Joshua Knobe - What is Intentionality?

Рет қаралды 11,616

2 жыл бұрын

'Intentionality' is a philosophical term that describes the elements of mental states that are 'directed' at things or ideas-the fact that thinking, feeling, hoping, believing, desiring are 'about' things. How can physical brain processes-electric currents and chemical concentrations-be 'about' things? Intentionality, some claim, is a problem for physicalists.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on intentionality: bit.ly/39vB9S1
Joshua Knobe is an experimental philosopher, whose work ranges across issues in philosophy of mind and action and ethics.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

Пікірлер: 130

@Lilli7722 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Josh, you have made the world a better place.

@wayneasiam65 2 жыл бұрын

I love Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. I wonder if intentionality is made evident by our ability to evolve scientifically, philosophically and technologically. To progress in all areas shows we're on the right track.

@robertdegruchy160 2 жыл бұрын

Fascinating. We may introduce another factor in the "moral calculus" in that the dominating motivation is to win the battle regardless of potential losses and he may be pressured by his superiors to do so. Reminds me of a flick called 'Thin Red Line".

@kallianpublico7517 2 жыл бұрын

As long as there is ignorance, what is intention? As long as there is need: food, water, what is intention? Intention is the nexus between ignorance, need and being. Being is "moral", need is "truth", and ignorance is "beauty". As long as there is ignorance intention is an illusion, an illusion called desire. As long as there is need intention is necessary, a necessity called consciousness. As long as there is being intention has agency, an agent called self-consciousness.

@mightytaiger3000 2 жыл бұрын

Trying to mix 2 completely different topics. I don't understand "intentionality" to be any of what was discussed here, which seems more like "blame" or "desire".

@derekofbaltimore 2 жыл бұрын

I think best case for intentionality would be drawing from imagination. Unintention moving pencil across page cannot produce a refined representative drawing. This example has no pressure from outside morals and doesn't involve copying from an existing image. The ability to draw realism required intention practice for long periods of time and the imagination is not bound. Also translating from imagination to page is especially hard requiring mind hand coordination

@qhansen123 Ай бұрын

Imagine a process one by one producing choosing the colour of a process on a screen just like the pencil across the page, In the first case situation an artist does it to represent what is infront of him. In the second case an array of light sensitive diodes is in front of a lense, and a circuit to set the pixels on a screen to match the array of diodes. Does the camera/screen have intentionality? Does a mirror/projector system have intentionality?

@qhansen123 Ай бұрын

@derekofbaltimore Ай бұрын

@@qhansen123 i specified "from imagination" Reproducing from imagery (or colors)presented before you could very well be argued to arise from a zombie state. But im talking about imagining something you have not seen and all the the intentional steps it takes to translate those feelings into a realistically drawn image. And i want to emphasize feelings because an artist doesn't even need to work from stitched together parts of things they did see. They can work from a desire to make a feeling tangible . Th feeling could be an emotion like anger or it could be a sense of wonder or feeling lost. And, as an artist myself, im of the opinion that anyone can become one... With intentional study and practice

@derekofbaltimore Ай бұрын

@@qhansen123 also i would probably say a mirror couldn't have intentionality (of reproduction of an image - maybe it has intentionality of something else...?) but the camera of the future can have intentionality through a. The ability to snap its own shutter after choosing what images to take balanced against a limited data storage and b. Even choosing what parts of the image -light spectra, objects, etc- to include, delete or enhance within the image it takes of the world around it.

@qhansen123 Ай бұрын

@@derekofbaltimore I guess what I’m wondering is if there is a definition of intentionality that can’t be applied to a computation or reflection process. I’ve learned in cognitive science that what makes something mental is intentionality so I’m looking for something that formally describes it. If feeling is what makes it different then I suppose formalizing what a feeling is would be where the answer lies,

@reubentelfer4345 2 жыл бұрын

The two situations also differ in respect to something bad happening and not happening. It would be interesting to see the experiment with a morally neutral example to see if the difference in judgment of intentionality persists.

@treasurepoem 2 жыл бұрын

Wow, very educational, I also thought that the general did something morally good unintentionally, not knowing that people generally tend to see it as intentional when someone does something morally bad and not intentional when they do something morally good.

@SabiazothPsyche 2 жыл бұрын

"Intentionality", is an approach and disposition of the volitional effervescent - instantaneous activities of the active force (e.g., such as the will, influence, compel/impel, incite, enforce, etc.)

@stevemawdsley9798 2 жыл бұрын

Was it not the General’s “intention” to get the troops onto Thompson hill regardless of the outcome? Important distinction yes?

