Intent

[Hexxenhammer]

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

Somewhere around viruses I suppose. They exibit the properties of both.

 

[hammegk]

Agreed. The question then becomes "what doesn't?".

And why should we have faith that we should be discussing "life" terracentrically or anthropomorphically?

 

[Atlas]

I propose that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism.

Idealism has a few definitions - Here are a 3, tersely worded.
The doctrine that ideas are the only reality.

The theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas.

The system or theory that denies the existence of material bodies, and teaches that we have no rational grounds to believe in the reality of anything but ideas and their relations.

Intent is no doubt merely today's word. Perhaps an even more fundamental question is:"How can Ideas form in the Material world?" I don't know - they just do. The material brain seems to pump the stuff of Idea like the heart pumps blood. Do we "think" for ourselves or not?

If the Idea of Intent exists today but not, say 5000 years ago, where does the realm of Idealism get it's Ideas. Does an Overbeing of Ideal intervene and put every thought I have into my head? Or just new ideas? Are new ideas proof that the Overbeing of Ideal exists because without intervention from such a Being no new ideas are possible?

Returning to the proposal: Let's agree that an Idea (Intent) is compatible with Idealism. That seems unobjectionable. But is the human idea of intent only compatible with Idealism? Well, if Intent is merely a human construct, a human word for certain perceived real world behaviors, (which is all I think that it is,) and if human beings have a brain that pumps out Idea or Thought in the material world,(which I think they do,) then it is easy to think that the idea arose out of the material brain in the material world.

Intent is tricky to work with here. Idealism says that it does not exist in the world, only in our minds. I'm saying that the materialist agrees. What the materialist says exists is 'behaviors' - and Intent is a projected overlay by humans onto those behaviors.

As an example of projection, I have asked if we might see that the intent of the Universe is 'To Die'. That seems to be the behavior it is engaged in. Of course there might be an Idealized Superbeing "knowing" nothing of entropy, evil, and death that intended to explore those strange concepts on a grand scale. Is this perception of intent, albeit different from someone else's perception, invalid? How can we recognize truth in such a flexible concept? If an inflexible truth can be found there, what is it?

While lifegazer does not use the term Superbeing in his opening post, he substitutes his proxy - "primal-cause" which condenses to a similar concept. I suggest that as far as the Idea of Intent is concerned, it is certainly just as valid to assume that the material brain perceives behaviors in the material world and identifies those behaviors with a conceptual construct it names Intent? Intent can be said to belong to Idealism definitionally, because it is an idea. But then it offers no insight whatsoever into whether Materialism or Idealism provides the truer description of reality.

 

[joyrex]

My opinion is that life has an intent to be. But not in the same sense that we humans have intentions. I can't describe it more accurately, it's like a driving force.. also I can't guess what parts this intent is composed of. However I wouldn't say it's something like intelligence as such, rather it is manifested in things such as evolution and consciousness. These are means of life to show its intent and expose the "will" to be alive.

As you can see I antropomorphed the whole thing, and from it misunderstandings can arise.. but for me it wouldn't be easy to describe it in other than metaphoric terms.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

Yes... I haven't mentioned the intent of existence as a whole. I have suggested though that the universe exhibits intent through us, and arguably through other creatures.
It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation, I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists.

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.

Yes.

 

[The idea]

It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation [that there is some intent by some entity], I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists.

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion? Tell us without being as sloppy as Euclid was. Euclid neglected to mention some assumptions that he was relying on and people like Moritz Pasch formulated some of those assumptions.

 

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Humphreys:
"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?

Actually, I don't agree. I see intent exhibited by the primal-cause of all universal effects. And if a primal-cause doesn't exist, then from whence cometh intent?
I see purpose in creation as a whole.
I'm not sure I want to explain why as it would take too long and deviate from the original issue.
Neither is the life:nonlife thingy an issue here. Call humanity what you want... at the end of the day, I still suggest that we exhibit intent.

I see various concepts being dragged into the conversation here - in the thread generally - which are not really relevant to the original point being made.

 

[hammegk]

Er, ok. Now if we could just define "life".

 

[Dorian Gray]

Lifegiver asks:

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

Lifegiver answers:

No reasoning to be seen here whatsoever.

