ABSTRACT
Introduction
Many approaches to understanding cognition begin with an explanation of how we use intentional states (Cummins, 1989). Intentional states, such as beliefs and desires, supposedly denote just those mental states that an agent takes to meaningfully refer to facts about the world. Agents use these mental states to explain, plan and perform actions. However, reductionist approaches to cognition suggest that behavior can be causally explained in purely neurological/syntactic terms. If a syntactic account of cognition succeeds in explaining behavior, then it would appear that intentional states like 'believing' or 'desiring' are not causally relevant in an explanation of an agent's behavior, since we would have reduced these high-level notions to more basic causal factors. Intentional explanations, on such an account, become 'epiphenomenal' or causally inert.
