🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec12.072642.551@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.055845.1886@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.022041.23380@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>>>But imagine a 6 year old who
>>>has never seen anyone bleed, has never been taught any biology - is his
>>>assumption that his parents have intentionality any less "reasonable" than
>>>anyone elses?
>>
>>Assuming knowledge is something akin to "justified true belief", the
>>6-years-old's knowledge is, I would think, less justified than yours
>>or mine.  That doesn't mean, however, that s/he doesn't believe it.
>>S/he's probably had little in the ay of evidence disconfirming the
>>hypothesis that his/her parents are intentional. Actually, children
>
>I would dispute this...  I don't see that a neurobiologist's belief in
>human intentionality is any more justified than anyone elses.  

Neither do I. But then again, I don't think that any relevant generalizations
about human intentionality will soon be forthcoming from the neurobioogists
lab. And neither, I think, does Searle (if you refrain from attempting
to cast him as an old-style identity theorist). The "experts" in human
intentionality are, indeed, intentional humans. By evidence, that means
me. By inference it means pretty well everyone else too.

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1