Login  Register

Intentionality is the mark of the vital

Posted by Russell Standish on Jul 13, 2006; 7:12pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Intentionality-is-the-mark-of-the-vital-tp522122p522131.html

I think that intentionality is a modelling property - something has
intentionality because it is useful to model a given system as if it
had a mind like ours, more useful than any other model we might have.

So we can say a computer has intentionality, if it is useful model the
machine as having a mind. This obviously depends on the software
application, and how technical the person is (someone who programs a
computer - like me - is more likely to have a machine model, rather
than mind model of a computer).

So - in terms of answering your question about whether intentionality
is the mark of the vital, I would have to answer no. I do not see much
intentional behaviour amongst simple animals (eg insects) or plants -
rather I tend to think of these as complex machine. On the contrary, to a
well designed artificial human (as in a computer game character) I will assign
intentionality, even though I know they're only the outputs of algorithms.

Cheers

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:36:54PM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Jochen,
>
> Thanks for your kind response.
>
> Your question churns my head.  I was keen to argue that intentionality is a
> property not only of thinking things but of any biological thing.  But I
> never imagined that intentionality could be used as a criterion of
> vitality.  I do believe that every living system displays intentionality,
> but I now have to think about whether I think that all intentional systems
> are living.   I guess NOT.  However, my reasons for holding this belief are
> probably robotophobic.  
>
> Nick
>
>
> PS  My first response to your  question was to write the following 100
> words of baffle-gab, like the good academic I am.  It might be marginally
> interesting in and off itself, but it didnt seem to answer your question.
> I had put too much effort into it to throw it away, so I stuck it below.
> Feel free to ignore it.  
>
> BEGIN BAFFLEGAB =======================================================
>
> Intentionality is one of those words that leads to endless confusion.  It
> can refer to having an intention or it can refer to a peculiar propert to
> assertions containing verbs of mentation, wanting, thinking, feeling, etc.
> The sentence, "Jones's intention was that the books be placed on the table"
> is intentional in both senses: intentional in sense one because it tells us
> something about what Jones is up to, and intentional in the second sense
> because it displays the odd property of referential opacity.    Unlike the
> statement "the books are on the table" , the statement about Jones's
> intentions cannot be verified nor disconfirmed by gathering information
> about the location of the books.  
>
>  The two are intimately connected.  Any statement one makes about the
> intentions of others in sense one is inevitably an intensional utterance in
> sense two because the truth value of the statement lies in the organization
> of Jones's behavior, rather than whether Jones's intention is ever
> fulfilled.  
>
> It was in this second, perhaps strained, philosophic sense, that I think
> the cue relation is necessarily intentional.  When we say that C is a cue
> to X, we mean that from the point of view of the system we are interested
> in, C stands in for X.   ("In the Human respiratory system, Blood acidity
> is a cue for blood oxygenation")  To the extent that robots use cues, they
> MUST be intentional in this sense.  
>
> ===========================================================
> end  BAFFLEGAB.  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> nickthompson at earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 7/14/2006 12:00:29 PM
> > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 17
> >
> > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > friam at redfish.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > friam-request at redfish.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > friam-owner at redfish.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: 100 billion neurons (George Duncan)
> >    2. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jim Rutt)
> >    3. Re: 100 billion neurons (Frank Wimberly)
> >    4. Intentionality - the mark of the vital (Jochen Fromm)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:38:47 -0600
> > From: "George Duncan" <gd17 at andrew.cmu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID:
> > <b9b019d10607130938n1e6e953etaa4bbd1409d24ffb at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Shall this conversation be neuronic rather than neurotic?
> >
> > Or try this
> > http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17164&ch=infotech
> >
> >
> > On 7/13/06, Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to agree. The model I use is nonlinear fluid dynamics.
> > > Say you've got a thought which you began thinking when you were young.
> > > That thought is a fluid in motion. Over the course of your life you
> > > revisit certain ideas and revise certain opinions. The motion
> > > continues for decades. The way you think is like an information
> > > processing system which evolves over the course of your life, and it's
> > > true enough to call that software, not hardware, but the flow of data
> > > through that system is entirely organic, and creating an exact copy of
> > > a given flow in nonlinear fluid dynamics is impossible. The structure
> > > of your mode of thinking -- your "software" -- is shaped tremendously
> > > by the things that you think about; therefore replicating the
> > > processor without replicating the data can only be of partial
> > > usefulness, if the processor is shaped by and for the data. It's like
> > > copying a river by duplicating exactly every last rock and pebble, but
> > > leaving out the water.
> > >
> > > On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> > > > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.  Over a period of a couple of
> > > > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> > > > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> > > > etc.  I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred
> from
> > > > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> > > > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> > > > would be gone.  Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> > > > software not hardware.  After many arguments along these lines I said,
> > > > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying
> about
> > > > consciousness--you don't have it."  This was all in good humor and
> later
> > > > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> > > > continue our debate in class.  A good time was had by all, I hope.
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Frank C. Wimberly
> > > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz              (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918
> (cell)
> > > > Santa Fe, NM 87505           wimberly3 at earthlink.net
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > > >
> > > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
> > > >
> > > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> > > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."  I forget
> > > > the date, but it's not far.  He also talks about a number of very
