THE MOST REMARKABLE
CAPACITY OF THE MIND IS NOT JUST THAT IT'S CONSCIOUS
BUT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS TYPICALLY ABOUT SOMETHING. SO HERE IS A REMARKABLE
THING ABOUT THE MIND. I CAN SIT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND THINK ABOUT, LET'S SAY, A CLINTON,
PRESIDENT CLINTON, WHO'S 3,000 MILES AWAY. OR I CAN THINK ALL THE WAY
ABOUT MOSCOW OR BEIJING, AND THEY'RE EVEN MORE
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY, AND IT TAKES NO MORE EFFORT. I MEAN, IT ISN'T THAT IT'S MORE
EXHAUSTING TO GET A THOUGHT TO REACH OUT TO NEW YORK
THAN IT IS TO KANSAS CITY, OR MORE EXHAUSTING TO GET TO
PARIS THAN IT IS TO NEW YORK, OR THAT TAKES MORE MENTAL FUEL. IT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS
IMMEDIATELY REACH OUT. NOW, THAT CAPACITY THE MIND--
THE CAPACITY OF THE MIND TO BE DIRECTED AT OR TO
BE ABOUT OR OF OBJECTS IN STATES OF AFFAIRS
IN THE WORLD OTHER THAN THE MIND-- THAT'S
GOT A NAME IN PHILOSOPHY. IT'S CALL INTENTIONALITY. IT'S A TERRIBLE NAME, BECAUSE
ENGLISH SPEAKERS TEND TO THINK IT MEANS SOMETHING TO DO WITH
INTENDING, BUT IT DOESN'T. INTENDING IS ONE
KIND OF INTENTION, ALONG WITH BELIEF AND
DESIRE AND HOPE AND FEAR. LIKE MOST CONFUSED
NOTIONS IN PHILOSOPHY, WE GOT IT FROM THE GERMANS. I MEAN, THE GERMANS DON'T HAVE
THE CONFUSION OF [INAUDIBLE] AND INTENDING, BECAUSE
THEY'VE GOT [INAUDIBLE], WHICH DOESN'T SOUND AT ALL
LIKE INTENTIONALITY. BUT, IN ANY CASE, WE'VE GOT THIS
WORD, AND WE'RE STUCK WITH IT, SO LET'S USE IT. NOW, I THINK THAT IS THE MOST
REMARKABLE THING ABOUT THE MIND IS THAT, IN ONE
SENTENCE, IT ENABLES US TO REPRESENT THE WORLD. AND THAT, AS I SAID, IS
CALLED INTENTIONALITY. WELL, THEN YOU GET INTO
INTERESTING THINGS. HOW DOES IT WORK? WHAT ARE THE MODES OF
REPRESENTING THE WORLD? AND IT SEEMS TO ME
YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THOSE MENTAL PHENOMENA, LIKE
PERCEPTIONS AND BELIEFS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO TELL
US HOW THE WORLD IS-- AND I SAY THEY HAVE THEIR MIND
TO WORLD DIRECTION OF FIT, AND THE BELIEF
AND THE PERCEPTION IS SUPPOSED TO FIT HOW THINGS
REALLY ARE IN THE REAL WORLD. AND I DISTINGUISH THEM FROM
DESIRES AND INTENTIONS, WHICH AREN'T SUPPOSED
TO FIT HOW THE WORLD IS, BUT HOW WE'D LIKE
IT TO BE OR HOW WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO BE. AND THERE DO THEY HAVE WHAT
I CALL THE WORLD TO MIND DIRECTION OF FIT, BECAUSE
THE WORLD-- IF IT WORKS OUT, IF IT'S SATISFIED-- AS
I SAY, IF IT ACHIEVES ITS CONDITIONS OF
SATISFACTION-- THEN YOU GET THE WORLD TO MIND
DIRECTION OF FIT, AND THAT'S JUST ANOTHER
FANCY WAY OF SAYING, IF I INTEND TO RAISE MY ARM,
AND MY ARM DOES, IN FACT, GO UP, THEN THE WORLD IN
THE FORM OF MY ARM HAS CHANGED TO MATCH THE
CONTENT OF MY INTENTION. I HAVE THE WORLD TO
MIND DIRECTION OF FIT. NOW, YOU GET THOSE TWO
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS OF FIT, MIND TO WORLD AND WORLD TO MIND. AND THEN THEY HAVE
A PECULIAR RELATION WITH CAUSATION WHERE
THE GUTSIEST FORMS OF INTENTIONALITY ARE CONCERNED,
SUCH AS ACTUALLY SEEING SOMETHING OR PERFORMING
AN INTENTIONAL ACTION. IF YOU ACTUALLY SEE IT,
THEN THE THING YOU SEE HAS GOT TO CAUSE YOUR
PERCEPTION OF IT. IT'S GOT TO CAUSE THE SEEING. SO THE WORLD IS
CAUSING YOU TO HAVE THIS INTENTIONAL PHENOMENON,
THIS INTENTIONAL EXPERIENCE. AND IN THE CASE OF YOUR
INTENTIONAL ACTION, IF I INTEND TO RAISE MY
ARM, AND THE ARM GOES UP, THEN THE INTENTION ITSELF HAS
