If our intentions matter so little with respect to such phenomena, I fail to see why we have to mention them, except to dismiss them. We get hungry and go to the local Wends to get a hamburger. Most of our behavior can be explained entirely in behaviorist terms, but a substantial amount remains. Behavioral psychologists no longer claim that they can explain all human behavior in terms of operant conditioning, even of the most sophisticated sort. That is highly questionable, especially when one turns to science itself.
Science is as intentional a process as has ever appeared on Earth.
But all of this is just so much everyday talk. Once psychology gets sufficiently powerful, we can explain human behavior without reference, no matter how covert, to the entities and processes that Rose finds so objectionable. Perhaps so, but I suggest a more cautious strategy. Just as evolutionary biologists have waited for the science of development to catch up before they attempted to incorporate it into evolutionary biology, I suggest that we memeticists exhibit similar caution in committing ourselves so totally with respect to a behaviorist stance for all of human behavior. Behavioral psychology is sufficiently well developed that we can use it and only it for the behavior of all other creatures without significant loss, but when we turn to us, I think that behavioral psychology is not currently up to the task.