Skip to main content
Log in

Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I suggest that most discussions of intentional systems have overlooked an important aspect of living organisms: the intrinsic goal-directedness inherent in the behaviour of living eukaryotic cells. This goal directedness is nicely displayed by a normal cell’s ability to rearrange its own local material structure in response to damage, nutrient distribution or other aspects of its individual experience. While at a vastly simpler level than intentionality at the human cognitive level, I propose that this basic capacity of living things provides a necessary building block for cognition and high-order intentionality, because the neurons that make up vertebrate brains, like most cells in our body, embody such capacities. I provisionally dub the capacities in question “nano-intentionality”: a microscopic form of “aboutness”. The form of intrinsic intentionality I propose is thoroughly materialistic, fully compatible with known biological facts, and derived non-mysteriously through evolution. Crucially, these capacities are not shared by any existing computers or computer components, and thus provide a clear, empirically-based distinction between brains and currently existing artificial information processing systems. I suggest that an appreciation of this aspect of living matter provides a potential route out of what may otherwise appear to be a hopeless philosophical quagmire confronting information-processing models of the mind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, I note that Arnold Schopenhauer's core point about what he termed the “will” presages many of the points I make here Schopenhauer (1819). Schopenhauer correctly saw the error of Kant's key claim that we are wholly and irrevocably separated from the actual physical reality of things—Kant's Ding in sich. According to Schopenhauer, our minds do in fact make direct contact with the actual reality of lifeless physical matter—in the single specific domain of our own bodies. Schopenhauer's convincing if underappreciated argument against Kant provides a philosophical precursor of the biologically-based argument I present here. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer goes one step too far I think by ascribing this “will” to non-living matter as well; by my understanding “will” in his sense is the crucial quality distinguishing the living from the non-living, and "will" is closely allied to what I term nano-intentionality.

  2. I thank Phillip Pettit for pointing out this key difference between the flow-diagram for intentional systems as normally conceived, and the intentionality of living things. A nice analogy is the behavior of a fish or frog captured in a trap—they will adopt the (implicit) goal of “escape”, generate mostly random motoric behaviour to achieve this goal, and repeat until they are free. But “escape” and “freedom” are not goals of evolution or “free-floating rationales” built in by past phylogenetic history. They are rough-and-ready responses to the novel and undesireable situation the individual finds itself in. Pettit suggests the nice term "intra-active intentionality" for this more fluid conception of intentionality.

References

  • Bateson G (1988) Mind and nature. Bantam Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MC, Hopkins WG, Keynes RJ (1991) Essentials of neural development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll SB, Grenier JK, Weatherbee SD (2005) From DNA to diversity: molecular genetics and the evolution of animal design. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1996) Kinds of minds. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch WT (2005) Computation and cognition: four distinctions and their implications. In: Cutler A (ed) Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: four cornerstones. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahway, New Jersey, pp 381–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (1996) Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein ST (1999) Foraminifera: a biological overview. In: Sen Gupta BK (ed) Modern Foraminifera. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 37–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Grell KG (1973) Protozoology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubel DH (1988) Eye, brain, and vision. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob F, Monod J (1961) Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. J Mol Biol 3:318–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel ER, Schwartz JL, Jessell TM (2000) Principles of neural science. McGrawHill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessin RH (2001) Dictyostelium—evolution, cell biology, and the development of multicellularity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner MW, Gerhart JC (2005) The plausibility of life: resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner MW, Mitchison T (1986) Beyond self-assembly: from microtubules to morphogenesis Cell 45:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn SM, Pascual-Leone A, Felician O, Camposano S, Keenan JP, Thompson WL, Ganis G, Sukel KE, Alpert NM (1999) The role of area 17 in visual imagery: convergent evidence from PET and rTMS. Science 284:167–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. WH Freeman & Co., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR (1980) Biology of cognition. In: Maturana HR, Varela FJ (eds) Autopoesis and cognition. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 1–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1980) Autopoesis: the organization of the living. In: Maturana HR, Varela FJ (eds) Autopoesis and cognition. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 59–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan RG (1987) Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson DJ, Hedley S (1992) Free-living freshwater protozoa: a colour guide. Wolfe Publishing Ltd, Aylesbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves D (1988) Body & brain: a trophic theory of neural connections. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves D, Lichtman JW (1980) Elimination of synapses in the developing nervous system. Science 210:153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert EE, Barnes RD (1994) Invertebrate zoology. Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandon H (1963) Essays on protozoology. Hutchinson Educational, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer A (1819) The world as will and idea. JM Dent, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1992) The rediscovery of the mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen Gupta BK (ed) (1999) Modern Foraminifera. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

  • Shapiro LA (2004) The mind incarnate. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartar V (1961) The biology of Stentor. Pergamon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Daniel Dennett, William D. W. Fitch, Phillip Pettit, Kim Sterelny, Gesche Westphal and an anonymous reviewer for comments and constructive criticisms of an earlier version of this manuscript, and Antonio Damasio for insightful conversations on this topic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Tecumseh Fitch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fitch, W.T. Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality. Biol Philos 23, 157–177 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9079-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9079-5

Keywords

Navigation