Intent

[RandFanJr.]

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

Forgive me but I am truly confused. Must every word be defined before you understand the "intent" of the argument?

Noncausal Accounts:

A.) Decisions or actions requiring no cause at all.

B.) Decisions or actions nondeterministically caused by prior events.

Intent: The desired outcome of an individual derived from a "noncausal account".

in·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tnt)
n.
Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
Meaning; purport.

noncausal

adj not causative

caus·a·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôz-tv)
adj.
Functioning as an agent or cause.
Expressing causation. Used of a verb or verbal affix.


de·ci·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-szhn)
n.
The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
Firmness of character or action; determination.

de·ter·min·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tûrm-nzm)
n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

de·termin·isti·cal·ly
adv.

Help me out please. Is there realy something that is not understood here?

 

[Suggestologist]

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

Ok, when material can respond to external stimulus in such a way that it stays together as unit for a longer period of time; it has more opportunity to replicate.

An example of response to external stimulus is the way plants turn to face the sun -- to more efficiently absorb energy. They don't do this because of cognitive function; but it does help them survive and replicate.

The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy. This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.

 

[RandFanJr.]

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.

Can I break down your argument?

Premise: Computers have no free will.
Premise: Computers could be created by chance.
Conclusion: Intent (or the illusion of intent) can emerge from purposelessness.

The argument only proves that which it assumes. We agree that computers at present only have the illusion of intent. Computers having presently failed to pass the touring test do not think as humans and don't even really have any such "illusions" but whatever "intent" that computers exhibit or mirror in humans they do so because of the "intent" of humans or the deterministic nature of humans.

The question becomes, do humans have free will or simply the illusion of free will? If humans don't have free will then the computer is simply an extension of man's deterministic nature and proves your argument.

If humans do have free will then computers represent an illusion that is a construct of human consciousness and free will (intent) and does not prove your argument.

 

[Atlas]

Lifegazer,
When you explore Intent as something that could not have arisen without a primal-cause that possessed the quality, it makes me wonder if there is any human quality that exists without it being an existent quality of that same primal-cause.

I imagine your argument is: No - all human/animal/plant/rock/gas qualities exist because they exist in the primal-cause.

Humans eat - So does the primal-unchanging-cause.
Humans sleep - so too God.
Humans crap - yes God crapped us a world. And vomited space.

Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd.

 

[lifegazer]

The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy.

I'd like to know more about this process, but I guess it's not relevant to this thread.
I'd also like to have an in-depth discussion on why I think design is exhibited in nature/evolution as a whole, but again, that's for another thread.

This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.

Interesting stuff. But how do you carry this argument to mankind?
I mean, I base my whole thread upon the certainty, imo, that we possess the attribute of intent or concious purpose. It's one thing to talk about brainless plants, but how do you make the same point with ourselves?

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer,
Humans eat - So does the primal-unchanging-cause.
Humans sleep - so too God.
Humans crap - yes God crapped us a world. And vomited space.

Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd.

My earlier post to you was in reference to concepts which exist as actual traits of humanity but not within the universe. Intent, desire, hope, joy, happiness, etc. etc..
This post of yours doesn't relate to that post of mine. To be truthful, this is a very poor response by you.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, when material can respond to external stimulus in such a way that it stays together as unit for a longer period of time; it has more opportunity to replicate.

An example of response to external stimulus is the way plants turn to face the sun -- to more efficiently absorb energy. They don't do this because of cognitive function; but it does help them survive and replicate.

The reason they do this is due to a sort of internal representation that directs their motion towards the energy. This internal representation came about because of evolutionary pressures that offered a survival advantage to those plants that could do so -- these plants lived longer than those which did not have the internal representation.

As long as you allow for the effect not always being the reason that a trait is chosen for survival. We really can not tell if the reason plants track the sun has survival benefit or if they do so because of another process that is beneficial that alos causes them to track the sun.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Is this your position? We see in vomit something only God could've come up with? He intended us to find Him there..

This may sound stupid but you never really define your terms and your brand of logic invites the absurd reference.

Indeed, If we say Lifegazer's God is Intent, We must also say Lifegazer's God is Absurd.

