intent

[dan everett]

     The fact that a person with their own research program doesn't have
     time to read in a tenuously related research program is not
     surprising. It is natural. On the other hand, the issues are deep here
     and superficial banter about them on the list here is not likely to
     take us any closer to understanding them. We need to read more.

     I have stated John's thesis rather baldly here. I won't answer for him
     on specifics, though, since this would simply repeat the problem I am
     concerned with.

     Dan


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: intent
Author:  <wilcox at UNM.EDU> at Internet
Date:    3/20/01 4:23 PM


On 3/20/01 1:49 PM, dan everett said:

> For example, Searle argues
> very convincingly that the notion of 'unconcious intention' is
> incoherent.

Well, I haven't read Searle (at least this one), I admit it. So maybe
someone who has (Dan?) can answer my simple-minded questions: Unconscious
intentions of WHO? Humans? Non-human primates? Lions? Cephalopods? Does it
matter?

If the notion of 'unconscious intention' is incoherent now, does this mean
that it has always been incoherent?

Did Searle intend (consciously or unconsciously) for his argument to apply
to a broad range of species and an evolutionary time scale? Does it?

Genuine questions from someone who simply doesn't have the time to read
Searle right now.

-- Sherman Wilcox