but that they both need to be kept quite separate from the first sense of intentionality I mentioned - voluntary acts. KD Dec 7

"other uses:" Folk Psychology

I'm fairly certain that intentionality does not have a different meaning in reference to folk psychology.

"Human perceivers consider a behavior intentional when it appears purposeful or done intentionally -- that is, based on reasons (beliefs, desires) and performed with skill and awareness." - From the article: 4/26/07 9:35pm PST

The f\relationship between folk psychology and intentionality is that many philosophers believe that folk psychological states should be characterized as propositional attitudes, i.e. intentional attitudes. Folk psychological states, like beliefs and desires, display intentionality. I believe that. I desire that. Changing the article presently. If you disagree a\or care to engage me on this topic, please reply to my talk page as well as this discussion.-Shaggorama 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV "Quinian Double Standard"

Do adherants to "Category C" intentionalists actually use the term "double standard" to describe their position? I would assume that this is particular description is polemical. -Mak 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and footnote citations

This article is essentially has no footnotes per WP:FN and WP:CITE. The books listed in the References and Further reading sections have no ISBN's. Please see WP:MOS for guidelines for article organization. Regards, Mattisse 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

paragraph editing

I think the paragraph "Modern views" would need better editing. I should provide by myself all at once when I am more relaxed, if none is faster (provided I don't forget to do it). Mormegil 87.18.196.211 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maybe "Dennett's Taxonomy etc." would need a specific entry, leaving only the start of the paragraph and a link to the future main article. His analysis seems exhaustive, but I'm not a philosophy scholar, perhaps it could be considered a personal, not an academic one. Mormegil 79.2.72.193 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference..

Does anyone which volume of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations was referenced? I'm not wiki-savvy enough to figure this out... Appellative (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Overview

The recent rewrite of the first paragraph of this section is absolutely terrible, if not bordering on incomprehensible. Someone should take a look at Harris and try again. Amerindianarts (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

After a second reading and checking the source this paragraph doesn't even belong in the overview section. It is too particularized and the blogspot source I find a little dubious. This paragraph should be reverted back to the original paragraph which was more in line with "overview". Amerindianarts (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the original first paragraph of the overview which is more consistent with an "overview" of intentionality, replacing the entry of an obscure philosopher(?) referenced from an obscure blog entry and which appears in all likelihood to impose a conflict of interests. Amerindianarts (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

UTC: Hi. The "original first paragraph" is in conflict with the paragraph it precedes, which refers to intentionality as a "concept." I fail to see any unified/singular theory that is called intentionality. Kindly excuse this my fist attempt at "talking." tdharris (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I was having trouble finding in the editing history how and when the term "concept" was changed to the term "theory" and as a result I duplicated the paragraph when editing. I believe at one time the paragraph started with "concept" That aside, I do not see the "conflict" between referring to it as a "theory" or a "concept". It can be both although "concept" seems to the preferable term used by philosophers in advancing the "theory". As far as the opinion that it is not a theory, opinions do not count at Wiki and a well sourced and well known philosopher should be documented. I can find no publications for a "Troy Dean Harris" that would permit such a reference at Wiki. I think that philosophers, e.g. Sartre, who have denied intentionality as having content would not go so far as to deny that it is a theory. I might be wrong, but nonetheless a well documented source needs to be cited. Amerindianarts (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I found in the history where "theory" was inserted. It was done for the reason of replacing an emphatic statement as to what intentionality is as "NPOV". This is wrong in the sense that the notion that it is just a theory is itself NPOV, and seems to preclude the idea that it is a concept. This is not only nonsensical but would seem to defeat the whole purpose of having an article on the philosophical concept of intentionality. "Concept" does seem to presuppose the notion of theory, and its use may seem as POV to those that purport it is simply theory, but arguments supporting that notion should be integrated into the current format and documented. The article is about the concept and this notion should not be precluded. So, if I interpret you correctly tdharris you seem to be correct on this point. Other than that you need to be more observant of Wiki editing rules and format and avoid self-serving edits. Amerindianarts (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, who the hell are you? You can't cite yourself with opinions you have stated elsewhere and claim it to be an authoritative source. Do the Wiki rules and good form mean anything to you? I'm not even sure you can write an article about yourself on Wiki such as you have done but I don't care about that. Not here.Amerindianarts (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

