Well written but way too technical. So technical I couldn't finish it. More for professional philosophers than for rank amateurs like me. I enjoyed Dennett's other books which were challenging but this one kicked my ass.

This book is the precursor to Sweet Dreams and Consciousness Explained. Roughly the “Intentional stance” is a predictive tool or position, where one makes the assumption (or gives ascription to) of rationality to an entity outside of ones consciousness, for the purpose of predictive behavior of that exterior entity (i.e. computers, aliens, humans, mice, and maybe bats). This position makes the assumption that the exterior system is in fact an intentional system and attributes to it beliefs, desires, ‘hopes, fears, intentions, and hunches’. This ascription is given in cases were it is warranted by predictive profitability (or in cases were it is the best means to predict an entities behavior), the entity did not really have those quality’s that are ascribed to it, but if by ascribing them it increases the chances of predicting behavior then the intentional stance is justified tool. In cases where there need no intentionality ascribed to an entity for predictability one might take a different stance explaining and predicting a given outcome. One might either take “design stance” or the “physical stance” in aiding explanation. Roughly the design stance is adopted when dealing with “simple” (not always so simple) mechanical entities, where the function of its physical infrastructure can be accounted for and its behavior is therefore mechanistically predictable because of its design. Examples of where or when this stance might be useful are like when ones car breaks down, “typewriter runs out of ink”, or the elevator jams (a simple computer maybe in principle). Then there is the physical stance which seems to apply more to nature and natural physical circumstances, where one uses application of natural “laws” and understanding for prediction. Cases where this stance would apply are like when ‘a branch has too much snow on it to the point where the branch can no longer hold the weight and then one predicts that it will break if the load becomes heavier’. Another example would be, if one eats, then they will defecate, or if you seed receives the right amount of sunlight and water it will grow a plant… and so. All in all, these different stances are different strategies for explaining and predicting outcome and behavior. (Personally I think his distinction between physical and design stance is arbitrary, this distinction makes me suspicious of his motives it seems as though he is trying to get us to accept some underlying parameters in order to make some other claim about the nature of reality.)

This book (along with Dennett's 'Explaining Consciousness') completely and permanently changed the way I think about the mind. I wish more psychologists would read it.

Hello favorite book in the entire world - how are you? Really? No, I already had breakfast, but thanks...Oh, you want to sit down and be read again for the 300th time? Okay, that is so nice of you, sure favorite book in the entire world, I would love to read you again since you are brilliant and thoughtful and funny and lyrical and perfectly researched and everything else a book needs to be all at the same time. Do you mind if I eat a Ho-Ho while I read you over here on this couch and then tab a whole bunch of your pages to remember to go back to those parts? Great, its a perfect day after all!