Rhetorical Précis of Dennett’s “Intentionality”
In “Intentionality: The Intentional Systems Approach,” Chapter 2 from Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness (1996), Daniel C. Dennett proposes a system of philosophical examination called the intentional stance, a strategy in which objects are examined as if they were rational beings that made choices and decisions; and this perspective provides a way to “predict––and thereby explain, in one sense––its actions or moves” (27). To establish his proposal, Dennett (1) explores the origins of agency (actor(s) performing things without being aware of it) in macromolecules eons ago to the development of complex organisms that are agents (actors responsible for their own actions, especially humans); (2) explicates the notion that humans are descendants of self-replicating macromolecules, but cautions that it does not follow that humans are mindless themselves... “something made of robots can exhibit genuine consciousness” (24); (3) notes that humans are composed of intentional systems, “information-modulated, goal-seeking systems” (26) and this is made clear by using the intentional stance; (4) explains the predictive qualities of the physical stance (using physical sciences to study objects) and the design stance (using the assumption a designed object will perform certain functions), pointing out although the design stance is risky, it is a valuable shortcut in time and knowledge; (5) adds that the intentional stance is closely related to the design stance, and can provide an even quicker method to study objects by demonstrating it on a chess playing computer––stating that without knowing the internal mechanics or the designed components, we can predict the computer’s choices and moves by knowing it “wants to win... knows the rules and principles of chess and the positions of the pieces” (30) simply by conferring the idea of an rational mind onto the machine; (6) defines intentional systems as “entities whose behavior is predictable/explicable from the intentional stance” (34) and intentionality as the sense that objects are concerned about something; (7) points out the need to be careful about the initial assumptions made on what agents are concerned about, and uses the term intensionality which deals with the facet of language which allows objects to be referred to in particular ways (e.g. Jim can be referred to by two different intensions, Molly’s husband or the Julia’s father); (8) states that ultimately, all intentional systems other than humans (possessing original intentionality via their mental states and actions) have derived intentionality, in which we assign them goals and means of seeking them; (9) gives an example of a robot with derived intentionality from its human designers and pursues it to its logical end in where it learns from experiences and creates new goals for itself, ultimately exhibiting an almost human intentionality that not even its creators could fully discern, thus showing derived intentionality can beget derived intentionality––which buttresses his earlier statement that humans can and did come from mindless macromolecules. Dennett makes this proposal for the use of the intentional stance to study the consciousness of humans in order to gain a better understanding of consciousness itself, an understanding not dependent on metaphysical elements but on natural sciences such as evolution and natural selection. Dennett writes in a very academic fashion, dealing with very dense concepts in an almost conversational tone, speaking from one academic to another, such as to “the unwary researcher” (27); people who read this book are probably interested in matters of philosophy, especially as related to biology.
Dennett, Daniel C. Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness. NY:
Basic Books, 1996.
Note: The rhetorical précis is a special form of a précis that follows a four sentence structure. The first sentence provides citation information of the work being summarized and the major assertation of the work. The second sentence summarizes all the salient points (including examples, structural form, events, and definitions etc.) in the work. The third sentence is called the purpose statement, and it tells WHY the author wrote this work. The fourth and final sentence describes the intended audience of the work and the style the work is written in. It was developed by Margaret K. Woodworth, a sadistic English teacher.
I got a 97.5% on this précis.
Return to Writing Stuff
|