Intent

[Atlas]

I am trying to get at the question from another angle. When I say "I am going to build a house." I am expressing intent. But it is intent that could be called be called desire. Until we see action, that is, the behavior of intent, it is in the realm of urge, although an urge expressed consciously as a thought.

So for the human does the question condense down to "Where do thoughts and urges come from." You speak of intent in particular but I want to know if we can approach it from the general.

 

[lifegazer]

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?

You're being overly pedantic, I feel, for such an informal crowd. I suspect that you have a philosophy or mathematics degree.

...Okay okay, to appease you, I will rearrange the order of my statement and expand slightly:

I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves. (This is the view which opposes the existence of a primal-cause, of course.)
Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.

If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
Given that my philosophy is "Only God exists", it is easy to see why I say that the exhibition of intent is only compatible with idealism. My form of it, anyway.

Any better squire?

 

[lifegazer]

I am trying to get at the question from another angle. When I say "I am going to build a house." I am expressing intent. But it is intent that could be called be called desire.

Okay then... swap "intent" for "desire" and let's have the same discussion.

Is there any way you can make your point without transfering from one applies-to-humanity-only concept, to another?

 

[Atlas]

Okay then... swap "intent" for "desire" and let's have the same discussion.

Is there any way you can make your point without transfering from one applies-to-humanity-only concept, to another?

You missed the second part of my post:
So for the human does the question condense down to "Where do thoughts and urges come from." You speak of intent in particular but I want to know if we can approach it from the general.

I was anxious to explore your reasoning on intent (or urges and thought) down from humans, through animals and plants to the lifeless rocks and universe to prove that there was a source for it all. But to The Idea you immediately assumed the source as your answer. To prove the Source/primal-cause/God do we have to assume it starting off?

 

[Atlas]

Lifegazer,

I don't know if you are considering my question so I'll assume that I can pursue it.

Do you think that hunger and hatred are among the urges that drive men? Do you believe that their own emotions and thoughts are owned by them? That indeed, they can be idealists, with their own thoughts on the world. Or is every thought that comes into their head put there by the assumed Overbeing.

This renders us automatons, in my opinion, so I believe you'll agree that our thoughts and emotions are our own and we are responsible for acting in harmony. No Overbeing is forcing thoughts and emotions on us in that regard. It's truly up to us and that is why you spend the time trying to convince us.

I think this is a distinction you must be clear about before we try to prove that intent is a manifestation of the primal-cause.

 

[lifegazer]

Do you think that hunger and hatred are among the urges that drive men?

Amongst other things, yes. And again, we could swap "intent" for these new human-concepts of "hunger" or "hatred" and ask how a universe without such things could yield effects (ourselves) with such things.
This thread started off with "intent" as its basis and your counterarguments have augmented that base by building upon it with additional concepts such as hope, desire, hunger, hatred, and emotion in general. The material-universe (the majority here assume) possesses none of the traits you attribute to mankind. So each time you post/counter, you seem to strengthen my argument.
Are you aware of this?

Do you believe that their own emotions and thoughts are owned by them?

Well we know one thing, don't we? - That concepts such as intent, hunger, hatred, hope, love, desire, joy, funny (blimey, this list is growing and growing), etc. etc., are not owned/possessed by the material universe itself. By what sense can we say that the material-universe knows what desire, for example, is?
So yes, whatever entity experiences such concepts, must be the creator and owner of them. I.e., mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace (there's another one for ya), sorrow (and another), etc. etc..

Hence, mankind is linked directly to the primal-cause of all perceived existence.

That indeed, they can be idealists, with their own thoughts on the world. Or is every thought that comes into their head put there by the assumed Overbeing.

You already know my thoughts on this: Only God exists.
But there is also what God perceives within its own awareness - illusory though it is.

Let me make my point as succintly as I can to you: ~You~ are an impression upon God's awareness.