@jamesruscheinski8602 6 ай бұрын

intentionality examines whether a higher priority be considered in making choice and doing action?

@bluelotus542 2 жыл бұрын

We can act either intentionally or instinctively. In other words, we can be rational or irrational. It all depends on our power of self-control, and self-control must be based on sound goodness, otherwise it's just lucid madness.

@ahmedbellankas2549 2 жыл бұрын

The general did it intentionally,but the problem is with his motivating reasons, because what will happen to troops is a known side effect of the general acts,what people want is that the general motivating reasons be rescuing the troops.

@joegibbskins 2 жыл бұрын

The thing is, in both scenarios the sole factor in the general’s decision is taking the hill. In the situation where the movement will subject his troops to direct fire, there is a moral calculus that the loss of life is worth the objective of taking the hill. In the scenario where the hill costs no life to take, there is no moral calculus so it is morally neutral. We all understand this intuitively which is why our emotional response is different to both scenarios, but our emotional response is the correct one. Sometimes our brains just process information quicker than we can rationally articulate

@mikhilsaju6929 2 жыл бұрын

No both scenarios were intentional he simply "chose" To not care that is intentional emotional parameters has got nothing to do with intention

@johnnytass2111 2 жыл бұрын

Like the all the probabilities in the quantum world, it depends on the entangled details.... What if the general knows by sacrificing his fighting soldiers to win the hill he would save far more civilians from an evacuating city? Or on the other hand, what if the general knows ordering his soldiers to retreat and regroup on a hill to save him will allow the enemy to destroy the city below?

@markberman6708 Жыл бұрын

The best intentionality is when those being influenced have no idea it is happening... cannot separate morality from it because of how humans are... if the overall affect of either a visible or not intention or even one reflected of an individual just by their nature... has a negative affect and that can be seen and arise in many different forms.. that intentionality is rooted within that person... that makes sense in my head and based on a lifetime of experience within this realm of observing and evaluating people, not sure my written description makes any sense tho... heh.

@IamAvidity 2 жыл бұрын

I try and judge my intent by the precedent that my prior actions set.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Is there some consistency between intentionality and character? What does general's intention to pursue a military objective say about his character, if anything?

@1p6t1gms 2 жыл бұрын

There must be other unidentified processes happening that cannot be directly expressed as, "electric currents and chemical concentrations." Something operating of more importance to these other detectable causes? We need finer instruments for a finer understanding... however, we need a finer understanding to create the finer instruments.

@David.C.Velasquez 2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. To say that current instruments for interfacing, and detecting subtle processes in the brain are crude, is a huge understatement... even with the leaps in technology over the last several decades.

@fortynine3225 2 жыл бұрын

There is always a lot going on on multiple levels and a human being and its life is in the middle of that being unconscious driven also..that is why you are where you are in life. So there is intention and there are choices but that likely is a illusion.

@rhondasampsel2806 2 жыл бұрын

Yes he put the troops in jeopardy in order to win.Sad

@r2c3 2 жыл бұрын

there's both positive and negative intentions in reality and one's decision/choice is partly influenced by their present processing ability... e.g. a stressed subject will perform much poorly compared to another less stressed individual...

@mainman2256 2 жыл бұрын

My reaction was the general moved the troops in and out of the line of fire intentionally in both cases. He knew the specific consequence in question and still made the decision in both cases. Whether it was his goal to save or endanger or take the hill doesn’t seem relevant. Simply knowing of a consequence and still making the decision makes it intentional. Maybe not the goal but intentional nonetheless.

@johnnytass2111 2 жыл бұрын

Both times the general informed the officer that what happens to the troops are unintended consequences.

@mainman2256 2 жыл бұрын

No. The general told the officer those were not the consequences he cared about. He still intended to take the action with those consequences.

@MeRetroGamer 2 жыл бұрын

I think human intuition about intentionality has something which is not easily computable. If the general wants to take the hill and his soldires will die, then there's some kind of counterbalance that gives a strong weight to the fact that his soldiers will die, because it being a heavy bad action should dissuade the general in taking that choice, despite of his desires. On the other hand, if the general wants to take the hill and his soldiers will be saved, then the counterbalance gives more weight to the fact that he wants to take the hill. His soldiers would be saved so it doesn't matter, it's not a factor to take into account because it shouldn't dissuade him from his choice, and all the weight of his decission goes to his objective (which is to take the hill).

@jamesruscheinski8602 6 ай бұрын

each human brain has intentionality, better to have choices and actions bottom up, from each individual to others around, only having temporary group locally?

@0ptimal 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting scenario. Maybe the morally "bad" thing having far greater consequences, stands out to us as more important. Important to focus on, as something vital to avoid. But I think ultimately both should be seen the same, if his goal includes known factors they are a part of his intention.

