Before I begin summarizing the paper, I would like to, at least for myself, get my personal feelings toward the paper itself and to clear up what I think is meant by Daniel Dennett's term intentional.

In my opinion, Dennett does a poor job of explaining the term, unless the entire paper is intended to be a definition, in which case it may be satisfactory; however in that event I will divulge that Dennett's style of writing is like that of some other authors that we have read: I can understand every single word in the paper, however the method used by these authors to string together words is unlike mine, and I find it difficult to fully comprehend the ideas he lays before me, not because I cannot grasp them, but because somewhere in between his thought process itself and me hearing his explanation of his thought process there is a loss of connection. Some authors we have read have not had this style; I found Tom Nagle to make perfect sense and I read the paper rather quickly and absorbed it all. I feel he writes in a manner similar to the scientific authors that I like to read in my free time.

Most dictionaries I looked in for a definition of intentional did not give one that prompte

Dennett discusses different ways of analyzing systems. There is the design method, which is similar to circuit schematics that show the fundamental relationship of each component of a system to the rest, as well as breaking it down to being represented as a box with one input and one output. There is also the physical method, which uses the observations that man has made throughout the years, which makes up all the natural sciences. This is different from the design method because each of the natural sciences meets a smallest part that it cannot explain, but it is understood that there is some explanation that is just not yet comprehended by humans. Dennett points out that he feels there is a third method, the intentional one. He feels that this is a bridge between the two. What it seems to me that the author is saying, is that the molecule exists in a system. The molecule itself is a system, made up of atoms. The atom itself is a system, etc. Using the incorrect definition of intentional, one would think that this comes to a smallest level. However, Dennett merely says it is intentional, not necessarily self-intentional. Perhaps it is "God's Will" that things are the way they are. It would then be an intentional existence. It was just intended by someone else.

d me to thi

Some common words found in the essay are:
Tom Nagle, Daniel Dennett's, Fluid Dynamics, Alexander Vilenkin, Intentional Systems, authors read, daniel dennett's, natural sciences, dennett feels, design method, scientific authors, definition intentional,
Approximate Word count = 864
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)