{"id":135,"date":"2006-06-29T12:43:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-29T16:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/?p=135"},"modified":"2006-06-29T12:43:00","modified_gmt":"2006-06-29T16:43:00","slug":"from-the-mailbag-on-mind-and-intention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/2006\/06\/from-the-mailbag-on-mind-and-intention\/","title":{"rendered":"From the Mailbag: On Mind and Intention"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Reader C Grace (Celinda) asked me to comment on the following argument:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>p1 Intrinsically, the mind has no form or existence only intention<br \/>p2 Intention is a potential relation<br \/>p3 Representation occurs when the mind takes on the form of the object presented<br \/>p4 Willing is the act of actuating an intention thus creating an actual relation<br \/>therefore<br \/>c1 the mind gains form and existence from willing a representation of an actually existing object<br \/>c2 any misrepresentation that we will has no existence<br \/>c3 any actually existing thing that we do not will, that we disbelieve, reject etc, is not represented in the mind.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>For background on (p2) see comments on <a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com\/posts\/1149120251.shtml\">this blog post<\/a>, and for more details on the overall argument see Celinda&#8217;s blog <a href=\"http:\/\/cgrace.blogspot.com\/2006\/06\/mind-as-pure-intention-ever-since.html\">here<\/a>. She&#8217;s coming from a broadly Thomistic angle.<\/p>\n<p>OK, now for comments. I hope, Celinda, that these will help you refine your thoughts on these issues.<\/p>\n<p>First, I&#8217;m skeptical of (p1). It seems to say that that the mind is, in itself, just a <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">tabula rasa<\/span>, a blank slate waiting for some experience of being to etch something on it and thereby in-form it. The reason I&#8217;m skeptical is that I think the mind as blank slate idea has been conclusively refuted from a variety of different angles. I don&#8217;t have time to go into details, but there are powerful arguments from thinkers like Plato, Reid, Peirce, Chomsky, et al. to the effect that we come into the world partially &#8220;hard-wired&#8221; with certain <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a priori<\/span> conceptions. So I wouldn&#8217;t say that the mind has absolutely no form. Some Thomists may object and say that allowing any <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a priori<\/span> form into the mind will give rise to a Kantian-style skepticism of things-in-themselves. But that doesn&#8217;t follow if the <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a priori<\/span> structure of the mind is isomorphic with the intelligible structure of reality, as thinkers like Reid, Peirce, and Lonergan would argue.<\/p>\n<p>That said, I would agree with Aquinas that our minds start out as largely indeterminate, having a primordial orientation toward being and a receptivity for the forms (or intelligible characters) of experienced objects.<\/p>\n<p>In (p2) I wouldn&#8217;t talk of a &#8216;potential relation&#8217; as opposed to an &#8216;actual relation&#8217;. There is either a relation or there isn&#8217;t. If there is a relation then it is <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ipso facto<\/span> actual. What I gather is meant by (p2) is that an intention <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">in itself<\/span>, considered in abstraction from the existence or nonexistence of its object, does not <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">actually<\/span> constitute a relation to its object, but if its object does exist and that intention is &#8220;fulfilled&#8221;, then the intention serves to bring the mind into relation with that object.<span style=\"font-style: italic;\"><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Regarding (p3), it&#8217;s not clear what it is for the mind to &#8220;take on the form&#8221; of the object presented. Is this form a type of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">qualia<\/span>, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">concept<\/span>, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">perceptual judgment<\/span>, or something else? Qualia and\/or concepts in themselves will not suffice to bring the mind into relation to any particular object, so I&#8217;m guessing that a perceptual judgment (e.g., &#8220;That&#8217;s a red chair&#8221;) is what&#8217;s needed here.<\/p>\n<p>Talk of willing &#8220;actuating an intention&#8221; (p4) sounds odd to me. And why would it create an actual relation? Better, I think, is to say that to will is to form an intention (or simply intend) to do X for the sake of Y. But that by itself won&#8217;t suffice to bring about a relation between oneself and the ultimate object of one&#8217;s willing. Perhaps the intention has a built-in time delay (I intend to get up in ten minutes). Or perhaps, unknown to me, I&#8217;ve become paralyzed, such that when I try to carry out my intention I find that I can&#8217;t.<\/p>\n<p>As for the conclusions (c1)-(c3), I find these rather implausible as they stand. Nor it is terribly clear how they are supposed to follow from the premises. I&#8217;ll mention just a few issues I have concerning each.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding (c1), I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s right to say that the &#8220;mind&#8221; wills &#8211; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">persons <\/span>will, minds don&#8217;t. Nor does the mind &#8220;gain existence&#8221; in this way. You need to have an idea of X and thus a mind before you can will X.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding (c2), what is the sense of &#8220;misrepresentation&#8221; &#8211; a false judgment? If so, how does one will a false judgment? Finally, if someone&#8217;s wills a misrepresentation then doesn&#8217;t the misrepresentation have to exist in the willing of it?<\/p>\n<p>Regarding (c3), if I reject or disbelieve something then it has to be represented in my mind. I can&#8217;t have a propositional attitude (like disbelief) without having the corresponding proposition in my mind.<\/p>\n<p>Again, Celinda, I hope these comments help. As it stands, I don&#8217;t think your argument is very effective. Perhaps you can fix it up for us, or clue me in if I&#8217;ve misunderstood you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Reader C Grace (Celinda) asked me to comment on the following argument: p1 Intrinsically, the mind has no form or existence only intentionp2 Intention is a potential relationp3 Representation occurs when the mind takes on the form of the object presentedp4 Willing is the act of actuating an intention thus creating an actual relationthereforec1 the\u2026 <span class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/2006\/06\/from-the-mailbag-on-mind-and-intention\/\">Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/alanrhoda.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}