@rotorblade9508 2 жыл бұрын

bad things are instinctively more disturbing

@S3RAVA3LM 2 жыл бұрын

What is the core intention for capturing the hill? And I have to ask what kind of War is this, are they defending or attacking, is it a proxy? Regarding this video topic you never want to answer questions directly, but enquire furthermore, if you want to come to a conclusive succinct recognition; i cannot say 'understand' because what is there to understand of war, it is the cause of lack of understanding itself. Soul is two fold -- lower is activity of body in physical; higher part of Soul of Intellect and Spirit. A soul seeking Intellect and the Good is genuine intention. A soul part taking in multiplicity, division, war is a false notion of intention, a quarrel of confusion and no true direction -- I wouldnt considering this actual intention.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Could intention have anything to do with desire for morality, or at least to have a discussion of morality?

@massasvassa 2 жыл бұрын

interesting video, thanks. But, as we are evolving from the past, I don't think that a man "helps" his wife by doing the dishes or taking care of their kids. He's just doing what a normal human being should do & this does not define him. We've been doing it for ever. Let's take that into this scenario.

@abelincoln8885 2 жыл бұрын

The proof for the actual origin of the Universe has been known by Man for thousands of years, but he "chooses" to ignore it, as well as any new evidence. Only an intelligence (like Man) makes & "fine tunes" ... rules & Laws ... and ... things with clear design, purpose, form, properties & function. Only an intelligence(like Man) makes ... abstract & physical Functions. A machine is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions. Life are physical Functions composed entirely of Functions. A Natural Function ( ie Life) will always be like an unnatural Function (ie machines) because they are both physical Functions. Man knows for a fact, that Nature & natural processes will never every make & operate a simple mechanical or electrical machine. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). Man calls the Machine Analogy as fake science from Theists, and insist that living things (life) are not machines and that the biological PROCESSES ( functions) are not the same. Again. A Function is a Function. It is a PROCESS with set purpose, properties, form, design and requires specific inputs/parts to exist & to function. Man seems hell bent on ignoring or distorting anything that supports "God." All thermodynamic Systems ... originate from ... the SURROUNDING Systems(s) which must provide the (specific) matter, energy, space, time & Law of Nature to exist and to ... function. Man has known this fact about Thermodynamic Systems for over 150 years. Man knows the ORIGIN or anything that is a Thermodynamic System. A cup of coffee, can of soup, refrigerator, engine ...all Life .... Earth, moon, planets, Sun ... and the Universe are THERMODYNAMIC Systems(functions). And yet there is not one "origins" theory ... which has the Two Systems Model of the Universe ... with a NATURAL Systems that began & is expanding in an UNNATURAL Systems ... which must provide the specific matter, energy space, time & Laws of Nature to exist. Law, Mathematics & the Scientific method ... are abstract Functions from the Mind of an intelligence. Science( a function) relies on the Laws of Nature( functions) for Man ( a Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions) Everything in the Universe ... is clearly without any doubt ... a Function or PROCESSES ... made only by an UNNATURAL intelligence. This is what Sir Issac Newton observed over 300 years ago ... with his Watchmaker Analogy that he proposed proves "God." And this "Analogy" was rejected for having no scientific basis but is simply Theist nonsense. You can not debunk a natural Phenomena, ... and the Watchmaker Analogy had: 1. Natural Abstract & physical Functions 2. Natural Thermodynamic Systems. The Laws of Thermodynamics were developed in the 1800's .. but .. Man has always KNOWN .... the origin or rules & Laws and anything with clear purpose form, design & FUNCTION. What Man has been doing is intentional .. and is because Man has free will and a Nature that needs a MORAL compass otherwise Man will think & do evil or wrong.

@neffetSnnamremmiZ 2 жыл бұрын

Ask Husserl!

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Have the general take the hill and leave the troops behind, allowing any of the troops to follow general in taking the hill if agree with objective?

@JungleJargon 2 жыл бұрын

Morality is the objective of aligning all of your intentions to be good across the board. This is the moral dilemma of choosing the most important intentions. Is it more important to feed people or helping people feed themselves? Is religion more important than a change of heart? Are nice clothes more important than a good attitude?

@rotorblade9508 2 жыл бұрын

it’s also important to specify what good means, good for who?

@mikhilsaju6929 2 жыл бұрын

@@rotorblade9508 morality is subjective but people want their delusions not be broken that is objective moral values

@gr33nDestiny 2 жыл бұрын

Was that editing at the start intentional? 😂 does the editor know someone would ask this as extended question 🤣 this was interesting I need think about this for a while, I’m thinking the next comment I make will be ‘that’s not looking good for free will, but I need think more if if I can break that down.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

What can guide general about taking the hill besides objective?