UTC, you can call me Troy. As a Buddhist priest/monk/ascetic I am somewhat compelled to live a little duplicitously(?), i.e. with regard to alternate exotic names. Do you have a personal site where I might learn something about you? I am doing side research on the _history of the concept_ of Intentionality for a number of reasons. I have recently composed a piece on Albert Camus. During that research, I found his _seldom-mentioned_ insights into the Intentionality 'strains' of his German contemporaries quite revealing. I think you would find it helpful too. If you could share a bit of your background and areas of interest, we might find ways to productively cooperate. Please do note that I am not YET all that used to wiki functions. It will take some time. As a closing note (or question): is there a more handy way to communicate than here, via Facebook or email, say? I am hesitant to put too much into a note here... I find email better for personal archiving and self-cannibalization. There is no way to know when to check this page... - Thanks & best regards. (tdharris (talk))

I don't give out personal info over WIKI. You can search my ID and find all you want. My background is continental philosophy with a concentration in German philosophy, intentionality, and logic. Amerindianarts (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sartre and consciousness

"(Sartre also referred to "consciousness" as "nothing")."

Citation? Evidence? -Silence (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction needs to not only summarise what intentionality is but also why it is important? I am a noob and I have no idea what the big deal is about thinking about something with intent? 95.97.26.98 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)--95.97.26.98 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from end of "The modern overview" section

The following was within an HTML comment: --Cybercobra (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[commented out until somebody can re-phrase its highly contentious claims as attributed to particular people, etc.] Whereas humans can conceive with some difficulty 6th order intentionality, a future superintelligence or S.I. could comfortably envision many more. The most complex mental trains of thought, that we can hold fleetingly and with the utmost concentration and effort, will to it be almost effortless.

Dennett's Taxonomy of Current Theories about Intentionality

I'm new to philosophy and found the first part of this essay quite clear and understandable, but I tripped at "Brentano's thesis of the irreducibility of intentional idiom" under "Dennett's Taxonomy of Current Theories about Intentionality". Do you think someone could slip in a concise explanation of that - I assume that would make Dennett's taxonomy richer and more meaningful to the neophyte. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most, if not all..." is definitely *most* and not *all* (see: Georges Rey). I will be changing that now. Makeminemaudlin (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This section remains unintelligible. The "intentional idiom" is first mentioned there without explanation then repeatedly referenced as crucial to understanding the section. One wonders what is irreducible about the undefined concept or why it is so crucial to the poorly summarized philosophical positions. 76.14.230.138 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Change first lead sentence

Change first lead sentence from: Intentionality is a philosophical concept and is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".

Change first lead sentence to: In philosophy, intentionality is that humanity may have free will. In psychology it is the human cognitive processes can be applied consciously or they can be automatic..

• This would simply be an update, acknowledging, showing where and how philosophy and psychology research work together, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Intention is not Intention?

The article claims that "The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and has nothing to do with intention." Then why is it called "intentionality"? Why isn't it called "formation" or "construction" or "representing"? The dogmatic claim that intentionality "has nothing to do with intention" is unconvincing, even absurd, and may merely be some academic's opinion that has been accepted on authority.Lestrade (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Intention in the everyday sense of "engaged will" may seem unrelated to the technical "intentionality" discussed here; the latter term derives more directly from "tenet" and, to put it simply, refers to the mental images, constructs, and phenomena connected with experiential objects; it can be viewed as the "enabler" of comprehension and action, although at base, intentionalities are entangled with the comprehensions they engender and are "haunted" by potential actions. Viewed thus, it would be no great stretch to say that intentionality is the progenitor of intent. However, will works across hierarchies of intentionality and entity, although intent can only be perceived as arising from specific intentionality.

It may also be that intent is a necessary component of, or even the seed of intentionality; but that takes us to the quantum fringe of philosophical investigation.Klasovsky (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming philosophical concepts is always difficult. A name emerge in one language, gets translated across several languages, and the meaning of the original phrase may be lost in translation. No, I'm not a philosopher, I just find intentionality fascinating in the context of artificial intelligence. Jeblad (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)