NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.

Yes.

No.

What are we arguing about again?

I wonder how Blue Cheese would taste on a bagel.

I wonder how Blue Cheese would taste on a bagel.
You win.

Yes. Duh.

As long as human beings can will to do things, yes of course.

A couple oddballs like Zeno aside, the majority of people have always thought that people can in fact intend to do things.

Which either means, a la Descartes, that we can in fact intend to do things, or that some strange and twisted power or chance managed to create a perception of free will to keep us comfortable while following our predetermined fates. Meh.

A couple oddballs like Zeno aside, the majority of people have always thought that people can in fact intend to do things.

Which either means, a la Descartes, that we can in fact intend to do things, or that some strange and twisted power or chance managed to create a perception of free will to keep us comfortable while following our predetermined fates. Meh.

Determinism doesn't chance intent. I can intend to do something even if there was no other choice.

Determinism doesn't chance intent. I can intend to do something even if there was no other choice.

But if there was no other choice, then there was no other choice than intending to do it, which makes the intending pretty much worthless, as "intent" usually implies "possibility it might not happen".

...But I guess you're right, some kind of intent is still possible.

Depends on the determinism I guess. B.F.Skinner or one of his more extreme disciples might argue against it. On the other end of the scale would be the existentialists like Sarte who might argue that life is too random for intent to ever exist. Plays like "Zoo Story" or "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" are the closest examples of this I can think of. >_>

I also seem to recall an arguement from a James Gunn story that what happens in the case of a pre-determined universe is that the conscious mind, aware that it is fated to do these things, would merely manufacture reasons for doing them in order to maintain the pretense that it matters. @_@

Well, time for a dissenting opinion to start some discussion. Free will, as we define it, is not something possesed by humans. Free will implies that we can make a choice, as in a decision between two or more options. The problem with this is that it would require two possibilitys to be plausible up until the exact point where they diverge. But, all matter that we see and that governs our thoughts follows the same physical laws.

Then our thoughts, something very physical despite what most religions will tell you, are just as predictible as liquid spilling or balls bouncing; they are just more complex. Studies have shown that the body is ready to take an action before we are conscious of it. Here, from the wikipedia article on free will. "A related experiment performed later by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time; the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right. Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely."

He goes on to say that it's still possible that while an action can be building up for a length of time, the brain can still veto the action, a statement that is dubious at best

Studies have shown that the body is ready to take an action before we are conscious of it. Here, from the wikipedia article on free will. "A related experiment performed later by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time; the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right. Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely."

He goes on to say that it's still possible that while an action can be building up for a length of time, the brain can still veto the action, a statement that is dubious at best

Actually, I would consider that statement to be very accurate. One pragmatic proof is that Dr. Pascual-Leone's human guinea pigs chose their left hand only 80% instead of 100%. Another pragmatic proof from the real world is that both conmen and salesmen of dubious products or with dubious terms tend to rush their victims to close the deal as quickly as possible (One reason why it's wise to insist on sleeping on business transactions instead of doing them right away), the more time the victim has in which to see something wrong the more likely he is to veto the hustler's desired action.

A couple oddballs like Zeno aside, the majority of people have always thought that people can in fact intend to do things.

Which either means, a la Descartes, that we can in fact intend to do things, or that some strange and twisted power or chance managed to create a perception of free will to keep us comfortable while following our predetermined fates. Meh.

But the belief in the non existence of free will is sort of a waste of effort. If you have free-will then it makes no sense to ponder the question because pondering it means you have chosen to do so. If you don't have it then you can't arrive at a conclusion that isn't forgone because whatever position you take has been decided by external events.

Our powers of self-determination are, indeed, mighty and unparalleled in this universe. I mean, all of us can easily just decide not to post in this thread, for instance. Peace of cake.

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.

As opposed to everything being 'pre-determined'... I'd be inclined to say yes.

But - I can also see an argument for our every decision actually being a somehow logical 'reaction' to every stimulus we've ever received... in which case, although not strictly 'pre-determined' as in - no pre-planning - there might still be no real 'intent'.

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.

To a degree. Some things are predetermined, some things require luck or other stuff that u cant control...

Determinism doesn't chance intent. I can intend to do something even if there was no other choice.
*mumble*determinism isn't about choices*mumble*.

