Hey.....

The three I’s.....interesting, informative and intelligent. This discussion over the last few days.

In the back of the room, taking notes, sits Everydayman, nodding in affirmation once in awhile, but shaking in negation generally, for he knows beyond doubt that his head just doesn't work that way.
He’s actually chuckling to himself, because to him Mother Nature has pulled a fast one on those who wish that the belief that the door is open ever was a belief, and that merely a product of ionic activation potentials forced as sufficient justification for it. I mean...he invented “mind” to cover all that stuff, and it doesn’t bother him that technically, he cannot include such a thing in his list of thing-like possessions. Maybe why he’s here in the first pace, but also why he sits back here and keeps his mouth shut.

But don’t get me wrong; I’m a lot smarter....I’ve studied many centuries worth of philosophy, I’ll have you up there on the podium know.....than these other guys back here, and I know the brain does all those things, from which arises that which is present to all of us. I’m just here keeping him company, because I sympathize with him in his perceived loss of individuality which must follow from the strict determinism of natural law under which the brain necessarily functions, combined with some sort of social contract, which I’m sure you'll forgive him for treating as pure horseshit.

So....as self-appointed spokesman for Everydayman, just let me advise you that he ain’t buyin’ it, for he has never once in his life ever realized anything of which the grounds of the discussion promises. And while I personally agree with the foundational premises of the discussion, I am in agreement with him that it doesn’t, and never will, make the slightest impact on humanity in general, who just plain doesn’t think in terms of ion potentials and energized neural networks, and therefore couldn’t possibly care less about them.

Furthermore....he says.....it makes not the least difference what the public determines as intentionality of language predication, for he is first and foremost perfectly capable of disregarding the entirety of it, and, somewhat to his own detriment perhaps, the more redneck....obstinate....he is, the more apt he is to do it. In effect, he is saying, and even Intellectuals must admit the truth of it, that no matter what the test equipment probes and dye traces say, and.....sorry, Isaac, what theoretical psychology wants....he can immediately deny it, simply because he can think otherwise in refusing to be lumped with the crowd.

Yeah, ol’ Mother, She did indeed pull a fast one. On the one hand, possible empirical proofs of a thing, on the other, perfect deniability for that very same thing. Technology gives pictures of synaptic clefts, but not one human ever has formulated his mentality in terms of them.

That’s it, from the back of the room. Or....Token Rebuttal from the Vulgar Majority!!!!!

It seems to me the concept behind the word is quite useful as it corresponds to something that actually exists (the subjective properties of an experience). When a ball hits your head, you feel pain, and that pain is subjective, it's your pain and yours alone. No one else can know it without having experienced something similar themselves or without asking you. The concept then can be used to refer to those experiences. But it also seems that it is too vague, as qualia can be pain, or mental images, or emotions and a lot of other things. And a vague concept is just as good as no concept at all.

So....as self-appointed spokesman for Everydayman, just let me advise you that he ain’t buyin’ it, for he has never once in his life ever realized anything of which the grounds of the discussion promises. And while I personally agree with the foundational premises of the discussion, I am in agreement with him that it doesn’t, and never will, make the slightest impact on humanity in general, who just plain doesn’t think in terms of ion potentials and energized neural networks, and therefore couldn’t possibly care less about them. — Mww

I dispute your ability to speak for the Everydayman since you are on this forum.

Yes, we seem to have a rough sort of agreement here.

Her neural network will differ from the people who rightly believe and claim that the door is open. — AgentTangarine

AH, but the point I woudl make is that each of the people who believe that the door is open may well have a different brain state for that belief. The belief is not the very same as a specific brain state, even though the belief is some way the brain is.

Odd thing is, you seem in the end to be agreeing.

I dispute your ability to speak for the Everydayman since you are on this forum. — fdrake

Yeah, busted, for sure. Pretty presumptuous of me to declare a demographic doesn’t care about something, then appoint myself to represent them on exactly what they don’t care about.

You did draw a line, but I think you're back on track now. Worms are conscious. — frank

I was trying to estimate the line you were drawing with...

Is it appropriate to think of a worm's consciousness as intention driven? Are going to end up equivocating about "intention" if we do? — frank

All, I've been trying to do this whole time is get what you think the properties of a worm are that would give you pause when assigning it 'intentions'.

I hadn't even started on what I actually think about that question.

Chemicals are instructed by a mind? What? — frank

The release of certain chemicals is a result of the state of a mind. Since the likely consequence of those chemicals both fixed, and has priors within the model doing the releasing, then I think 'intention' is reasonable term relating the consequences of those chemicals to the model for which their release was a means to an end.

Say I intend to pick up my cup. Somewhere in the long chain of events I have to release acetylcholine into the synaptic cleft between my motor-neuron and my muscle cell, so my intention to pick up the cup released the chemical (albeit not proximately), no?

It seems that we're talking across each other along a rather cryptic journey. Is there some point you're getting to such that we could perhaps take a short-cut?

AH, but the point I woudl make is that each of the people who believe that the door is open may well have a different brain state for that belief. — Banno

@AgentTangarine - Not just may. It's almost a mathematical certainty that they will.

You did draw a line, but I think you're back on track now. Worms are conscious.
— frank

I was trying to estimate the line you were drawing with...

Is it appropriate to think of a worm's consciousness as intention driven? Are going to end up equivocating about "intention" if we do?
— frank

All, I've been trying to do this whole time is get what you think the properties of a worm are that would give you pause when assigning it 'intentions'. — Isaac

Why would we need to talk about intention wrt worms? Their actions are reflexive or hormone driven. No models, no memory logging, just chemicals.

To some extent, humans are like that. Anyone who is reductive would start with the assumption that humans are entirely like that with some twists and turns. So it would be helpful if you fleshed out the philosophical landscape for your use of "intention.".

I'll put aside your odd language (suggesting that worms aren't conscious and the mind controls chemicals). I don't know what to make of that.