I won't speak for LG. I do think the direction that LG is going is along the lines of a "god of the gaps" argument. (JMO LG) Just because humans appear to have a unique quality does not prove god. However I think LG is making a reasonable philosophical argument and deserves a sincere response.

A river flowing down hill seeks the course of least resistance. This is logical. The river like Suggestologist's flower are easily understood by the laws of physics and evolution. It is demonstrable that humans could exist today just like the flower and river. Existing because of and responding to variables.

There is a small difference though. We are the only known things in the universe that have the illusion that we have free will (or actually have free will).

The point means nothing if you deny free will. But where were all of you who do not accept free will when Franko was arguing TLOP?

It would seem the acceptance of free will is transitory. Another uniquely human trait, "to hold a position based on ego".

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.


Help me out please. Is there realy something that is not understood here?

I think there is plenty here that is understood perfectly well, the problem being that the understanding is based on questionable assumptions. All this business about intent ultimately ends up being about dualism; i.e., there can only be genuine intent if there is actually 'somebody home'.

Or did you think I was quibbling about semantics?

 

[RandFanJr.]

I think there is plenty here that is understood perfectly well, the problem being that the understanding is based on questionable assumptions. All this business about intent ultimately ends up being about dualism; i.e., there can only be genuine intent if there is actually 'somebody home'.

Or did you think I was quibbling about semantics?

Yes.

Is the argument really about dualism or free will? It wouldn't be the first time I missed the mark by such a wide margin.

Edited to note: Not all theologians or materialists universally accept or reject free will. Yes free will is counter to an omniscient god but then aren't most theological positions contradictory to some degree?

 

[lifegazer]

I won't speak for LG. I do think the direction that LG is going is along the lines of a "god of the gaps" argument. (JMO LG) Just because humans appear to have a unique quality does not prove god. However I think LG is making a reasonable philosophical argument and deserves a sincere response.

I think that it is absolutely irrational to accept that we (who possess intent/purpose) were created by a universe which absolutely does not. Hence my argument is founded upon reason: that if we have intent then existence, fundamentally, must also possess it.
A "God of the gaps" argument would seek to insert God where there was no explanation. Whereas I conclude that God exists because of my reasoning.

There is a small difference though. We are the only known things in the universe that have the illusion that we have free will (or actually have free will).

Yes. There is concious purpose in our actions.

The point means nothing if you deny free will. But where were all of you who do not accept free will when Franko was arguing TLOP?

It would seem the acceptance of free will is transitory. Another uniquely human trait, "to hold a position based on ego".

How can anyone deny that there is intent in their own lives? I'm perplexed.

 

[lifegazer]

Is the argument really about dualism or free will?

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.

 

[Humphreys]

Can I break down your argument?

Hi RandFan; of course.

Premise: Computers have no free will.
Premise: Computers could be created by chance.
Conclusion: Intent (or the illusion of intent) can emerge from purposelessness.

The argument only proves that which it assumes. We agree that computers at present only have the illusion of intent. Computers having presently failed to pass the touring test do not think as humans and don't even really have any such "illusions" but whatever "intent" that computers exhibit or mirror in humans they do so because of the "intent" of humans or the deterministic nature of humans.

Yes, but my original point was that nature could create this same computer without the need for humans, in theory. Therefore, nature can at least create the illusion of intent without primal-cause.

So, as I said in my first post to lifegazer, his argument is only a problem for anyone who believes the kind of free-will idealism hints at, exists.

If humans don't have free will then the computer is simply an extension of man's deterministic nature and proves your argument.

Yes. But this is a real grey area definition-wise, everyone seems to have a different view on what free-will really means.

If humans do have free will then computers represent an illusion that is a construct of human consciousness and free will (intent) and does not prove your argument.

Exactly.

Lifegazer's problem is, his argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, but my original point was that nature could create this same computer without the need for humans, in theory.

You cannot be serious! *throws racket away*
Sorry, couldn't resist. But that's exactly how I feel in regards your statement.
Do you honestly believe that given the right weather systems, the earth might have knocked-up a pentium-4 computer complete with windows xp and internet ready?