As opposed to everything being 'pre-determined'... I'd be inclined to say yes.

But - I can also see an argument for our every decision actually being a somehow logical 'reaction' to every stimulus we've ever received... in which case, although not strictly 'pre-determined' as in - no pre-planning - there might still be no real 'intent'.
Right, but then it is not "our" decision any more than if it was pre-determined.

Depends on the determinism I guess. B.F.Skinner or one of his more extreme disciples might argue against it. On the other end of the scale would be the existentialists like Sarte who might argue that life is too random for intent to ever exist. Plays like "Zoo Story" or "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" are the closest examples of this I can think of. >_>

I also seem to recall an arguement from a James Gunn story that what happens in the case of a pre-determined universe is that the conscious mind, aware that it is fated to do these things, would merely manufacture reasons for doing them in order to maintain the pretense that it matters. @_@
I'm only really going to pick on you becuase you used and Albee play. Albee is a very deliberate playwright, and the material is so dense that even the dramaturg only 'gets' a portion of it. The allusion, the construction of the plays are very diliberate and constructed with an incatrite root system. While what happens to the 'listener' in Zoo Story is relatively random, it is also very constructed by the 'narrator.' Not only does the narrator have intent, but an elaborate construction to push it through. So I don't know that it really exemplifies a lack of intent.

I guess if you look at Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead as 'we are all bit players in someone else's play' it could sort of demonstrate that, but again, Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are really more at the mercy of other's intent and not in the lack of intent. Perhaps Waiting for Godot would have been a better reference for this point because in that the characters cannot move through any of thier ideas or intents and are in fact waiting for fate, god, whatever, to give them course and without that outside influence will simply wait by the tree and observe the strange BDSM relationship of thier neighbors...

Right, but then it is not "our" decision any more than if it was pre-determined.

Which... was the point I was making?

As in... I'm inclined to say 'yes', but I can think of a good model that doesn't require the 'mystical determinism' element.

I fully intended to respond to this thread.

*mumble*determinism isn't about choices*mumble*.

That's actually my argument. However, the person I was talking about was arguing about both. Determinism does not negate intent. Having intent even if that intent is dertermined reaction doesn't change the fact that intent exists.

Right, but then it is not "our" decision any more than if it was pre-determined.

We still make a decision whether another outcome was impossible or not.

yes, of course we can

I intend to eat pork fat at some point today

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.

How could we act if we had no intent? The two are tied together.

*mumble*determinism isn't about choices*mumble*.

If it is not about choice, it is about the lack there of.

Which... was the point I was making?

As in... I'm inclined to say 'yes', but I can think of a good model that doesn't require the 'mystical determinism' element.
Which... is why I agreed?

Why does metaphysics have to be 'mystical'?

We still make a decision whether another outcome was impossible or not.
How so?

A decision requires some sort of intent. If we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent.

If it is not about choice, it is about the lack there of.
The "lack thereof" is still about the choices (alternatives, options) available, not about determining.

Yes

woot 100 posts!

Can human beings intend to do things?

And if human beings can, can other animals? :eek:

Im sure Hitler just "didnt" intend on killing 6million Jews and 3million other types of people, and creating a entire world.......

How so?

A decision requires some sort of intent. If we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent.

Why? If I intend to do something, how is that NOT intent? It doesn't matter if I repeatedly put a person in a situation where they could choose a or b and I kept the scenario in such a way that they would always choose b, it would not change whether or not they intended to do it.

Intent is a question of whether or not someone runs the intent program not of whether or not they could have changed the outcome.

Which... is why I agreed?

Why does metaphysics have to be 'mystical'?

Ah... gotcha. :)

Why? If I intend to do something, how is that NOT intent? It doesn't matter if I repeatedly put a person in a situation where they could choose a or b and I kept the scenario in such a way that they would always choose b, it would not change whether or not they intended to do it.

Intent is a question of whether or not someone runs the intent program not of whether or not they could have changed the outcome.

Or... is 'intent' just something we observe?

'Intent' sounds like it is something we CHOOSE to do... but what if we can't choose... does simply acknowledging the fact make it intent?

Or... is 'intent' just something we observe?

