Daniel Dennett's Intentional System Theory

Thesis Statement
The intentional system theory proposed by Daniel Dennett is account to explain and predict the entity’s behavior which attributes with beliefs and desires. These statements are also applied in folk psychology which human behavior is predicted and explained through the attribution of attitudes. The intentional system contains of three instances which are physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance. The intentional stance have a distinct characteristic when compared with the physical and design stances.
Introduction
The physical stance, design stance, and intentional stance are the strategies that could be used to encounter with objects or systems as stated in the intentional system theory. Physical stance can be explained

According to Kind (2004), by embracing the intentional stance in a person, we will try to define and forecast the behaviours by assuming as if its activities are administered by values and needs similar to a sane person. Intentional states are also known as the mental states, for example, beliefs and desires which possess the property of "aboutness," that is, they are either about or directed at objects or states of affairs in the world. In addition, the intentional stance will also be able to provide us with useful gains of predictive power. For instance, the example of a chess-playing computer is able to be viewed as a physical system operating according to the laws of physics, a designed mechanism consisting of parts with specific functions that interact with each other to produce specific behaviour or can also be viewed as an intentional system acting rationally relative to a certain set of beliefs and goals (Kind, 2004). In this context, it means that since the main objective is to envision and explain a given entity’s behaviour, it is best to adopt the stance that will allow us to reach the objective. According to Kind (2004), it is clearly seen that by adopting the intentional stance will prove to be helpful as it can be an influential method to foretell and define a well-programmed chess-playing computer performs.

In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,