Intent

[Dancing David]

God slipped and the universe fell out of his pocket?

Or he fell on a doughnut...

You do realise that this is a rational discussion, I hope?

Okay then - God did slip and the universe did fall...

What you mean is that I observe a fact about existence and then deduce a conclusion from this fact.

You deduce more than a conclusion from a single fact. The fact in this case 'I believe that humans have intent' does not lead to a single conclusion, the primal cause has intent. The two may be related but are not a necessity.

Perhaps you don't realise that this is a rational discussion, afterall. Just a hunch I have.

Err...

God has no sense of humor? How sad your god must be.

Didn't you read the thread? Man possesses intent. Therefore - man being an effect of existence - existence itself possesses intent. Along those lines, anyway.

I don't see a cause of chaining them here, things that have intent must be part of a chain of intent? It would be like saying that there are murderers and therefore god is a murderer.

?
Sorry David, but this post of yours was bobbins. [/B]

Bobbins are useful in a sewing machine, thanks!

Only because you make god in your exact image, how can you keep placing limits on the limit-less.

Why must god be constrained to your conventions?

You are a limited creature, maybe your imagination is broke. If god exists, they certainly show a sense of humor and imagination.

 

[Yahweh]

I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.

I know I exist. The figments in my imagination dont "know" they exist.

I dont quite follow your reasoning.

Why is it that you know the nature of reality, but the rest of us are so cleverly fooled?

 

[lifegazer]

Sorry for jumping in so late in a thread, LG, but where exactly did you prove that an entity capable of 'intent' can only arise from a system with 'intent'?

"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."

Without writing an essay, this is the basis of what I'm talking about.

It is certainly possible for things with, say, and IP address to arise in our universe without the universe itself having an IP address.

We create IP addresses. They are a product of our intent. Try something else.

How do you define 'intent' and what bars it from appearing spontaneously?

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.
Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

Do any animals exhibit 'intent'? How about bacteria?

It doesn't matter. Read the thread and you'll see why.

I think I smell a fallacy of composition here.

Have a shower.

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm a monist - only God exists. I'm arguing that we are God perceiving itself as us. Which makes 'us' an illusion within perception. Just like a dream.

I see I'm picking the same quote as Yahweh. Dancing David also commented to about the illusion thing.

My take on this thread is that intent is a red herring. Since all is illusion we can take any other quality of man and use it equally as evidence of primal-cause.

Love, Evil, Hair, Teeth, Fingernails anything. All are equally illusory aspects of self, perceived by God.

Furthermore we can use anything in Nature as a substitute for Intent - Cancer, Rat dung, Snail slime, Baby snot, or flowers.

In the large sense of your vision isn't this true? All is God, All is Illusion.

You just don't make the final connection: God = Illusion.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.

Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

You appear to be unprepared to meet a challenge to your assertion that the word 'intent' refers to a crisp concept with anything but an argument from personal incredulity. I say that your use of the term includes some dubious unexamined assumptions, such as the way it tacitly assumes the presence of an 'intender', some centrally-located arbiter of all actions. If your only response is that such a challenge to what you have clearly stated as 'bleedin obvious' must be in some way disingenuous, all I can say is that your post count indicates that you should know how much weight such poor substitutes for an actual argument will carry in this place.

"There is concious purpose in our actions" you have said. Yet surely you must concede that 'our actions' include much that is not voluntary. Musicians, martial artists, billiard players, etc, all report that their best stuff happens when they 'aren't trying too hard'. We often find ourselves doing things we didn't realize we were doing -- or things that we didn't intend to do. We hear the ancient call of various biological drives. Do you decide when you are hungry? How long can you 'decide' not to breathe? Do you choose to fall in love (or not to), and with whom?

Manipulating the behavior of humans can be a valuable survival skill. Masters of the art are those who can find ways to make the guy think it was his idea. Genes have had millions of years to perfect this. If you want to make a case for human behavior being anything more, then go ahead. Unless you think we don't deserve anything better than you stamping your feet and hollering about it being obvious.

 

[Flatworm]

"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.

In other words, you cannot prove it, but simply want us to take it as axiomatic.

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.

Let me guess- "absolute free will" is different from normal free will, and this is another unproven axiom that you expect us to just accept.

Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't stop said entity from arising from a system without intent.

We create IP addresses. They are a product of our intent. Try something else.

But they are not a product of IP addresses, which is the point. I was showing that it is not true in general that an entity with attribute X can only arise from a system with attribute X.

I hate boring definition games. "Intent" is bleedin' obvious, I thought - Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting. Or words of similar meaning.
Please don't annoy me by trying to demean the credibility of the thread with confusion about the meaning of "intent".

Pardon me, but you DO have a history of taking words with a commonly understood meaning and using them to mean something completely different.

Fine, now how do we determine if some other mind posesses intent, without being privy to its inner thought processes?

It doesn't matter. Read the thread and you'll see why.