'Intent' sounds like it is something we CHOOSE to do... but what if we can't choose... does simply acknowledging the fact make it intent?

I've said this before. Let's we're programmed. Intent and choice are just programs that run. Whether or not we can change the outcome with a 'free will' doesn't change whether or not the program ran. It only changes whether the inputs and outputs are fixed.

I've said this before. Let's we're programmed. Intent and choice are just programs that run. Whether or not we can change the outcome with a 'free will' doesn't change whether or not the program ran. It only changes whether the inputs and outputs are fixed.

No... what I'm saying is - what if 'intent' isn't a program?

What is 'intent' is just a stimulus, rather than a response? The 'visible' part of the choice/not-a-choice program?

No... what I'm saying is - what if 'intent' isn't a program?

What is 'intent' is just a stimulus, rather than a response? The 'visible' part of the choice/not-a-choice program?

I don't think it really changes its existence. But it's an interesting way of putting it. So I guess it's not my fault that I like to swallow the souls of pigs. Mmmmm.... pork.

I don't think it really changes its existence. But it's an interesting way of putting it. So I guess it's not my fault that I like to swallow the souls of pigs. Mmmmm.... pork.

Seconded. Bacon is the best evidence there is a God, and that he wants us to enjoy ourselves.

Seconded. Bacon is the best evidence there is a God, and that he wants us to enjoy ourselves.

Then you've never had a sliced pork tenderloin stuffed with bris and coated with a raspberry demiglace. That's the evidence. I'm drooling right now.

Intentions are supposed to be observable in some independent way. I could, obviously, tell you my intentions, but there could be myriad reasons to think they are wrong. The problem of intentions, then, has to do with intentions being verified in some independent way. Think of the world cup 'S' fouls 'T' and the commentator says, "he intended to go for the ball". Well, as philosophers -- these are the people mainly concerned with intentions -- we ask, how do you know that? Even in simple circumstances intentions are pretty murky, consider when 'S' leaves the house with an umbrella and yet the weather forecast does not call for showers. We can speculate as to why 'S' leaves the house with an umbrella under such circumtances. However, any speculation will be one amongst a number of possible speculations. Hence, intentions aren't, seemingly, empirically viable from a standpoint of independent observation. That, my friend, is why some people do not believe in intentional states.

Intentions are supposed to be observable in some independent way. I could, obviously, tell you my intentions, but there could be myriad reasons to think they are wrong. The problem of intentions, then, has to do with intentions being verified in some independent way. Think of the world cup 'S' fouls 'T' and the commentator says, "he intended to go for the ball". Well, as philosophers -- these are the people mainly concerned with intentions -- we ask, how do you know that? Even in simple circumstances intentions are pretty murky, consider when 'S' leaves the house with an umbrella and yet the weather forecast does not call for showers. We can speculate as to why 'S' leaves the house with an umbrella under such circumtances. However, any speculation will be one amongst a number of possible speculations. Hence, intentions aren't, seemingly, empirically viable from a standpoint of independent observation. That, my friend, is why some people do not believe in intentional states.

"Supposed to be observable"? I am not entirely sure how that works. It seems to me that the only way to observe intent is to observe action. In your example, 'S' fouls 'T', we can look at the way in which 'S' moved and try to determine where he was headed (towards 'T' or towards the ball). It seems obvious that 'S' would have had some target in mind before starting to move (though, I suppose, he might have changed his mind at the last moment, but that too would have simply been a new intention) and that target would show his intent.

I think that any decision made before acting is intent. Actions that are made without conscious thought (reflex reactions, for example) do not have intent, but any action that follows a conscious decision shows intent. Of course, not all intentions lead to actions, but most action springs from intention.

Why? If I intend to do something, how is that NOT intent?
Well, d'uh, you're not bound by determinism, you have free will.

It doesn't matter if I repeatedly put a person in a situation where they could choose a or b and I kept the scenario in such a way that they would always choose b, it would not change whether or not they intended to do it.
You're right about that. They have free will.

Intent is a question of whether or not someone runs the intent program not of whether or not they could have changed the outcome.
Intent program ... uh-huh. And the free will program. I see.

Intention: an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result

Sound to me like it means that you determine things, not something else like a program.