@stevefrompolaca2403 2 жыл бұрын

my take from that is we are all subjective creatures... I would add, it ain't necessarily so, to marry song with logic.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Is the situation more about intentionality of military objective, than about general?

@starxcrossed 2 жыл бұрын

Yes. He used a bad example… something philosophers do when the scope of context doesn’t go far enough.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

General intention whether or not to take hill about military objective, not morality? Intention of military would be about morality? Two distinct intentions, one about the objective, and one about military, that are mixed together in one action?

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Does being a general include the intention of putting troops in the line of fire to pursue the attainment of a military objective?

@Summerhill80 2 жыл бұрын

This is not hard. The General flat out says he doesn’t care so the intention is only directed at taking Thompson Hill. Whether some troops live or die is neither here nor there to his intention.

@timm6175 2 жыл бұрын

What if you decided you were going to drive across town on one road. Now say there is a supermarket on that road. Did you intentionally drive by the supermarket?

@Summerhill80 2 жыл бұрын

@@timm6175 no. The supermarket is irrelevant to the intention to drive across town. It could be there or it could not be there…doesn’t matter.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

how will taking the hill remove troops out of line of fire when general makes taking the hill an objective without regard to taking the troops out of line of fire?

@A.--. 2 жыл бұрын

Brother: what evolved first Ribonucleic Acid or Chlorophyll?

@jesusbermudez6775 2 жыл бұрын

How can this be of any use?

@DestroManiak 2 жыл бұрын

"'Intentionality' is a philosophical term that describes the elements of mental states that are 'directed' at things or ideas" Not in this context.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Character has some bearing on intentionality?

@kphala4947 2 жыл бұрын

It's a "No" for me in both cases. The general's decision and troops' actions were aligned with one of many other possible ways to take the hill. Whether the grass burns or troops die... the general had not devised a plan to do that and thus no intentions. Technically unintended consequences.

@rotorblade9508 2 жыл бұрын

so to me doing something intentionally means when someone does something and the result was predicted by the subject. It has no relevance whether the action is considered good or bad. as to morality, since I don’t think we have free will, I will say there is no such a thing as good or bad person. nobody can choose to do bad or good things. Basically the actions depend on the mental capacities and you are not responsible for the abilities of your own mind.

@Daddytronics 2 жыл бұрын

First paragraph: good Second paragraph: diabolical

@maxwellsimoes238 2 жыл бұрын

Brains order action throught body. Intentionality are playing predict it is so strategy games.

@leob3447 2 жыл бұрын

For the most part I agree with this. Though I do wonder if there may be a little gray area with free will around our ability to point ourselves in a different direction in the future (with a lot of effort). For example, you don't like a certain aspect of yourself (say your level of fitness, or that you anger too easily) but you can go about learning an implementing new tools so that you do respond differently to future events. Just a thought...

@JohnHowshall 2 жыл бұрын

@Rotor Blade What is it that causes you to think that people don’t have free will?

@Daddytronics 2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnHowshall they think we're made of billiard balls bouncing around

@cameronidk2 2 жыл бұрын

maybe I'm a psycho .. I said no in both cases... if the General said .. Take Thompson Hill..., and his second and command asks "Why" and teh general said .."i want to test their worth" or " they need the combat experience" that would be intent

@ZZ-du4ef 2 жыл бұрын

The problem with the scenario as stated is that it misses the larger context that taking the hill is part of. If the loss due to taking the hill prevents even greater loss later then taking the hill is a sane choice even if you hate it. It feels a bit like the classic trolley dilemma.

@FalseCogs 2 жыл бұрын

This is perhaps the biggest problem with shallow, especially egoic moral assessments in general -- looking at life, events, and causation through an arbitrarily narrow window. Things are placed into imaginarily discrete boxes, somehow independent of outside happenings.

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 жыл бұрын

Better if general not have position of influence / power to tell troops to take hill that will result in many of their deaths

@nivlemhero4115 2 жыл бұрын

His face made me curious though. He's like the villain in Clash of Titans in the eighties. 😈

@grybnyx 2 жыл бұрын

Or the son of Spock.

@nivlemhero4115 2 жыл бұрын

@@grybnyx 😂

@cuddywifter8386 2 жыл бұрын

People can invert a Necker cube in their mind this is Intentionality without morality nor psychologically

@Daddytronics 2 жыл бұрын

Context

@tnvheiseler 2 жыл бұрын

This is rehearsed.

@trenthammer4127 Жыл бұрын

So?