I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent.

 

[hammegk]

I know I exist.

Are you being facetious, or do you mean that statement?

As I phrase it (to keep Uppie happy), thought exists; I'm also 100% certain what is occuring requires thought (well- not really, but nihilism & solipsism are useless). OK, *I* think is also fine from my viewpoint.

The real question, assuming you meant it, is how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists".

"Know" is an interesting word, isn't it?

 

[Atlas]

Taken from postings by lifegazer
Intent Defined: "Intent" is: Conscious purpose. Deliberate action, for a reason known by the entity which is acting.

1) If man exhibits intent, then I argue that his nature emanates directly from a primal-cause.
2) [For] 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.
3) [Furthermore], an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will.

Originally posted by Flatworm: Do any animals exhibit 'intent'?
Lifegazer Responds: It doesn't matter.
Flatworm Responds: I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent.

Lifegazer, I agree with Flatworm and hope you'll take the time to offer clarifications independently of your response to my previous post.

Do you believe that an animal that appears to stalk another intending to have it as a meal possesses free-will?

One day last summer I watched a spider who had built a web in an outside corner of my window. Over the course of about 10 minutes 3 small moths flew above the web and landed on the window and walked down behind the web. The spider was acutely aware of their presence. When the first one flew off it seemed to me as though the spider jumped on his web like one might land on a trampoline to stop jumping into the air. The web shook but the moth escaped right through the web strands. I had never seen a spider do that and wondered if I was imagining it. I gazed intently at the spider drama for the next few moments. The second moth flew, and the spider jumped as before, shaking his web just as I would if I wanted to maximize the chances of a web strand entangling my prey. The second moth escaped. Then the third moth flew, the spider jumped a third time and the third moth was hung up on a line. The spider closed in and wrapped up his prey. At every stage the spider displayed real intent. All predators do.

In the world before man existed, spiders acted out this intentional drama for millions of years. A raw and visceral display of intent. I have also seen spiders ignore some prey in their web as well... an exercise of free will?

In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent?

 

[Atlas]

...how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists".

"Know" is an interesting word, isn't it?

But hammegk, He's Yahweh...All Knowing... He probably meant it in the Biblical sense.

 

[sackett]

Him that hath an ear, let him hear!

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.

Has anybody noticed that LG has come out?

" . . . and they sparked something inside of me." That's manly. That's comprehensible. That's unanswerable. And that's religion.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Him that hath an ear, let him hear!

Has anybody noticed that LG has come out?

" . . . and they sparked something inside of me." That's manly. That's comprehensible. That's unanswerable. And that's religion.

Stop being a plonker and deal with the reasoning within the thread.

 

[lifegazer]

My take on this thread is that intent is a red herring. Since all is illusion we can take any other quality of man and use it equally as evidence of primal-cause.

Love, Evil, Hair, Teeth, Fingernails anything. All are equally illusory aspects of self, perceived by God.

Nope, you err. "Intent" (and love & evil, from your list) is a real quality/characteristic emanating from God, whereas the things perceived within sensation, are illusory.
Note: The sensations are real too - they do happen. But what is discerned from them ("things"), are illusions.

 

[sackett]

Woe to the unbeliever!

Stop being a plonker and deal with the reasoning within the thread.

Pore feller wants to start a cult, I guess, but lacking charisma, poetry, or even a thesarus, he tries to ignite the faithful with make-believe science and bogus metaphysics. Can't see why: I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Woe to the unbeliever!

Pore feller wants to start a cult, I guess, but lacking charisma, poetry, or even a thesarus, he tries to ignite the faithful with make-believe science and bogus metaphysics. Can't see why: I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head.

All bark pal. No bite. Anybody with any credibility would destroy my philosophy by addressing it. You're not. Therefore, you do not hurt me.
Now p*** off.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Woe to the unbeliever!

I for one believe with my whole heart in The Big Giant Head.

Hold on one moment lifegazer.....

Hey Sackett, ya plonker...um - Is that the same as The Giant Big Head, because I heard that was a myth.

 

[sackett]

Plonkers have to stick together

Big Giant, Giant Big, Biant Gig -- well, now that you ask me, I'm not sure. One is Absolute Truth and the rest are vile heresies, of course, but you knew that.

I've got it! Let's ask LiceGrater!

 

[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."

In other words, you cannot prove it, but simply want us to take it as axiomatic.

The statement was meant to be read as a whole. You omitted the second half of the statement, which qualifies the first:-
"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."

So, as a whole, my statement explains why I see no reason to accept the premise or argument that... etc..

"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."

Let me guess- "absolute free will" is different from normal free will, and this is another unproven axiom that you expect us to just accept.

A primal-cause that is the source of any intent within existence, has absolute free-will, by default.

"Afterall, an entity cannot intend to do anything by itself unless somehow, it possesses free-will."