I've said this before. Let's we're programmed. Intent and choice are just programs that run. Whether or not we can change the outcome with a 'free will' doesn't change whether or not the program ran. It only changes whether the inputs and outputs are fixed.
Free will is not the ability to change the outcome; rather, free will is the outcome being changed by the person.

Well, time for a dissenting opinion to start some discussion. Free will, as we define it, is not something possesed by humans. Free will implies that we can make a choice, as in a decision between two or more options.
I dont know who you mean by 'we', but if there is to be any truth to the above statement, 'we' has to exclude me.
As I define free-will it is indeed something possessed to at least some degree by at least some humans.

The problem with this is that it would require two possibilitys to be plausible up until the exact point where they diverge. But, all matter that we see and that governs our thoughts follows the same physical laws.

Please point out which of these alledged laws excludes the possibility of two things being plausable possibilities up until the exact point where they diverge.

Then our thoughts, something very physical despite what most religions will tell you, are just as predictible as liquid spilling or balls bouncing;
So far humans have not yet ever managed to achieve universal predictability. We dont (so far as I can tell) know that such a thing is possible much less that predictability is a necessary result of whatever 'physical laws' might exist.

they are just more complex. Studies have shown that the body is ready to take an action before we are conscious of it.
Which is neither here nor there since my body takes action without me being conscious of it (very often as it happens), and yet this doesnt suggest to me that I ought to disconsider the notion of 'free-will'.

Here, from the wikipedia article on free will. "A related experiment performed later by Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time; the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right. Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely."

He goes on to say that it's still possible that while an action can be building up for a length of time, the brain can still veto the action, a statement that is dubious at best
And so....? I can speculate as to what you might be hinting at, but everything I come up with is unsound, so either you are hinting at an unsound argument, or you are hinting at an argument that I have not thought of whilst speculating on what you might be hinting at....either way unless you actually posit an argument rather than hint at one, there's not much more to be said about your post...

Free will is not the ability to change the outcome; rather, free will is the outcome being changed by the person.

Why?

Most people view free will to be the ability to make unfettered choices. It means your choices are forced upon you. However, if you make a choice that considers the inputs and lands you in a place, if such a choice is a result of reasoning faculties, even it's a denial of those faculties, it only makes sense that those choices are caused. They are still choices, they are still unfettered, and they are still a result of the codification of the program you have received throughout your life. All three can coincide alongside each other freely.

Now, some places you'll find in the very definition of free will it must be absent a divine purpose or determinism, but that's just a goofball addition to definition that undermines a debate that has existed for almost as long as man.

Why?

Most people view free will to be the ability to make unfettered choices. It means your choices are forced upon you. However, if you make a choice that considers the inputs and lands you in a place, if such a choice is a result of reasoning faculties, even it's a denial of those faculties, it only makes sense that those choices are caused. They are still choices, they are still unfettered, and they are still a result of the codification of the program you have received throughout your life. All three can coincide alongside each other freely.

Now, some places you'll find in the very definition of free will it must be absent a divine purpose or determinism, but that's just a goofball addition to definition that undermines a debate that has existed for almost as long as man.
Most people insist that all reality conform to an objective description. I happen to think that a subjective description provides a more accurate context for the subjective concept.

I'll assume you meant 'unfettered choices' means the choices are NOT forced upon you? That would make more sense. Programming means that choices are forced upon you.

I don't understand --a choice you make using your reasoning faculities is a denial of those faculities? What are you talking about? All three what coincide?

The only significant gauge of whether free will was employed in the outcome of the decision is whether YOU made the choice. Did you do it, or was it programmed?

Most people insist that all reality conform to an objective description. I happen to think that a subjective description provides a more accurate context for the subjective concept.

I'll assume you meant 'unfettered choices' means the choices are NOT forced upon you? That would make more sense. Programming means that choices are forced upon you.

I don't understand --a choice you make using your reasoning faculities is a denial of those faculities? What are you talking about? All three what coincide?

The only significant gauge of whether free will was employed in the outcome of the decision is whether YOU made the choice. Did you do it, or was it programmed?
No, it doesn't. It means your choices are a logical compilation of your experiences. It's not forced. You aren't forced to take a certain choice, you just simply, because of the net effect of your experiences, would not have made a different choice. A different choice requires a different you. The fact that you are as important a part of your choices as every other part is evidence of free will. However, since the YOU is not going to change out and the inputs are not going to change out, the decision is not going to either. It's still a decision made freely under the circumstances of that decision. Pretending that circumstances negate free will would define free will in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.

