tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8961439231256320771..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Immateriality and IntentionalityVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90751421259386201612012-10-29T15:28:59.303-07:002012-10-29T15:28:59.303-07:00quoting page 15:
"What should strike one abo...quoting page 15:<br /><br />"What should strike one about this account is the number of ‘its’ which appear in it, the<br />number of conditions which have to be satisfied. The hearing of the Sonatas only comes<br />about if all these conditions are satisfied. Does this mean that the Sonatas are not actually<br />in the piece of metal-coated plastic? Yes—they are not actually there. But there is a<br />difference between this piece of metal-coated plastic and another in that one will, if all<br />the conditions are satisfied, produce Scarlatti’s Harpsichord Sonatas while the other will<br />not. The music is, therefore, virtually present in the plastic, that is to say, the plastic has<br />the power to produce them in the appropriate circumstances.<br />"<br /><br />It's interesting that Searle's view of intentionality might deny this, since to Searle information can only exist in the intentions of a mind, and one can always build a tech machine that will interpret any given complex physical object so as, to, in this example, produce a sonata.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.com