Perplexed in Peoria  wrote:

> "John Wilkins"  wrote in message
> news:cbnls7$2os1$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > ... It can't be "real" intentionality unless
> > it has a brain.
> 
> Please revise this to read "It can't be "real" intentionality
> unless it has a mind, and, as I see it, minds can only arise
> from brains."
> 
> I don't know how you do things "down under", but where I
> come from it is considered bad form to attempt to close
> an open philosophical issue by dictating what words must
> mean.  Though I doubt that it is a very successful
> tactic in any venue.

Words mean what they are used to mean (Wittgensteinian view of meaning),
and a term has an exemplary application from which we generalise and
metaphorise. "Design" means the sort of intentional activity done by
agents, all of whom have a brain, as we know. (I am not concerned with
17th century uses of "mind" here. We are discussing the proper
scientific use of a word. "Mind" is so vague as to be useless in a
scientific context.)

I consider we should try to ascertain the clear and central sense of a
disputed term first, before we consider if it rightly applies elsewhere.
This is not exactly stipulation - I can't do a Humpty Dumpty and define
them any way I like - so much as a look at the terrain the map is
supposed to represent.


-- 
Dr John Wilkins
john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au   http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss" 
                                               - Francis Bacon
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/29/04 5:25:10 PM