The debate on naturalizing intentionality seems to be unending as it gives rise to different views. On the one hand, some people argue that it is promising as various things that happen in human life are as a result of it. Such people include Dretske and Millikan whom in their view says that there are things that cannot be mentioned in mental view or have anything mental for them to occur. On the other hand, some people argue that many of the things that happen in human life must have a relation to the mental processes of a human being. In their say, everything must starts from the mental activities of a human being which guides all the behavior of human being. However, naturalizing intentionality by Dretske and Millikan is promising as it depicts reality in the life situation of a person.

According to Dretske, there is a close relationship between intentionality and the information one get. When a person wants to do a piece of work, they can read about it and then do it according to the instructions. The mind is thang that can be made naturally, but the result will not be the original thing it ought to be. People can make things they correctly understand, but that does not make such things original. For example, one can know how to rebrand money, but the rebrand will not be the initial money that people understand. In this way, it is seen that even though the mental status of a person can help someone to make something, it will not stand out as a natural thing. When people look at it, it may seem ok, and everyone can recommend it as there is no apparent difference between it and the original one, but this does not make it authentic. It will remain artificial, and no one can change it.

Mental processes can only work when there is mastery of something it is supposed to do. For example, one can make a compass direction that shows the location where a person wants to go, but it will not indicate the exact location that one wants to go. Even though the metal process can guide sometime to a given location, the person has to know the place so he/she can locate it accurately. In this case, there is a limit to which a person can do something that they have knowledge and mastery abut. This clearly shows that there is a significant difference between what one knows and is kept in the mid and how to apply it in a real-life situation. Even though one can use the mental mastery of a given content well, he/she might not give the exact thing they know. As a result, it is evident that there is no relationship between mental processes and intentional that one has to do something. The intention might be different from what his/her mental activities wanted them to do.

The functionality of something in the body is always natural but yet intentional as the mental processes do not drive them. Many parts of the body intentionally respond to the external environment in various ways. For instance, it does not require the mind to help somebody blink his/her eyes when something wants to get in it. It is always natural and all human beings will behave in this way. As such, it comes naturally, and no one learns to do it and are being trained on how to do this. In this regards, naturalizing intentionality is always present among the human being as everyone responds to matters of life in a natural way which is intentional.

The functionality of a person does not entirely depends on someone mental states as it is easily manipulated. Sometimes the person may use his or her mind to do a particular thing, but the action might be as a result of brain damage. This can make someone to do things which are different from the expectation of people. As a result, mental status cannot be used in knowing someone’s capability. In this case, understanding someone’s functionality depends on the way one interacts with the environment instead of considering the functioning that results from mental activities. Further, vision the act of visions can be successfully be completed without seeing which clearly shows that intentionality is always natural and does not rely on the metal processes.

The thinking capability of the human being has not changed over time. It functions the same way as it was during the prehistoric period. For example, during the ancient period, the will was invented to the role of a cart which is the same purpose it is used until today. If our minds can lead us into doing something, then we could have been doing things differently from the prehistoric period. The human brain has just improved what had been identified, and no new idea has come in place. This also shows that the mental processes of the human being has no close association with how human nature lives and the kind of life they live. As such most of the things happened without associated with mental activities. Furthermore, if mental status could determine how an individual do things, we could have been having different tools and techniques to use in our daily lives today. The fact that they are still the same nullifies the association between intentionality with cognitive processes.

On the contrary, some people argue against the works of Dretske and Millikan that they did not fully capture the facts about naturalizing intentionality. According to them, treating intentionality apart from cognitive processes is wrong and should not be encouraged. They believe that the cognitive processes of human beings always controls how someone reacts to various situations in life. However, this is not true as there is a situation in life that do not require cognitive processes to act towards them. For instance, the digestion of food in someone’s stomach does not need mental means to control when digestion should take place or not.  One can only manage when to eat, but after taking in food, the digestion will occur naturally and intentional without his consciousness.

Again, some people argue that treating intentionality apart from cognitive functionality brings confusions as people do not understand the intentional state that occurs in the mind of human being with the intentional state that arises outside the life of human beings. In their view, Dretske did not give the precise reason why the intentions that are happening in the internal state of cognitive mind differ with those that occur outside.  However, in the real sense, the two do not relate and should be treated differently. Those factors that affect the functionality of the mind are entirely different from those that affect the intentionality outside the cognitive processes. Also, intentionality is something that happens naturally and does not need the assistance of anything. The mental process always requires information in which they must master to respond appropriately. On the contrary, the internationalities in the external cognitive processes of human beings return naturally, and this is the reason why they are used to separate from mental processes.

In conclusions, the debate over the project of Dretske and Millikan has resulted in different views as some people support it while others arguments against it.  It is seen to be capturing a lot of things that relate to naturalizing intentionality which simplifies the topic for better understanding. Through their work, they have given enough reason why the mental process should not form part of intentionality. This is because making the two together confuses people as they do not understand why they know which intentional relates to the outside and that which relates to cognitive processes of human beings. On the contrary, the people who argue against it say that the project to not capture much information about the two hence can lead to confusion among the people. However, this is not true as the project has enough evidence that makes the understating of naturalizing intentionality easy. Through this, many people have learned about it, and it affects much of the activities that we do daily.