This renders us automatons, in my opinion,

There is no "us". There is just the impression of us. Do you understand yet? Please tell me that you do.

so I believe you'll agree that our thoughts and emotions are our own and we are responsible for acting in harmony. No Overbeing is forcing thoughts and emotions on us in that regard. It's truly up to us and that is why you spend the time trying to convince us.

~You~ are responsible for absolutely nothing, since you do not actually exist. God exists, and is lost within the awareness of being you. So my friend... you are actually my God. And I am yours. We are all our God.

Only God exists. Everything else is a perception. Gettit?

 

[hammegk]

Err, why? This concept is irrelevant to my argument.

That would perhaps depend on "life"'s definition.


What is "non-life"?

 

[lifegazer]

That would perhaps depend on "life"'s definition.


What is "non-life"?

I can only suggest that you re-read this thread in detail.
The term "life" is irrelevant to the argument. So is the term "non-life".
Relevant concepts within this thread include "intent" and "source". But I'm not concerned with ~life~ or its definition.

You're not on track sir.

 

[Atlas]

...That concepts such as intent, hunger, hatred, hope, love, desire, joy, funny... are not owned/possessed by the material universe itself....
So yes, whatever entity experiences such concepts, must be the creator and owner of them. I.e., mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace..., etc. etc..

This is Good. I exist as the creator of my own experience. Now we can engage the topic.

There is no "us". There is just the impression of us. Do you understand yet? Please tell me that you do.
~You~ are responsible for absolutely nothing, since you do not actually exist.Only God exists. Everything else is a perception. Gettit?

Whoops - That was fast. I was hoping to build to your assumption thru some kind of proof. But I can't if I no longer exist.

I thought I had something too. You know, it doesn't seem fair that you can assume the very thing you're INTENT on proving.

Well I know you wouldn't do it if you didn't have to.

I'm done.

 

[hammegk]

You're not on track sir.

And I would say you are a dunce who continues to miss my point (which was by no means a joke).

What intent would you ascribe to "non-life"?

 

[lifegazer]

This is Good. I exist as the creator of my own experience. Now we can engage the topic.

Naw, you still don't gettit. Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. What ~you~ are is an effect, being perceived by God. But you in reality, (God), are lost within the awareness of being Atlas. As it was ordained.

Whoops - That was fast. I was hoping to build to your assumption thru some kind of proof. But I can't if I no longer exist.

Further evidence that you do not understand. You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

I thought I had something too. You know, it doesn't seem fair that you can assume the very thing you're INTENT on proving.

I assume nothing. If I have intent, then I have God's free-will = God is my origin. This would be blasphemy or insanity if it wasn't for the fact that I propose that only God exists.
We are all God, being/perceiving itself as us.

I'm done.

And dusted, so it appears.

 

[lifegazer]

And I would say you are a dunce who continues to miss my point (which was by no means a joke).

What intent would you ascribe to "non-life"?

No sir, it is you who is the dunce. For the last time, the concept of ~life~ (and its opposite) is completely irrelevant to this whole argument/thread. I do not need to incorporate those concepts into this argument.

The primary concept of relevance here, is that of "intent". Is this concept exhibited by any entities (regardless of ~life~ tags)(specifically, ourselves)?
If so, from whence cometh it?
This is the crux of it all.
Welcome to the discussion proper.

I don't care what life is, or non-life. I'm simply not interested here. It makes absolutely no mark upon my argument. Do you understand? Stop and think before you make any more such gaffes.

 

[gentlehorse]

Naw, you still don't gettit. Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. What ~you~ are is an effect, being perceived by God. But you in reality, (God), are lost within the awareness of being Atlas. As it was ordained.

I've heard this line of thought before, but haven't run across an organized religion that adheres to or professes it. This is quite possibly a reflection of the fact that I'm no religious scholar. In any event, I first encountered it as a teen while reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land ("Thou art God"). Have you read it, and, if so, did it play a role in the evolution of your world-view? If not, what, out of curiosity, influenced you?