I agree with this statement. However, that doesn't stop said entity from arising from a system without intent.

You need to explain. How can a system possessing intent, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
The question is applicable to all human characteristics. For example, how can a system possessing desire, be the product of an embracing system possessing none (we assume) whatsoever?
So please bear this in mind when responding.

But they are not a product of IP addresses, which is the point. I was showing that it is not true in general that an entity with attribute X can only arise from a system with attribute X.

IP addresses are products of our minds, first & foremost. So, IP addresses are the products of a mind that has knowledge about IP addresses.

Fine, now how do we determine if some other mind posesses intent, without being privy to its inner thought processes?

Well, why not ask that entity: "Oy guv'nor... did you consciously intend to do X, or did you do it without thinking?"
Guvnor's possible responses:-
(1) Grunt.
(2) He eats you.
(3) He doesn't know what X is or whether he did it.
(4) He says: "Of course I intended to do it.".

Ask me about this post. I will not grunt or eat you, and will understand the question.

I'm sorry, but it does matter. It is important in demonstrating there is no sharp distinction between intent and instinct, and consequently lends support to a naturalistic origin for intent.

I only need to prove the existence of any intent, for my argument to be valid. So, regardless of what happens to animals, I claim that humans consciously choose specific direction of action - if only some of the time.
I'm aware that some human actions are instinctive. But not all.

 

[lifegazer]

In your philosophy, do spiders have free will or is this instinctual and evidence of a naturalistic origin for intent?

I don't want to have a long discussion about animals or spiders. As I have said, the presence of any intent doth suffice to make my argument credible.

However, in answer to your question, I would say this:
Any creature which exhibits conscious recognition of its surroundings to whatever degree and which consciously decides to act in a specific manner, has exhibited some level of intent.

It sounds to me as though your spider is more than an organic robot obeying the commands of software which has no primal-cause.

I expect lots of people to disagree with that view. But it's not important to this thread anyway.

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
1) "Intent" (and love & evil) is a real quality/characteristic emanating from God,
2) whereas the things perceived within sensation, are illusory.
3) The sensations are real too - they do happen.
4) But what is discerned from sensations ("things"), are illusions.

I am still missing something that I think is crucial.

I am the sum total of my thoughts, feelings (emotions and sensations). They are real and insubstantial. All bodies and things in the world are only material and affecting (Temperature and Gravitationally). Hence they are to you unreal, illusory, and unreliable. Only our real sensations and thoughts are true (and feelings like Intent). All else is "unreal" illusion.

Because of your sweeping reliance on illusion, are you sure that other human beings exist? How would you know? They are merely objects in your perceived illusion. You may be and probably are all alone. The experience of lifegazer is truly all that there is, and at least, most definitely, all that is necessary. In your philosophy, since everything that is not the experience of lifegazer is an illusion, there is nothing that you can offer the world. The existence of your world and it's contents is not real. You are talking to ghosts in a dream. It's not as though you wonder if your keyboard is real - you KNOW it is not!

A few posts back hammegk offered a challenge to Yahweh that I want you to consider...

Originally posted by hammegk to Yahweh
The real question, assuming you meant it, is how do you know? Please provide scientific proof not contingent on truth of the axiom "objective, material, reality exists".

Lifegazer, this question has a stranger twist yet for an Idealist/Monist, doesn't it? That is...

How do you KNOW that you have not descended into a form of madness. A madness that knows its own delusion is the only thing that is real. A madness in which you are shouting at the ghosts around you to recognize themselves as illusions. Because God... Because God... Because God...

 

[lifegazer]

Because of your sweeping reliance on illusion, are you sure that other human beings exist?

I keep trying to tell you: only God exists.

Being [any] human is a perception within God's awareness.
Therefore, no humans really exist.

In your philosophy, since everything that is not the experience of lifegazer is an illusion, there is nothing that you can offer the world.

I can offer you and everyone else their true identity. Therefore, my philosophy can bring truth, peace, equality, justice, and freedom to the world. My philosophy has much to offer.

The existence of your world and it's contents is not real.

But the experience of the world is real, and therefore significant to whomever (God) is having that experience.

You are talking to ghosts in a dream. It's not as though you wonder if your keyboard is real - you KNOW it is not!

I'm talking to different aspects of God. All aspects of God are real.

How do you KNOW that you have not descended into a form of madness. A madness that knows its own delusion is the only thing that is real. A madness in which you are shouting at the ghosts around you to recognize themselves as illusions. Because God... Because God... Because God...

The world hovers around armageddon related to nonsensical philosophies of existence/life. I offer absolute reason to all which equates to world peace, at the very least.
The world is mad, not me. I am angry, not mad.

I think that my philosophy (that God is existence itself) is the only thing which can save mankind. Not me, but the philosophy/truth itself. I think that the 21st century shall see the acceptance of this truth, en masse, or the world's demise.
We live at an important time in time.