1955

In real life, in our daily experiences, how are we able to perceive and predict our interactions with objects? This question was Daniel Dennett’s core question when he wrote his famous book The Intentional Stance. There are three different strategies that we might use when confronted with objects or structures, according to Dennett: the physical stance, the design stance, and the intentional stance. I will tell a story about a camera, my grandfather’s camera and explore Dennett’s strategy when confronted with an object.

The physical stance emerges from the viewpoint of physical science. We use knowledge about its physical constitution in combination with information about the laws of physics to predict the behaviour of a given object according to the physical stance. As an instance, my grandfather’s camera, Gevaert Gevabox was made in West Germany in 1955-1959, uses a 120 film roll. Suppose I am holding a camera and I loaded a new film roll, if I want to take a picture with it, there is a knob on the side of the camera and you should turn it clockwise to rotate the film. The film rotates according to the law of mechanics and physics.

We assume that the entity in question has been designed in a certain way when we make a prediction from the design stance, and we predict that the entity will thus act as designed. When I want to take a picture with the camera I press the shutter button on the top of the camera and I can predict that the shutter would be open for a brief moment of time, 1/60 of a second, the light which reflects from the outer world will hit the film surface and since a film is a special plastic sheet which is coated with some chemicals to make it sensitive to light. When the film is exposed to light, it records a change in the chemicals and when this exposed film is treated with a few more chemicals in a bath, a photograph can be seen on it. Predictions of design stances are riskier than predictions of physical stances. At least two assumptions are based on predictions made from the design stance: first, that the entity in question is designed as it is assumed to be; and second, the entity will perform without malfunctioning as it is designed.

As noted earlier, when moving from the physical position to the design stance, we often gain predictive power. Often, by adopting the intentional stance, we can improve our predictions even further. We interpret the behaviour of the entity in question when making predictions from this stance, by treating it as a rational agent whose behaviour is governed by intentional states. But what kind of intentional state can we assign to a camera? Dennett’s point of view, who rejects the usual either-or dichotomy of realism and instrumentalism, prefers to classify his view as an in-between position that he calls interpretationism. According to interpretationism, whether a system has a certain belief or desire depends on our imposing a certain interpretation on the system. So I can impose what I believe what my grandfather’s camera felt while he took pictures of my grandmother with it. It is to some degree up to me to wonder it this camera feels the same while I am taking a picture with it in contrast to my grandfather’s hands. Objects, as obscure it may sounds, have their own intentions, desires and emotions. This camera was looking at the world for more than 70 years and who knows how does it feel about it? I can only imagine it is tired, bored or maybe sad. It is made out of metal the inside was almost consumed by the rust and corrosion. Leatherette is dry and doesn't want to stick to the metal body anymore. The pictures are low-quality but I still like to shoot with it some times. And so, this old camera has become part of my experience of looking at the world, my grandfather’s romance is lost in the past, but this camera has witnessed all of those stories. I can imagine having a conversation with it, something like as Linda Pastan, depicts in one of her poems:

"Why are you sad so often?"

Ask the moon.

Ask what it has witnessed.