Case closed.

The universe is not alive. Even if it were, it would be presumptuous for anyone to claim to know whether it had an intent, much less what that intent was.

It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.

 

[The idea]

It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.

The universe is a four-dimensional movie and we're all just trying to stay alive long enough to see the credits at the end.

 

[lifegazer]

"It's actually irrelevant what this intent is towards. All that matters is that it is there.
From this observation [that there is some intent by some entity], I conclude that a realm exhibiting intent is only compatible with idealism: Specifically, my own idealist philosophy - only [the intangible spirit/mind of] God exists."

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion?

I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves.
Hence, the fact that intent exists within man (if we accept this, of course) is a proof that man, essentially, emanates from a source with absolute free-will.
A source with absolute free-will is reducible to God. An entity with any dependency or limits cannot have absolute free-will over existence.

 

[Atlas]

We have an observation and a conclusion. How did you get from the observation to the conclusion?

I suspect lifegazer prefers to use "conclude" rather than "assume" when it relates to his own idea.

 

[lifegazer]

Er, ok. Now if we could just define "life".

Err, why? This concept is irrelevant to my argument. Did I miss another one of your subtle jokes somewhere?

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegiver asks:
Lifegiver answers:
Case closed.

The universe is not alive. Even if it were, it would be presumptuous for anyone to claim to know whether it had an intent, much less what that intent was.

It could just as easily be argued that the universe is a machine.

Dorian, forget "the universe". I can't be bothered arguing that the universe as a whole is exhibiting intent - even though I think that it is. But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.

The thread is built upon this simple observation. If man has intent, from whence does it come?

 

[The idea]

I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves.

At the very beginning of a trial, the judge can think, "I see no reason to accept that the defendant's statement is true."

Nevertheless, the plaintiff has to bring forward evidence. The judge doesn't say, "I don't believe that the defendant is going to succeed. Therefore, I accept the claim of the plaintiff. Case closed."

The plaintiff has to make a case and the defendant gets an opportunity to respond.

 

[Atlas]

But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.

The thread is built upon this simple observation. If man has intent, from whence does it come?

Lifegazer,
I hope you discuss my assertion that Intent is merely a construct of the human mind that overlay the behaviors of living beings, objects and the universe itself. Intent may be an interpolation of the human emotion of hope combined with the urges that drive us. Or something like that which we've given a name to. Doesn't the Idealist first deny that Intent is real as anything but an idea.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But I shall argue that man exhibits intent until the cows come home, because it's so bloomin' obvious.

It's also obvious that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[lifegazer]

"I contend that intent must emanate, fundamentally, from a source that has absolute free-will... since I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was born/yielded from processes without any intent in themselves."


At the very beginning of a trial, the judge can think, "I see no reason to accept that the defendant's statement is true."

Nevertheless, the plaintiff has to bring forward evidence. The judge doesn't say, "I don't believe that the defendant is going to succeed. Therefore, I accept the claim of the plaintiff. Case closed."

The plaintiff has to make a case and the defendant gets an opportunity to respond.

Perhaps you overlooked my reasoning, as highlighted.
If intent exists, as I contend that it does in ourselves, then I argue that it must emanate from a source with absolute free-will, because of the reasoning given.

 

[The idea]

Perhaps you overlooked my reasoning, as highlighted.

Are you developing a new, esoteric kind of comedy? Let's see, here's a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. I see no reason to accept the thesis that there exist positive whole numbers x, y, z, and n with n greater than 2 such that (x^n)+(y^n)=z^n. Therefore, Fermat's Last Theorem is true. QED. Why did that fellow Wiles waste everybody's time with his long-winded proof?

 

[lifegazer]

Intent may be an interpolation of the human emotion of hope

Tell you what, let's swap "intent" for "emotion" or "hope" and have the exact same argument: How can emotion or hope exist within humanity, if it doesn't exist within the universe itself?

combined with the urges that drive us.

Urges? Are we talking about the forces of nature here, or are we back at "intent"?

Doesn't the Idealist first deny that Intent is real as anything but an idea.

Not this idealist. Check out world history, soon to culminate with armageddon imo, all due to human intent in its various guises. Human intent has shaped human experience. It is a living force, I would suggest.