Intent

[lifegazer]

Yahweh, you went through all that trouble for nuttin.

 

[Yahweh]

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?

Perhaps you've already explained this, but I have gone through the thread (quickly albeit), and I'm a bit lost to what your reasoning is.

Could you explain what "intent" is, and why it is only compatible with idealism?

(Again, sorry if you've already gone through this before.)

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh, you went through all that trouble for nuttin.

Yeah probably, but I'm primarily interested in expanding my personal knowledge...

I'll get around to making my trouble "worth something" when I feel like it...

 

[hammegk]

Yahweh

Nice reply. Have you seen this discussion?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html


My point is that definitions are tricky. I don't really propose that say, what we have named bosons/boson fields are "alive".

Do they seem to demonstrate some intent? The urge to "be" rather than "not-be" for example.


lg

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

Are descriptive words the "thing-in-itself"? Nope, just code we use to project maps depicting the territory in ways we can understand.

 

[RussDill]

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.

Lifegazer, alternate explainations exist. You can plug you ears, say they don't make sense to you, say you would never accept them, but it doesn't matter. As long as an alternate explanation exists, you haven't come even remotely close to proving your point.

Also, you seem very stuck on this freewill thing. Think back to a decision you made based on free will. If you were put in the same situation again, with the same memories, same emotions, same everything again, would you make the same decision? If you did, what does that mean for free will? If you wouldn't, does it just mean your decision is random?

 

[csense]

Think back to a decision you made based on free will. If you were put in the same situation again, with the same memories, same emotions, same everything again, would you make the same decision? If you did, what does that mean for free will? If you wouldn't, does it just mean your decision is random?

You can not recreate the same spatio-temporal event. It either is the event, or it is something different, no matter how similar they may appear be.

Having said that, even if you could do this, a similar or even identical outcome does not refute free will.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Forgive me but a number of you are being obtuse. You know the point of LG's argument why not deal with the it rather than pretend that there is no validity to the premise without stating so explicitly? Since many of you have not stated whether or not you believe that humans have free will it is not possible to deduce whether or not you accept the premise.

Do you accept free will? If not then simply state it and argue why humans have no "intent". If you accept that humans have intent then make a case why human intent is not incongruous with our understanding of the formation of the universe, evolution and natural selection.

No, computers perform as the laws of mathematics require them to. Technically anything capable of carrying out computation is a computer, too. They don't have to be boxes of circuit boards. [/B]

Assuming that you believe that humans have free will then you are making a false dichotomy of either a computer performs how we intend it to or as the laws of mathematics require them to. When I write a program I use the "laws of mathematics" to determine how to write the program so that it will perform as I "intend" it to. No dichotomy.

 

[hammegk]

Forgive me but a number of you are being obtuse. You know the point of LG's argument why not deal with the it rather than pretend that there is no validity to the premise without stating so explicitly?

LOL. Obtuse? Not most of this bunch. Their problem is that every argument they can muster for "their side" is at best circular -- and they know it.

IOW, the same reason the only attack against "You obey TLOP" was directed at the sillygism used to present it, or a circular argument.

 

[Humphreys]

Lifegazer, a robot could appear to show intent, without actually having intent.

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause. Likewise, nature could randomly assemble a human (over many years of evolution, obviously), and give the illusion of intent.

A creature without free-will could easily be created by nature with no primal-cause necessary.

As long as no one here believes we have the kind of free-will idealism hints at, there really is no problem with the existence of intent.

Would you agree?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Humphreys

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause

It's hard to deny that part of our heritage as biological organisms includes a large number of what might be called low-level responses to stimuli. If someone pokes a stick at your eye, you blink; you don't choose to blink -- in fact, it is virtually impossible to choose not to. This is a good example of what can be called a 'sub-process', this undoubtedlly a very ancient one. Like many sub-processes, millions of years of trial and error have established speedy response over sophistication as the optimal design specs for this particular routine, and for good reason -- events in the external world are often best measured in milliseconds.

Overriding a sub-process thusly streamlined for speed is difficult to do, but this is not to say that such a sub-process may not be overriden. At any given time, any number of these sub-processes may be competing for priority, and in organisms with complex behavior, other processes may either augment or inhibit them. The particular behavior that emerges as the response to a given set of stimuli then is the result of the outcome of what may be a complex internal struggle.