I think that any decision made before acting is intent. Actions that are made without conscious thought (reflex reactions, for example) do not have intent, but any action that follows a conscious decision shows intent. Of course, not all intentions lead to actions, but most action springs from intention.[/QUOTE]

First of all you are begging the question by claiming that action springs from intention, because the original claim was made that some people, whomever they are, do not beleive that intentions exist. So, we are evaluating this claim, not merely assuming that the thing we are attempting to find the ontological status of (i.e. intentions) already exists -- please don't just affirm things. Second, the problem is that some people, whomever they are, want verification of intentions -- that is, that intentions are, as I said before, something that can be confirmed through a scientific method. Why, you might ask? Well,the most successfull method that causes the aquistion of knowledge know to mankind is the scientific method. As intentions are internal states that are only reportable by the individual or attributive by another individual, they are not reliable in terms of knowledge (i.e. you can make some claim about someone's internal state -- desires, motives, etc. -- and be wrong.) This has to do with knowledge interms of certainty and intentions as things that are not certain. Any objection against people who do not believe in intentional states should focus on the the epistemelogical standard that is applied to intentional states. If this standard is lowered, then intentional states -- whatever those weird entities are -- may (MAY) be allowable.

The only significant gauge of whether free will was employed in the outcome of the decision is whether YOU made the choice. Did you do it, or was it programmed?

What if I answered "both"?

Then you've never had a sliced pork tenderloin stuffed with bris and coated with a raspberry demiglace. That's the evidence. I'm drooling right now.
Where the hell were you typing this, in The Four Seasons?

How so?

A decision requires some sort of intent. If we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent.
We could still have the illusion of intent, if we were programmed to experience having an intention. But if we could step outside ourselves and see the programming, we would realize that in fact, we were just kidding ourselves and that our "intent" was nothing more than window dressing for a script that was already written and playing itself out without our input or control.

Of course, this is not what Jocabia was trying to say, but it is where my brain takes his argument. I have no idea whether that is intentional or not.

All things imperfect are relative. This includes our intentions, our freedoms, our beliefs, our emotions, our senses, our ideas, everything...

So do we ever have intention?

In a limited sense, yes. It is the same way we possess creativity, motive, or aspiration. We possess these things, but not in any absolute sense. Can we come up with an idea in a vacuum of experience, circumstance, or knowledge? No. Can we come up with an intention in a vacuum of experience, circumstance, or knowledge? No.


It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not reality is deterministic. Perhaps meaning is lost if all things are determined by other factors, but this doesn't affect the answer to the above question.



Questions about meaning are ultimately left up to the experiencer. Meaning can never be achieved in an absolute sense by imperfect things, and in a limited sense it is our own attributions which create meaning in a limited sense. So meaning is only lost if we believe it to be. I do not personally believe meaning is lost if the world is deterministic. So what if I have "no choice" about what I do, or that I was "meant" to do what I am doing? We are able to recognize the possibility of alternatives and can take advantage of that if we so choose.

Some might say that in a world of determinism "choice" is an illusion. News Flash: all imperfect constructs lack existence which is not dependent upon other things. Everything is an illusion of some sorts. There does not exist anything which has innate reality and is not perfect. We work with what we have, and to protest the nature of the way things are for want of perfection is insanity.

NT

I intend to wash my dishes. I never actually wash them, but I intend to every single day. Now, if our choices and intentions are all programmed, then they are obviously separate and distinct programs that do not necessarily interact with each other, as this intention has not led to action, despite numerous opportunities.

So perhaps the question is not, can human beings intend to do things, but rather, can human beings ever actually get anything done, or do we spend all our time "intending"? ;)

Jocabia, you could not have been more wrong. You said you didn't think this topic would yield much in the way of discussion. Obviously, you have no idea what people intend to find interesting.

