Intent

[lifegazer]

"A computer performs how we intend it to. A computer is a tool or extension of our own intent."

No, computers perform as the laws of mathematics require them to.

In the creation of the system known as a computer, we manipulate matter and the forces of nature unto our own ends, so that the machine is determined to act in accordance with our purpose.
All tools built by mankind are obviously extensions of man's purpose. I.e., mankind has a purpose for everything he builds.
Each machine has an intended use. You cannot omit intent from the equation.

 

[lifegazer]

No, our intent is to permit understanding by establishing just what we mean by the words we use.

Apparently then, you already know what intent means.

Are we ever going to get to the real point of this thread?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Not at all. I could be using the term with gross inconsistency.

But I won't make it hard for you:

Definition

 

[The idea]

My thesis is that the universe exhibits intent or purpose, through ourselves primarily. The opposing thesis is that the universe exhibits no intent or purpose.

Have you found that anyone believes in the opposing thesis?
It sounds like something that someone might say in the process of sloppily explaining some world view.

 

[The idea]

Your original post in this thread said something about "idealism" and "primal-cause." That sounds very sophisticated, but not very clear. I have a better grasp of the concept of crunchy goodness. My thesis is that a universe without toasted pecans cannot exhibit crunchy goodness. Do you agree or not?

 

[lifegazer]

"How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent?"

I would suggest that if you do not understand the question, that you are very stupid, foreign, or just plainly insincere.
You have no intention of applying reason to the question, it seems. And I already know which of those three choices you are.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Do animals have intention?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument is that the universe exhibits intent or purpose, through ourselves primarily.

Why would the universe want to do that?

 

[Atlas]

My argument is that the universe exhibits intent or purpose, through ourselves primarily.

I think your argument is that the universe appears to exhibit intent or purpose.

Leaving that aside, would you mind stating the purpose of the universe?

 

[The idea]

"How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent?"

Could you at least simplify that a bit? Is there something outside of the universe that the universe is observed to be affecting? Why talk about "the effects of a universe"?

On the other hand, it's not the universe as a whole that is observed to exhibit intent. Intent is exhibited somewhere in the universe.

So maybe you could ask, "How can it be that intent is exhibited in a universe that has no primal cause?"

Given that you have observed intent somewhere in the universe, why would you conclude that "the universe has a primal cause"? It seems that you are just presuming that your conclusion is obvious and that it must be accepted unless someone can come up with a good reason for not accepting it. However, if you have some thesis such as "the universe has a primal cause", then shouldn't the onus be on you to establish your thesis?

 

[Humphreys]

Leaving that aside, would you mind stating the purpose of the universe?

Actually, and correct me if I am wrong lifegazer, I think he is referring not to the intent of the universe, but to the obvious intent of living creatures within the universe.

I imagine his argument is something like: Why would a random big bang create living beings controlled by the laws of physics that display intent, and have urges and goals, etc.

Am I right? If not, I don't really understand your argument, and it seems like most people here don't either. Maybe you need to expand a little.

Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell.

 

[The idea]

"How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent?"

I would suggest that if you do not understand the question, that you are very stupid, foreign, or just plainly insincere.

You can call me stupid and foreign, but don't call me insincere unless you want this thread to be moved into the Flame War zone.

 

[hammegk]

Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell.

I suspect lg would agree; I do anyway. Now, where does "non-life" end and "life" begin?

 

[Atlas]

Without life, the universe shows no intent at all as far as I can tell.

That would put a finer point on it Humphreys.

Might you also agree that because intent is a human word and concept that the universe shows no intent without human life.

If so, my question is made finer. What is the intent or purpose (either one) of human life that the universe exhibits?

 

[Humphreys]

Might you also agree that because intent is a human word and concept that the universe shows no intent without human life.

I'm imagining when lifegazer says 'intent', he means any deliberate conscious, willful act. Animals feel the need to eat, so they do so. This is intent, right?

If so, my question is made finer. What is the intent or purpose (either one) of human life that the universe exhibits?

You personally have many purposes in life, survival for a start.

I don't want to necessarily start arguing for lifegazer here, so I'll leave him to answer his own questions. I just wanted to make things clearer, how I saw them, to allow the discussion to continue. Lifegazer seems to get real vague at times, perhaps deliberately so he doesn't get so easily backed into a corner.

 

[Atlas]

I'm imagining when lifegazer says 'intent', he means any deliberate conscious, willful act. Animals feel the need to eat, so they do so. This is intent, right?

Perhaps. Another word might be: urge. I think intent is more conscious and urge is more unconscious, almost gravitatingly so.

I don't want to necessarily start arguing for lifegazer here, so I'll leave him to answer his own questions... Lifegazer seems to get real vague at times...

Can't argue with that. I'm pretty sure with better definition we'll have similar positions.

 

[Atlas]

Here is a counter intuitive thought for comment...

Is it fair to say the intent or purpose of a thing, like a human or a universe, is what it ultimately does?

That is... Is the purpose of the universe... To Die?

 

[The idea]

Is it fair to say the intent or purpose of a thing, like a human or a universe, is what it ultimately does? [...] Die?

No, it isn't fair to say. People intend to avoid death. Those who intend to die are called "suicidal." Dying happens to a person. It is not something that people do in an active sense. ("I'm busy dying. Call me later.") Dying is the end of doing.

 

[Atlas]

No, it isn't fair to say. People intend to avoid death. Those who intend to die are called "suicidal." Dying happens to a person. It is not something that people do in an active sense. ("I'm busy dying. Call me later.") Dying is the end of doing.

OK, let's for the sake of argument, say that is true. Is it also by implication true for a universe?

Since the universe appears to incline in that direction, can you say with certainty that it has another purpose. Can you divine that purpose? Does it have a consciousness that wishes an alternative to returning from whence it came? Why would it?

I'm just stirring the pot here. I do not believe that we can infer a purpose to the universe.

[edit]
For lifegazer... is it possible that the universe has one purpose (To Die), and life arises with a diametrically opposed intent (To Live)?
[/edit]

 

[Suggestologist]

I propose that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism.
I do not see how a universe without primal-cause can exhibit intent through its effects.
I'm not looking for catchphrases here like "emerging property" - I'm actually after some reasoning from you lot, for a change.

How can the effects of a universe that has no primal-cause ever come to exhibit intent? Any takers?

Evolution influences material in such a way that materials that replicate get more populous; -- which is a tautology.

In order to replicate more, material gains an advantage when it can represent the outside world in such a way that it helps its own replication. This representation is internal.

Such representations and internal processes (within the closed material sub-system) that assist replication can be viewed as operating with intent; and some may call this a mind.

Exaptations (and similar concept-phenomenon) allow for internal processes/representations to intend things other than the replication-related with approximately the same efficiency as the replicatory intent.