@worldnotworld 2 жыл бұрын

None of this has anything to do with intentionality per se.

@sof553 Жыл бұрын

Yeah this is about intention. Intentionality, is a philosophical concept about the directed nature of consciousness from the phenomenological school.

@worldnotworld Жыл бұрын

@@sof553 It's hard to understand how Kuhn is oblivious to these sorts of things. Like Dawkins, he suffers from several complete blind spots in his thinking - though unlike Dawkins, he seriously _wants_ to understand people's insights on these deep issues!

@sof553 Жыл бұрын

@@worldnotworld Yeah. It's a pity that it wasn't picked up by either of them in the video or by the producers of this video. What they are talking about is intentional action which is a different kettle of fish to intentionality.

@haroonaverroes6537 2 жыл бұрын

it seems more suitable as scientific theory of the minds of the apes.

@maxwellsimoes238 2 жыл бұрын

Intentionality is analise strategy . But it is reality Science? Of course Not. Intentionality arent full understant reality.

@petervandenengel1208 2 жыл бұрын

All of this is purely based on theory. So conducting experiments as if one would otherwise not know what the problem is about, is one 100% waste of money. Also the reaction at home the general could have in either positive or negative sense, says everything about the psychology of him, wether he knew what he was doing with what intention or not. So also the conclusion it did not make a difference in his previous decision is completely false.

@codyjones6378 2 жыл бұрын

#relatable to Putin 🎯

@Therealskxlls 2 жыл бұрын

what kind of fool would think that the essence of intentionality can be known through scientific experimentations? when you are asked the question “what is x,” to answer the question correctly, you must give the categories or relations which are necessary for the existence of that thing, but this guy begins his explanation without addressing the question, but by making with the unjustified assertion that intentionality is best known experimentally from the third-person rather than the first-person, and further, that intentionality exists in relation to the category of morality, but this is all nonsense, for it is not possible to understand the essence of intentionality from the third-person perspective, and because it is possible to intend towards one’s own mind, and that intention is neither good nor bad because the category of morality is defined in terms of the category of ‘otherness,’ that intentionality is not necessarily contingent upon the category of morality.

@spaceexplorer3690 2 жыл бұрын

No,no,and no....first law of crucial ezoteric...cmooon once again..

@abelincoln8885 2 жыл бұрын

An intelligence ( like Man) ... has free will & a NATURE( propensity) .. to think, believe, say & do as he wants. Good or evil ... thoughts & actions ... by Man are a fact of his Kind, and history has shown the Nature of Man is evil, & will corrupt & pervert what is good .... unless ... Man freely chooses to have a strong MORAL compass( eg God, civilized culture) to do good not evil. Intentionality ... is all about free will & Nature. Man insists on believing & saying the Universe & Life have an Natural origin billions of years ago .... when he has known for over 150 years that the Universe & Life are "natural" thermodynamic Systems and all thermodynamic Systems ORIGINATE from the Surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist & ... Functions. Man has known for thousands of years ... that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & Laws ( of Nature) and things( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, design & Function(process). Man is hell bent or ignoring or debunking any "evidence" that supports or proves "Intelligent Design." This "bad, wrong, or evil" behavior towards Theists & religions is intentional and due to free will & Nature .. and prevalent among Atheists with firm beliefs ( ie faith) in a religion that has replaced "the gods" with the BS from "the Man." Man does have free will & a Nature .. but Man( with his 'humanist" religions) ... is now trying to convince or "educate" Man that there is no free will by determinism.

@jodiehighroller9820 2 жыл бұрын

Michael Jackson?

@richardmooney383 2 жыл бұрын

If taking Thompson Hill shortens the war fewer people die overall. The general is concerned with strategy the lieutenant with tactics. I don't think we can ever be in a position to judge the morality of decisions taken during a war, which, by its very nature, is immoral, though possibly unavoidable or even necessary, as in Ukraine's defence of its own territory against an unprincipled aggressor.

@leanmchungry4735 2 жыл бұрын

Joshua Knobe sounds like Derek Zoolander, only smarter.

@markberman6708 Жыл бұрын

A good General... and a good LT.. would explain why taking the hill is important... and there's more than one way to dominate a hill and have the same affects as sticking guys right on top... in war people get hurt and die, but wars must be won and objectives must be taken... G.S. Patton, make the other SOB die for his country. A General like the one described sounds very WW1... or the kind everyone works around because he is a jackass that values the wrong things... the negative affects of such a character go way beyond some casualties.

@jackarmstrong5645 2 жыл бұрын

When they bore you with worthless scenarios that explain absolutely nothing about the individual you know they don't know the first thing about intentionality.