Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA11542 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 06:33:57 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:51:19 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200003042004.PAA13008@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00030505541602.00357@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >>
>> >How can an entity that does not possess subjectivity either mean
>> >or intend anything? Short answer: it can't. Subjectivity is an a
>> >priori sine qua non for both signification and intentionality.
>>
>> Didn't you say you'd read all of Dennett's books? I suggest you reread The
>> Intentional Stance, at least. I'm sure you possess it, and Dennett's style is
>> infinitely more persuasive than mine, even for the average reader, nevermind
>> those with preconceptions.
>>
>Yeah, you lionize Dennett when his position agrees with your own
>preconceptions, and claim he must be wrong where you disagree.
Address the issue, please: do you still claim, contra Dennett, who wrote the
definitive modern work on the topic, that intentionality necessarily implies
subjectivity?
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 06:34:02 GMT