Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    H6 Dennett

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alarcón
    The document discusses Daniel Dennett's intentional stance and three stances for explaining a system's behavior: the physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. The intentional stance thinks of a system as a rational agent with beliefs, desires, and intentions. A stance is warranted when it provides better explanatory power than other stances. Dennett's intentional stance may serve as a superior alternative to the Turing Test for assessing intelligence as it looks inside the system to examine intentionality rather than just outward behavior.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    H6 Dennett

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alarcón
    16 views2 pages
    The document discusses Daniel Dennett's intentional stance and three stances for explaining a system's behavior: the physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. The intentional stance thinks of a system as a rational agent with beliefs, desires, and intentions. A stance is warranted when it provides better explanatory power than other stances. Dennett's intentional stance may serve as a superior alternative to the Turing Test for assessing intelligence as it looks inside the system to examine intentionality rather than just outward behavior.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses Daniel Dennett's intentional stance and three stances for explaining a system's behavior: the physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. The intentional stance thinks of a system as a rational agent with beliefs, desires, and intentions. A stance is warranted when it provides better explanatory power than other stances. Dennett's intentional stance may serve as a superior alternative to the Turing Test for assessing intelligence as it looks inside the system to examine intentionality rather than just outward behavior.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views2 pages

    H6 Dennett

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alarcón
    The document discusses Daniel Dennett's intentional stance and three stances for explaining a system's behavior: the physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. The intentional stance thinks of a system as a rational agent with beliefs, desires, and intentions. A stance is warranted when it provides better explanatory power than other stances. Dennett's intentional stance may serve as a superior alternative to the Turing Test for assessing intelligence as it looks inside the system to examine intentionality rather than just outward behavior.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    University of California Davis Philosophy 13(G), Dr.

    Dorsey

    Daniel Dennett, True Believers: The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works

    Strategy for What?

    Explaining a system’s behavior (period).

    What Is a Stance?

    A way of {thinking about / characterizing / theorizing about} a system in order


    to explain its behavior.

    What are Dennett’s three stances?

    The physical stance: think of a system’s physical constitution and physical


    attributes
    The design stance: think of a system’s design
    The “intentional” stance: think of a system as a rational agent with beliefs,
    desires, and intentions. (B-D-I psychology)

    When is a stance’s use warranted?

    When its use provides explanatory purchase not otherwise gained.


    Key example (+): An FSM or TM or even the Coke Machine.
    Key example (-): Basic thermostat (illustration added at bottom of p.2)

    Even if one stance explains a system well, another stance may capture an
    objective pattern in reality and provide a better explanation by virtue of doing so.

    Explainer Stance System Behavior

    Page 1 of 2



    


    University of California Davis Philosophy 13(G), Dr. Dorsey

    Can Dennett’s ‘Intentional Stance’ serve as a roughly equivalent but superior surrogate for the
    Turing Test?

    The Turing Test The Intentionality Test

    Based on behavior?

    Based on linguistic behavior?

    Based solely on linguistic ✘


    behavior?

    “Looks inside”? ✘

    A good (or at least adequate)


    test for thinking/intelligence/
    mind?

    The intentionality test: If the last box can be checked off, is it a (mere) sufficiency test or
    is it even better?

    Is ‘intentionality’ a sufficient condition for mind (or thinking or intelligence)?


    Is ‘intentionality’ a necessary condition for mind (or thinking or intelligence)?

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Simple thermostat example

    Heater (only runs when electrical circuit is closed)


    Wire
    Metal strip (curved when warm/expanded; straightens out when cold/contracted)
    Simple thermostat (box housing wire ends and metal strip)

    on until
    metal
    off (re-)expands
    (ambient temp: and circuit is (ambient temp:
    ‘warm’, broken/open ‘cold’,
    say ≥ 68F) say < 68F)

    Page 2 of 2
    ✔︎
    ✔︎
    ✔︎✔︎
    ✔︎✔︎

    You might also like