GOT TO CAUSE THE ARM GOING UP, OR IT'S NOT REALLY SATISFIED. SO YOU GET THIS
PECULIAR ASYMMETRY. PERCEPTIONS HAVE THE
MIND TO WORLD DIRECTION OF FIT BUT THE WORLD TO
MIND DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. AND THAT'S TRUE OF
MEMORIES, AS WELL. BUT PRIOR INTENTIONS AND
INTENTIONS IN ACTION-- THAT IS, PLANS THAT WE HAVE FOR
DOING SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT WHAT WE PLANNED
ON-- THOSE HAVE THE WORLD TO MIND DIRECTION OF FIT
BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MIND TO WORLD
DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. SO YOU HAVE THIS ASYMMETRY
IN THE CASE OF COGNITION-- THAT IS, PERCEPTION AND MEMORY. YOU HAVE MIND TO WORLD
DIRECTION OF FIT, WORLD TO MIND
DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. AND IN THE CASE OF PRIOR
INTENTION AND INTENTION IN ACTION, YOU HAVE WORLD TO
MIND DIRECTION OF FIT AND MIND TO WORLD DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. NOW, I THINK THAT
CAN'T BE AN ACCIDENT. THAT'S A VERY DEEP
BIOLOGICAL POINT THAT WE'RE OBSERVING THERE,
AND THE POINT IS THIS. IT'S BASIC TO OUR WHOLE
DEALINGS WITH THE WORLD. IT'S PART OF OUR
BACKGROUND PRESUPPOSITION FOR DEALING WITH THE WORLD
THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE IT, THAT IF I SEE THE WORLD THE WAY
IT REALLY IS, AND THUS ACHIEVE MIND TO WORLD DIRECTION OF FIT,
IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THE WORLD BEING THAT WAY CAUSES
ME TO SEE IT THAT WAY. SO I GET MIND TO WORLD DIRECTION
OF FIT AND VIRTUE OF WORLD TO MIND DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. WHEREAS WITH THE ACTIONS THE
OTHER WAY AROUND, IF I REALLY MAKE THE WORLD THE WAY I WANT
IT TO BE AND THUS ACHIEVE WORLD TO MIND DIRECTION OF FIT, IT'S
ONLY BECAUSE MY MIND OPERATING ON THE WORLD CAUSES
IT TO BE THAT WAY. AGAIN, WORLD TO MIND DIRECTION
OF FIT IN VIRTUE OF MIND TO WORLD DIRECTION OF CAUSATION. ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE. I MEAN, I WROTE A WHOLE
BOOK ABOUT THIS CALLED INTENTIONALITY, AND PART
OF THE FUN OF THE BOOK IS YOU CAN WORK OUT ALL OF THESE
RELATIONS BETWEEN PERCEPTION, AND MEMORY, AND BELIEF, AND
DESIRE, AND HOPE, AND FEAR, AND THE EMOTIONS,
AND LOVE, AND HATE, AND INTENDING TO DO SOMETHING,
PLANNING ON DOING IT, ACTUALLY CARRYING
OUT THE INTENTION. AND THESE, IN MY
VIEW, FASCINATING SET OF FORMAL RELATIONS, AND IT
IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PROPERTY OF THE MIND. NOW, I SAID THE MOST IMPORTANT. WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? WELL, THERE'S A CONNECTION. YOU CAN'T HAVE INTENTIONALITY
EXCEPT IN A SYSTEM THAT'S CONSCIOUS OR AT LEAST
POTENTIALLY CONSCIOUS. I MEAN, YOU CAN BE
SOUND ASLEEP, AND YOU CAN HAVE THESE PATHOLOGICAL
CASES WHERE THE GUY STILL AS-- WE WANT TO SAY HE
STILL REMEMBERS SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH HE'S GOT A BRAIN
LESION AND OR HE'S IN A COMA. BUT YOU DO GET A CONNECTION
BETWEEN INTENTIONALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN THAT
ANY INTENTIONAL STATE, IF NOT CONSCIOUS, IS AT LEAST
THE KIND OF THING THAT COULD BECOME CONSCIOUS. IT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S
ACCESSIBLE TO CONSCIOUSNESS. SO INTENTIONALITY AND
CONSCIOUSNESS ARE, FOR ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROPERTIES OF THE MIND, BUT THEY'RE NOT INDEPENDENT. THEY'RE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.