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.
There's about 3 or 4 significant follow-up arguments to what seems like a simple and innocuous OP.
My pov, at this point, is that i am incapable of determining whether i truly intend to do anything or not, or whether it's a matter of fate, circumstance and guide of conscience and plan and pawnship to more divine/diabolical nature.
I also have almost no qualms with either idea, as it is.

I should also point out that i suspected as much should have occurred four pages in on this particular forum, but i hadn't bothered to read it to its end.
But ya know ... Muravyets rocks. :)

No, it doesn't. It means your choices are a logical compilation of your experiences. It's not forced. You aren't forced to take a certain choice, you just simply, because of the net effect of your experiences, would not have made a different choice.
That's what force does, it gives you no alternative but to submit. That's why it's called "being forced".

A different choice requires a different you. The fact that you are as important a part of your choices as every other part is evidence of free will. However, since the YOU is not going to change out and the inputs are not going to change out, the decision is not going to either. It's still a decision made freely under the circumstances of that decision. Pretending that circumstances negate free will would define free will in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.
Then, in your vernacular, free will is the program determining a new program, a new you.

"You" are the only "part" involved in your choices. Input is not the determination of the choice.

We could still have the illusion of intent, if we were programmed to experience having an intention. But if we could step outside ourselves and see the programming, we would realize that in fact, we were just kidding ourselves and that our "intent" was nothing more than window dressing for a script that was already written and playing itself out without our input or control.

Of course, this is not what Jocabia was trying to say, but it is where my brain takes his argument. I have no idea whether that is intentional or not.
The illusion of intent is not intent. If that is what we have, then we do not have intent.

There's about 3 or 4 significant follow-up arguments to what seems like a simple and innocuous OP.
My pov, at this point, is that i am incapable of determining whether i truly intend to do anything or not, or whether it's a matter of fate, circumstance and guide of conscience and plan and pawnship to more divine/diabolical nature.
I also have almost no qualms with either idea, as it is.
I have huge qualms. THIS big... (go qualms!)

The way I see it, if we do not determine things --if it is not US doing them --then that is effectively saying that "we" (the thing that makes us "us") do not exist, because that thing really has nothing else to do in this universe (take away its properties and it is nothing). Things that affect my existence tend to give me qualms.

I should also point out that i suspected as much should have occurred four pages in on this particular forum, but i hadn't bothered to read it to its end.
But ya know ... Muravyets rocks. :)
So does Soheran. ;)

I intend to wash my dishes. I never actually wash them, but I intend to every single day. Now, if our choices and intentions are all programmed, then they are obviously separate and distinct programs that do not necessarily interact with each other, as this intention has not led to action, despite numerous opportunities.

I think you are misusing the word "intend," if you actually have the intent to wash the dishes, then you will be taking steps to wash the dishes. Chances are that your intent to wash the dishes was superceded.

So perhaps the question is not, can human beings intend to do things, but rather, can human beings ever actually get anything done, or do we spend all our time "intending"? ;)

The central question is whether human beings actually intend, or whether intent simply happens to human beings.

The answer is yes, unless the question is "do these lazy sods INTEND to ever give up Nationstates."

I have huge qualms. THIS big... (go qualms!)

The way I see it, if we do not determine things --if it is not US doing them --then that is effectively saying that "we" (the thing that makes us "us") do not exist, because that thing really has nothing else to do in this universe (take away its properties and it is nothing). Things that affect my existence tend to give me qualms.

No - it just makes us mor of an 'effect' than a 'cause'... which isn't the same as being 'nothing'.

I see nothing un-nerving about that... if it is, it is.

The illusion of intent is not intent. If that is what we have, then we do not have intent.
Correct. Except that the programmer would have labeled it "intent." The inevitable result would be to make "intent" a meaningless word.

As part of my on-going training in neuroscience, I have had the pleasure of personally measuring intent as it exists in the human cortex. I have as much reason to believe that intent exists as I have to believe that emotion and cognition exist. For whatever that is worth.

So does Soheran. ;)
Soheran definitely does not disappoint.

I think you are misusing the word "intend," if you actually have the intent to wash the dishes, then you will be taking steps to wash the dishes. Chances are that your intent to wash the dishes was superceded.

The central question is whether human beings actually intend, or whether intent simply happens to human beings.
I think you missed the joke. I admit it wasn't much of a joke, but...