If we insist that the system must include intent, the difficult challenge then is to decide where to allocate that. It is hard to justifly attributing intent to a primitive, low-level process such as a simple blink response, unless we are willing to be so liberal with the term that we would give it to something as crude as a thermostat. But why exactly should we more readily accept attributing it to what turns out to be basically a set of inhibitory (or augmentary) processes? If human behavior ultimately reduces to a bundle of low-level processes, where is intent?

 

[RandFanJr.]

IOW, the same reason the only attack against "You obey TLOP" was directed at the sillygism used to present it, or a circular argument.

I rememeber pages and pages of arguing against "TLOP". Franko would be pleased at the current change of events.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, a robot could appear to show intent, without actually having intent.

I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Nature could, in theory, randomly assemble something robot-like without the need for primal-cause.

Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.
How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.

Likewise, nature could randomly assemble a human (over many years of evolution, obviously), and give the illusion of intent.

My argument is that the intent exhibited by humanity emanates directly from the primal-cause of existence. I.e., it doesn't belong to humanity.
Our intent, therefore, belongs to God (the primal-cause).
As agents of this intent, the conclusion is that we are really God, lost in the perception of being human.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Yahweh

lg
Are descriptive words the "thing-in-itself"? Nope, just code we use to project maps depicting the territory in ways we can understand.

You're not a stupid man, so see if these words resonate within you: You are God of all existence, perceiving itself as being hammegk.

Hardly difficult to comprehend.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.

Since you haven't yet established that the word 'intent' actually refers to a meaninful concept at all, the question seems premature.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, alternate explainations exist.

No they don't. I'm asked to believe an irrational assertion: namely, that a system (man) exhibiting intent can be created by a system and within a system that exhibits none itself (the universe).
In other words, that's not an explanation, but a crock - designed to placate the ears of those who want nothing to do with a God.

You can plug you ears,

I can plug my ears?!
Having the balls to open my ears has led me to uncovering this lunatic conspiracy.

say they don't make sense to you, say you would never accept them, but it doesn't matter. As long as an alternate explanation exists, you haven't come even remotely close to proving your point.

No alternate explanation exists. Only an irrational get-out-clause exists.

 

[Dancing David]

Well Lifegazer,
I could bring out the accidental creation theory that i presented before, let it suffice to just say that there may have been a creation without it being deliberate or having an intent. You create the links in your chain through your own devices, they are not a necessity of creation.

Say that the nascent universe was a soda bottle and that the creator wanted to pour the creation into a glass, but after reading an article in God Monthly they decide that they want thier drink to be warm, instead of cold. they put the bottle in the microwave and set the time and power too long. And the result is the Big Bang!

So there is the intent: to drink the soda from a galss, and there is the result of the intent which is not deliberate.

Why is it that a creation must be deliberate and must have intent?

You are placing limit on that which is limit less by definition.

Oh well, carry on.

 

[Suggestologist]

I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.
How does intent emerge, in an effect, from a universe exhibiting absolutely no intent? The question seeks a reasonable answer.

I've provided a reasonable answer from evolution. You seem to have skipped over it.

 

[Humphreys]

I had a computer discussion earlier. All machines are extensions of man's intent. A robot appears to show intent because it is showing intent - our intent.

Computers and robots are not conscious and they do not have free will. They are just lumps of material arranged in a particular way. Are you open to the possibility (of course miniscule) that my computers exact arrangement of material could be created by pure chance by a nature with no primal-cause?

Logically, it could. Therefore, random, purposelessness nature can create intent (or the illusion of, more accurately). Order can emerge from chaos, and intent can emerge from purposelessness.

Why wouldn't it be able to?

Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.

This isn't logically or demonstrably true, as far as I can tell.

Our intent, therefore, belongs to God (the primal-cause).
As agents of this intent, the conclusion is that we are really God, lost in the perception of being human.

That's some wild speculation lifegazer.

 

[Humphreys]

Double post.

 

[lifegazer]

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.

Your argument was difficult to follow. This key paragraph for example, needs clarification if you want me to respond.