Another problem arises in that we can observe humans. Through observations we can apply minds to other people based on the best explanation argument. However, from as far as we know cannot observe divine beings in so the best explanation argument can’t apply.

B. The problem in proving that divine beings can have minds is far more difficult then proving that other humans have minds. I say this looking past the obvious and foremost difficulty in that we (a human race) in so far as we know, have never come across a divine being.

A divine being from all accounts should be perfect. This however, causes a difficulty in that if a being is perfect can it have beliefs. A belief by most accounts is something that is mentally represented as true. Based on that account of what belief is, a belief can also be false. This however, cannot be for a perfect divine being, since the beings perfect.

A number of people answered that no the fact that the animals they eat are aware of themselves matter not to them. These people have grown up with eating meat in so they’ve grown accustomed to it. The fact that the animal was aware of itself doesn’t really matter to them. Only one person who believed that the animals they eat are minded said that it affected their eating. She said that she’s cut back on meat for that reason.

The nature of beliefs causes a large problem when pondering over the question of whether a divine being can be minded. Somehow a divine being must be able to hold knowledge yet not be able to hold beliefs, for a divine being to be minded.

The third and final feature of Intentionality is that it can represent or misrepresent. I can have a set of beliefs and attitudes that aim at a certain something, and can misrepresent that certain something. For instance maybe my beliefs about my uncle being smart and a lawyer are false. My uncle could be a fool who doesn’t have a job. My beliefs and attitudes that are aimed at my uncle could be false, in so whatever is intentional can misrepresent as well as represent.

The second feature of Intentionality is that it’s aspectual. Intentionality and aboutness pertain to an aspect of something. For instance when I think of my smart uncle, who’s a lawyer, my thoughts are aiming at an aspect of my uncle. My uncle may very well be a rock climber who loves heights but my thoughts and attitudes aren’t directed at that aspect of my uncle, they are only aiming at the aspect of my uncle as smart, and who is a lawyer.

My thoughts and attitudes were about the Red Hawk Parking Deck because they were aimed at the Red Hawk Parking Deck. I was able to aim them at the Red Hawk Parking Deck because I have a number of beliefs that allow me to do so, which can be called a “network” of beliefs.

Some topics in this essay:
Intentionality Graham’s, Project Assignment, III Searle, , Intentionality Intentionality, Parking Deck, Franz Brentano, Red Hawk, Ralph Ralph, parking deck, II Intentionality, casual analysis, animals eat, aware themselves, red hawk, hawk parking, red hawk parking, hawk parking deck, “dual power”, eat aware themselves, resemblance analysis, animals eat aware, eat aware, candy bar, eat candy bar,