My intent to wash the dishes is always superceded, it seems, usually by more pressing intentions to watch tv, pet the cat, talk on the phone, post to NSG, or even just stand in the kitchen, staring at the dishes and thinking about how much I really do want them to be clean. Perhaps my intent to wash the dishes is ultimately superceded by my desire not to wash the dishes. So what intent is represented by that desire?

I think you missed the joke. I admit it wasn't much of a joke, but...

I knew you made that statement jokingly, but I still thought you were trying to make a point.

My intent to wash the dishes is always superceded, it seems, usually by more pressing intentions to watch tv, pet the cat, talk on the phone, post to NSG, or even just stand in the kitchen, staring at the dishes and thinking about how much I really do want them to be clean. Perhaps my intent to wash the dishes is ultimately superceded by my desire not to wash the dishes. So what intent is represented by that desire?

Do you think that people are a stream of intention, in that, at any time, they only hold one intention, or do you believe that people can hold multiple intentions as any given time?

I knew you made that statement jokingly, but I still thought you were trying to make a point.
I was making a point, but I expected people to just shrug off the jokey parts of the statement.

Do you think that people are a stream of intention, in that, at any time, they only hold one intention, or do you believe that people can hold multiple intentions as any given time?
Multiple intentions. Oh and I should make clear I think humans do have the power to intend. I recognize the power of instinct and biological impulses to direct some intentions, but I do not think this is THE controlling power over our intellects. Also, I am willing to consider the existence of such a thing as "fate," but I also do not believe it is a total control on the human mind/will/whathaveyou.

We could still have the illusion of intent, if we were programmed to experience having an intention. But if we could step outside ourselves and see the programming, we would realize that in fact, we were just kidding ourselves and that our "intent" was nothing more than window dressing for a script that was already written and playing itself out without our input or control.

Of course, this is not what Jocabia was trying to say, but it is where my brain takes his argument. I have no idea whether that is intentional or not.

No, actually it's the natural conclusion of my argument. However, whether or not we would consider it an 'illusion' or windowdressing, we still have intent. The fact that if it turns out that our decisions are determined, it doesn't ignore that you are a unique individual that is the sum total of your experiences and how your programming drinks that in and reacts to it. You are an important bit of that programming and nothing in what I've suggested denies that. Of course, many people don't like to think of us as flesh computers for obvious reasons, but if they let go of the fact they find it offensive it really doesn't change anything about the way we do things and why we do it.

No - it just makes us mor of an 'effect' than a 'cause'... which isn't the same as being 'nothing'.

I see nothing un-nerving about that... if it is, it is.

I would say it's both. We are both a cause and an effect. We are part of the causal chain. We happen to a much more complicated, much more in depth part of that chain. Really, the thing that seperate us from the animals in that regard is that we are that much more complicated, more intricate, more beautiful.

Many people find this an uncomfortable thought, but I find it wonderful. It makes have a place in the universe along side every other life, every atom, every sun, every planet, etc. I find it unifying and amazing.

So many reject it, but they are quite comfortable with viewing other decision-makers in this fashion. Explain to me what animals have free will and what don't. What's the difference? What makes their form of decision-making so autonomic when ours is not.

I give us credit for the complexity of our actions but I don't mistake complexity for magic.

No, actually it's the natural conclusion of my argument.
Oh, cool. :)

However, whether or not we would consider it an 'illusion' or windowdressing, we still have intent. The fact that if it turns out that our decisions are determined, it doesn't ignore that you are a unique individual that is the sum total of your experiences and how your programming drinks that in and reacts to it. You are an important bit of that programming and nothing in what I've suggested denies that. Of course, many people don't like to think of us as flesh computers for obvious reasons, but if they let go of the fact they find it offensive it really doesn't change anything about the way we do things and why we do it.
Uh-huh. And if I bought a bag of Circus Peanuts, which are labeled as a food, then whether I consider them to be food or not, I would still have a bag of Circus Peanuts, which are labeled as a food. That doesn't mean that the makers of Circus Peanuts are necessarily right and that I am necessarily wrong, though.

I intend to post in this thread.

I would say it's both. We are both a cause and an effect. We are part of the causal chain. We happen to a much more complicated, much more in depth part of that chain. Really, the thing that seperate us from the animals in that regard is that we are that much more complicated, more intricate, more beautiful.

