What job do you think rationality is doing in the theory. I don't deny that we can screw up in applying it, but the whole point is that assumes rationality - that we act, on our beliefs to bring about our desires. For IS 'the laws of logic are the laws of thought.ruby sparks;672881 wrote:Does it? In what ways? What sort of logic? Surely you're not saying it's infallible?ruby sparks;672879 wrote:The intentional stance clearly follows the laws of logic.
To me it's a decent strategy. Perhaps better to say 'pretty useful capacity'. Can go awry.
I'm also clear that rationality is physically impossible, but that is what is assumed to apply the IS. You don't assume rationality then the IS fails.
I'll say it again, you will not find any beliefs in the brain and the brain certainly doesn't use any conceptualised processing strategies. It's non conceptual content all the way through.
You say it's a pretty useful strategy, now try to predict or explain behaviour in real time using any other available strategy. I think you are taking the only game in town for granted.[/QUOTE]
Good point. Assumes rationality. There's a potential quagmire all of its own.
I don't believe it's the only game in town. Or let me put it this way, it's a developing game. There is room for change. For example, it is possible (despite your analogy with blue and red pens, if I understand it right) to form the basic belief 'I do not have free will'. Where that goes is a slightly separate issue. But it changes something. New information has entered the system. The machine realises it's probably just a non-freewill machine.
Regarding the supposed irreducability of what we call mental properties....that's an explanatory limit only, as I understand it, not an actual limit. In the end, everything reduces to the physical, imo. You might ask me what 'physical' is. I might say 'everything'.