[FRIAM] Dennett on agency

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

I'm not splitting hairs on you here to pester... but truly trying to
sort out my own use of these terms.

An "intention" is a passive thing in my vocabulary.  It is something I
have not yet acted on, even though it is *about an action*.   In that
sense I "hold" an intention (if "have" is too passive?).  When I
actively "hold" onto an action and don't execute it, that is an
intention.  I think.

To the extent that an MRI or a good body-language reader or my own
(unreliable?) introspective narration can provide a chronicle of my
"intentions" they are in some way very passive "actions".   I suppose
this is what you mean by "action"?

On the other side (bracketing what we might mean by this)... an
"intention" is *more* of an action than "having a value" or "having an
idea" or "having a desire"?   Each of these might *activate* into an
"intention" which then also must activate into an "action"?   values,
ideas, desires are more passive than intentions?

Maybe this is an oblique tangent to what you really wanted to talk about.

- Steve

> I intend to check the mail in a few minutes.  I am not doing it now. 
> Nobody else knows of my plan until you read this.  Why can't I validly
> say that I have that intention?
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 2:27 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Russ,
>
>      
>
>     I have not had time to follow this thread, but just want to remind
>     you what my first response to your question would be.  Intentions
>     are not the sorts of thing we “have”.  They are things that we
>     do.  They are of a higher order than knee jerks, or even apple
>     bites,  but they are patterns in behavior all the same.
>
>      
>
>     I have busy because I signed up to do all sorts of things in
>     September because I had nothing to do, and to my horror and
>     surprise, every thing I signed up for, bore fruit and now I am
>     overwhelmed.   I have a prejudice against Dennett.  I think he
>     worries too much about his standing with the Big Kids at Harvard
>     and trying NOT to violate vernacular ways of thinking so much as
>     to dent his royalties.   And I am jealous of him. 
>
>      
>
>     So there. 
>
>      
>
>     Hope you are well
>
>      
>
>     Nick
>
>      
>
>     Nicholas Thompson
>
>     Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
>     Clark University
>
>     ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
>     https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com
>     <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:07 PM
>     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>     <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Dennett on agency
>
>      
>
>     Not sure what the point is. Larger systems can exploit
>     information and "pick of scars." Cells in that sense are larger
>     systems. I'm confused about what that is supposed to add to the
>     discussion.
>
>      
>
>     Computer programs can certainly be described using intentional
>     language. Does that mean that a computer program can have
>     intention? If so, that seems to degrade the notion of intent. 
>
>      
>
>     -- Russ Abbott                                      
>     Professor, Computer Science
>     California State University, Los Angeles
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:23 AM jon zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         ... and why tornados fail to have it. A key feature appears to
>         be that agents
>         have a history that makes a difference, can exploit
>         information the way a
>         thermostat can. Electrons or molecular motors, for instance,
>         don't pick up
>         scratches or scars. Sean Carroll adds that agents participate
>         in the arrow
>         of time.
>
>         Queued up to the relevant part of the discussion:
>         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yZw4wxvnVQ&ab_channel=SeanCarroll&t=1670s
>
>
>
>         --
>         Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>         - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>         FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>         Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>         <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>         un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>         archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>         FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>     - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>     <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>     un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>     archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>     FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201020/365031b1/attachment-0001.html>