I agree, Bill. In addition to Searle, there is K. M. Sayre, who among many
other things wrote a trgtet article in _Behavioral & Brain Seiences_ back in
1987, titled: Intentionality and information processing: An alternative
model for cognitive science." Sayre's use of "intentionality" was the sort
you are describing, in which the word refers to "the (intentional) physical
object or mental image to which a thought refers." Franz Brentano used that
meaning around the turn of the century. Sayre also dismissed what he
called the "cybernetic" use of intentional, as in actions that are intended
to achieve a goal. But his dismissal was predicated on a 20-year out of
date idea about cybernetic models that he had rightly criticized as being
S-R systems by another name.
Sayre had things pretty thoroughly confused, and he had managed to make
the fuzzier version of intentionality into an aspect of "information
processing." In a "continuing commentary" on his article, I described the
CST model as a replacement for the earlier S-R model in cybernetics. (CST
was PCT's earlier name.) I claimed that, in CST, intenional retains its
original meaning of purposeful. Sayre said "thanks," called my comments
"irenic", and went on to repeat his original ideas. So it goes.
Later,
Tom
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu
ยทยทยท
In Message Thu, 15 Sep 1994 10:18:39 -0600, "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU> writes:
[From Bill Powers (940915.0830 MDT)]
Avery Andrews (9404124.1237) --
I'm not sure about the historical connections, but the philosophers
distinguish between 'intentions' (purposes) and 'intensions' (an aspect
of meaning). The treatment of both is certainly a mishmash, however!. . . Doesn't Searle speak of
"intention" with a t? I really think that the usages I have seen reflect
a linguistic phenomenon: a word that had a meaning suddenly had the
meaning removed by scientific scoffers, leaving the word orphaned.
People who still felt that there was something to the concept then
looked around for something else it could mean that was something like
the original meaning. They didn't come very close.