We are all God, being/perceiving itself as us.

I grok in fullness.

 

[Yahweh]

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

"Life" has a few organic properties which distinguish it from "non-life".

As far as viruses go, the answer to that will depend on which biologist you ask.

 

[hammegk]

No sir, it is you who is the dunce.

Okay.

...
Stop and think before you make any more such gaffes.

Over & out, waiting on further instructions.


I do wish you had understood my "non-life intent" comment. You might consider atman=brahmin.



Yahweh: Is anthropomorphic terra-centrism justifiable, or just a hope?

 

[lifegazer]

"I see no reason (I find it irrational) to accept the premise or argument that intent can emanate from an effect (the body of man) that was itself born/yielded from processes/effects without any intent in themselves. (This is the view which opposes the existence of a primal-cause, of course.)
Without a primal-cause (a source of absolute free-will), intent cannot exist, since fundamentally, intent must originate from a source with absolute free-will. Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.

If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
Given that my philosophy is "Only God exists", it is easy to see why I say that the exhibition of intent is only compatible with idealism. My form of it, anyway."

Any serious responses left?

 

[lifegazer]

I've heard this line of thought before, but haven't run across an organized religion that adheres to or professes it. This is quite possibly a reflection of the fact that I'm no religious scholar. In any event, I first encountered it as a teen while reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land ("Thou art God"). Have you read it, and, if so, did it play a role in the evolution of your world-view? If not, what, out of curiosity, influenced you?



I grok in fullness.

I cannot really cite any major influences except three books called "Conversations with God", by Neale Donald Walsch. I'm actually opening myself up to alot of stick by admitting this since his books aren't 'philosophy', exactly. In fact, they're probably categorised as new-age/spiritual.
I read the books and they sparked something inside of me. That's all I can say.

 

[hammegk]

IIRC, many mystics throughout recorded history have said the same thing.

Isn't that also a current teaching of Hinduism?

 

[lifegazer]

Maybe a few have just said it. But how many have given reason for saying it?

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh: Is anthropomorphic terra-centrism justifiable, or just a hope?

It seems justifyable for the purpose of catergorizing. Personally, I dont like the idea of "just (intuitively) knowing what life is".

Perhaps expanding my previous definition will be of some help...
From Wikipedia - Life:

A conventional definition

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:

<blockquote> 1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create roughly exact copies of itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. </blockquote>

These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration. For example, according to the above definition, one could say:

<blockquote> * fire is alive. (This could be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious feature that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane.)
* male mules are not alive as they are sterile and cannot reproduce.
* viruses are not alive as they do not grow. </blockquote>

Biologists who are content to focus on terrestrial organisms often note some additional signs of a "living organism", including these:

<blockquote> 1. Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins.
2. Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living.
3. Living organisms are composed of at least one cell.
4. Living organisms maintain homeostasis.
5. Species of living organisms will evolve. </blockquote>

All life on Earth is based on the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some assert that this must be the case for all possible forms of life throughout the universe; others describe this position as 'carbon chauvinism'.

Other definitions

Other definitions include:

<blockquote> * Lynn Margulis's definition of life as an autopoietic (self-producing), water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout system
* "a system of inferior negative feedbacks subordinated to a superior positive feedback" (J. theor Biol. 2001)
* "functional organization for sustaining self and kind, involving active use of energy and information replication (respectively)" (Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits, which classifies about 25 categories of replicating or self-sustaining phenomena)
* Tom Kinch's definition of life as a highly organized auto-cannibalizing system naturally emerging from conditions common on planetary bodies, and consisting of a population of replicators capable of mutation, around each set of which a homeostatic metabolizing organism, which actively helps reproduce and/or protect the replicator(s), has evolved
* Stuart Kauffman's definition of life as an autonomous agent or autonomous agents capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle </blockquote>