> > > > interesting consequences of this.
> > > >
> > > > - Martin
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Giles Bowkett
> > > http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > George T. Duncan
> > Professor of Statistics
> > Heinz School of Public Policy and Management
> > Carnegie Mellon University
> > Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> > (412) 268-2172
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/bcb8105c/attachment-0001.h
> tml
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:57:49 -0600
> > From: Jim Rutt <jim at jimrutt.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060713165629.045705c8 at mail.jimrutt.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about
> > consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at:
> >
> >
> >
> > Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the
> > Making of
> > Consciousness_
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
> > >Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> > >Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.  Over a period of a couple of
> > >years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> > >consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> > >etc.  I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from
> > >my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> > >everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> > >would be gone.  Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> > >software not hardware.  After many arguments along these lines I said,
> > >"Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about
> > >consciousness--you don't have it."  This was all in good humor and later
> > >when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> > >continue our debate in class.  A good time was had by all, I hope.
> > >
> > >Frank
> > >
> > >---
> > >Frank C. Wimberly
> > >140 Calle Ojo Feliz              (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> > >Santa Fe, NM 87505           wimberly3 at earthlink.net
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > >Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> > >Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> > >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > >
> > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
> > >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
> > >
> > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> > >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."  I forget
> > >the date, but it's not far.  He also talks about a number of very
> > >interesting consequences of this.
> > >
> > >- Martin
> > >
> > >============================================================
> > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > >============================================================
> > >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ===================================
> > Jim Rutt
> > voice:  505-989-1115
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/3f05e21d/attachment-0001.h
> tml
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:59:23 -0600
> > From: "Frank Wimberly" <wimberly3 at earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <021801c6a6e0$c072c530$0300a8c0 at franknotebook>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > At the risk of being neurotic, here is link to a review of Damasio's
> > book:
> >
> > http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/1999/09/21/damasio/index.html
> >
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz??????????????(505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505???????????wimberly3 at earthlink.net
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Jim Rutt
> > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:58 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> >
> > as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about
> > consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at:
> >
> >
> >
> > Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the
> > Making of
> > Consciousness_
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> > At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
> >
> > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.? Over a period of a couple of
> > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> > etc.? I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from
> > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> > would be gone.? Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> > software not hardware.? After many arguments along these lines I said,
> > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about
> > consciousness--you don't have it."? This was all in good humor and later
> > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> > continue our debate in class.? A good time was had by all, I hope.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz????????????? (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505?????????? wimberly3 at earthlink.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [ mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> >
> > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
> >
> > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."? I forget
> > the date, but it's not far.? He also talks about a number of very
> > interesting consequences of this.
> >
> > - Martin
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org 
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org 
> > ===================================
> > Jim Rutt
> > voice:? 505-989-1115??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:42:14 +0200
> > From: "Jochen Fromm" <fromm at vs.uni-kassel.de>
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Intentionality - the mark of the vital
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <000001c6a719$092071a0$5fda338d at Toshiba>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >  
> > I have finally read the article "Intentionality is
> > the mark of the vital". It contains interesting
> > remarks about the mind/body problem, about the
> > relationship between mental and material "substance",
> > and nice illustrations (for example about lions and gnus).
> > Well written.
> >
> > If "intentionality is the mark of the vital",
> > are artificial agents with intentions the first
> > step towards vital, living systems ? Agents are
> > of course used in artificial life, but in the
> > context of the article the question seems to
> > gain new importance.
> >
> > -J.
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Nicholas Thompson
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:20 AM
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Subject: [FRIAM] self-consciousness
> >
> > For those rare few of you that are INTENSELY interested by the recent
> > discussion on self consciousness, here is a paper on the subject  which
> > asserts that every organism must have a point of view.  
> >  
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/id14.html
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Friam mailing list
> > Friam at redfish.com
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >
> >
> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 17
> > *************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                               0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au            
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------