Lifegazer's problem is, his argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.

No. My argument is grounded upon a fact of human existence (possessing intent/purpose). The rest is reason.

 

[Atlas]

My earlier post to you was in reference to concepts which exist as actual traits of humanity but not within the universe. Intent, desire, hope, joy, happiness, etc. etc..
This post of yours doesn't relate to that post of mine. To be truthful, this is a very poor response by you.

That's because it wasn't a response to an earlier post. You have tried to educate me in the ways your doublethink several times... I still don't have it down so I continue to ask.

You tell me that: mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, peace, sorrow, etc. etc...Hence, mankind is linked directly to the primal-cause of all perceived existence.
Next with your bothways technique you try to pound it into my thick skull: Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. This seems to be in opposition to the prior statement that mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, but you clarify(?) You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

So all things in existence are mere perceptions of God. This makes getting at the nature of Intent troublesome, illusory even.

One of your quotes to me was : 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

I questioned some assumptions and your argument becomes assertion (beautifully ironic): I assume nothing. If I have intent, then I have God's free-will = God is my origin.

Your actual proof seems to be the assertion that: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent unless nature herself is endowed with intent.

The shorthand meaning in that line is: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting intent...

My point is that whether we're talking about Intent, Design, Chlorophyll or Snot all argument comes down to: Nature cannot produce a system exhibiting anything because Nature is defined by you as an illusory perception of the overbeing, that primal-cause. An illusory perception that exists only as an experience. And for humans only, that illusory experience is one of free-will. A bizarre compounding of the unreal with the real.

And the reverse compounding is also true. Humans don't exhibit intent without God Having it and putting it into our illusory experience. And Humans don't exhibit fingernails without God having fingernails and putting it into our illusory experience.

Can you untangle the doublethink?

 

[lifegazer]

Well Lifegazer,
I could bring out the accidental creation theory that i presented before

God slipped and the universe fell out of his pocket?
You do realise that this is a rational discussion, I hope?

let it suffice to just say that there may have been a creation without it being deliberate or having an intent.

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

You create the links in your chain through your own devices, they are not a necessity of creation.

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

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!

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

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

Err...

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

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

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

?
Sorry David, but this post of yours was bobbins.

 

[Humphreys]

You cannot be serious! *throws racket away*
Sorry, couldn't resist. But that's exactly how I feel in regards your statement.
Do you honestly believe that given the right weather systems, the earth might have knocked-up a pentium-4 computer complete with windows xp and internet ready?

You're looking at it the wrong way.

It is theoretically possible, yes? If not, why not?

Once we accept it is possible in theory, we must agree that nature can indeed create intent (or the illusion of, at least).

Don't just try to picture a computer popping up out of nowhere without a creator, that isn't the point of my example.

If it helps, don't think of a pentium machine with windows XP installed, think of the simplest machine you can imagine that still displays the illusion of intent (however small).

No. My argument is grounded upon a fact of human existence (possessing intent/purpose). The rest is reason.

But if we don't have the kind of free-will idealism implies, then our intent is nothing but an illusion; the same as a computer or robot.

So, again, if it is plausible that nature could create a computer/robot, it is plausible that nature could create a human with the illusion of intent.

Once again, your argument is an argument in favour of idealism that is only valid if idealism is true.

 

[lifegazer]

Atlas is not the creator of his own experience. Atlas is the experience. This seems to be in opposition to the prior statement that mankind is, somehow, the source of its own joy, but you clarify(?) You do exist, but you are God - not Atlas.

The bottom line is that 'you' are really God perceiving Yourself as lowly Atlas. "Lowly" in relation to God itself, of course.

Sorry, something has come up - I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow or later tonight.

 

[Flatworm]

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'?

It is certainly possible for things with, say, and IP address to arise in our universe without the universe itself having an IP address. How do you define 'intent' and what bars it from appearing spontaneously?

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

I think I smell a fallacy of composition here.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

But that illusion thing is the hang up, I am 'me' , my stomach is part of me. I don't go around saying that my stomach is an illusion. Why not believe in god and and that we are part of god, without making us illusions?