I may be completely misunderstanding but is intention what the actor intends while intension us what his action entails? The two may coincide or overlap sometimes?
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, May 16, 2020, 12:09 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, > > > > In my world, intenSionality arises within the frame of intenTional > utterances (or actions?) in which a state of affairs is framed within an a > verb of explicit or implied mentation. Or perhaps, when an action is > directed toward a goal. The hall mark of such intenTional utterances (or > actions?) is implicative opacity: From absolute certainty that A believes > proposition [X] one can infer nothing about the truth of X or even the > existence of any of the objects that proposition [X] concerns. Another > way of putting this is that statements involving verbs of mentation are > assertions about the organization of the behavior of actors, and say > nothing about the world beyond that. > > > > What we were trying to do at the end of our conversation on Friday was > construct some sort of a mapping from this understanding of the > intention/extension distinction, rooted in ethology, and perhaps a bit of > philosophy, to yours, rooted in programing, and perhaps also in another bit > of philosophy. And I thought we had a moment of sparking between those two > worlds when you pointed out that some HUGE present of programming work > consists in debugging, which I would consider to be removing from all the > possible entailments of a statement (it’s EXtension) all those that are not > within the INtention of the programmer. > > > > So, when you write a line of code such as “*1. Make me a ham sandwich”, *you > intend the robot to assemble cheese and bread into something you can eat, > NOT to transform you into something edible. And when the robot goes to the > cupboard and gets out the butchering knives and smoking and salting tools, > you realize that you need to debug the code. > > > > This is what I think you programmers ought to mean by the > intension/extension distinction. > > > > What (again – forgive me – in citizen language) do you actually mean. > > > > What is (to you) the intension of that distinction? > > > > NIck > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale > *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:05 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] intension/extension > > > > Nick, > > > > The *tension* in the discussion was mostly between > > two subtly different words: Intentionality > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/> as found > > in the work of Bretano and intensionality > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/> as found > > in the work of Church. While Church did invent > > the lambda calculus, the precursor to functional > > languages, he himself was a logician. > > > > Jon > -- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > 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/ >
-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... 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/