Many people find this an uncomfortable thought, but I find it wonderful. It makes have a place in the universe along side every other life, every atom, every sun, every planet, etc. I find it unifying and amazing.

So many reject it, but they are quite comfortable with viewing other decision-makers in this fashion. Explain to me what animals have free will and what don't. What's the difference? What makes their form of decision-making so autonomic when ours is not.

I give us credit for the complexity of our actions but I don't mistake complexity for magic.

AH... part of this I think I can answer... the reason why animals don't have free-will, and we do (according to the theoretical consensus, I mean... to me, there seems no reason animals shouldn't be as determinate(?) as we) is a good, old fashioned biblical sin - Pride.

You notice how often those who preach loudest about the sin of pride, ALSO wear their 'admission of pride' as a kind of badge of honour? False-modesty is STILL pride.

You notice those that yell loudest about the sin-nature of ALL humans... and how flawed we are, ALSO tend to be those who stick most religiously to the idea of 'man made in God's image'?

So - we must be special, and animals less so - because it fits a world view where humans WERE perfect, and fell from perfection... but - it is still being worn as a mark of how 'chosen' we are.


To complete the hijack - for me - evolution makes SO much more sense in a religious setting... it seems more logical to me that a God would create an absolutely inferior entity, and coach it to ascendency... than that a God would create a perfect, but tragically-flawed entity, that he was going to progressively trash over the next few millennia...

I would say it's both. We are both a cause and an effect. We are part of the causal chain. We happen to a much more complicated, much more in depth part of that chain. Really, the thing that seperate us from the animals in that regard is that we are that much more complicated, more intricate, more beautiful.

Many people find this an uncomfortable thought, but I find it wonderful. It makes have a place in the universe along side every other life, every atom, every sun, every planet, etc. I find it unifying and amazing.

So many reject it, but they are quite comfortable with viewing other decision-makers in this fashion. Explain to me what animals have free will and what don't. What's the difference? What makes their form of decision-making so autonomic when ours is not.

I give us credit for the complexity of our actions but I don't mistake complexity for magic.
Well, this is very pretty, J, but, it seems to be based on a human-centric world-view. Even though you are involving humanity in the "great web," you are still according a special status to human beings by claiming that we are the very bestest links in the chain, the most fabulous of all the cogs. The fact is, though, you have no evidence whatsoever to support such a belief with a foundation of fact. Rather, what evidence we have supports the view that there is nothing at all that separates us from the animals. We are animals, our behaviors do not differ significantly from the behaviors of other mammals, the physical processes of our lives are identical, and we do not yet have enough data to conclude that our emotional and mental processes are not similarly, um, similar.

I read your post as a new version of "What a piece of work is man." If anything makes me uncomfortable about it, it is that assumption of specialness. To me, it doesn't sound very much less magical than the belief that we are made in God's image with a special divine plan in mind.

Multiple intentions.

So a person can intend to do multiple things at any given time? Also that some intentions do not result in action?

Oh and I should make clear I think humans do have the power to intend. I recognize the power of instinct and biological impulses to direct some intentions, but I do not think this is THE controlling power over our intellects. Also, I am willing to consider the existence of such a thing as "fate," but I also do not believe it is a total control on the human mind/will/whathaveyou.

I don't know where a human being finds the capacity to rise above biological and external impulses to initiate intent.

Well, this is very pretty, J, but, it seems to be based on a human-centric world-view. Even though you are involving humanity in the "great web," you are still according a special status to human beings by claiming that we are the very bestest links in the chain, the most fabulous of all the cogs. The fact is, though, you have no evidence whatsoever to support such a belief with a foundation of fact. Rather, what evidence we have supports the view that there is nothing at all that separates us from the animals. We are animals, our behaviors do not differ significantly from the behaviors of other mammals, the physical processes of our lives are identical, and we do not yet have enough data to conclude that our emotional and mental processes are not similarly, um, similar.

I read your post as a new version of "What a piece of work is man." If anything makes me uncomfortable about it, it is that assumption of specialness. To me, it doesn't sound very much less magical than the belief that we are made in God's image with a special divine plan in mind.

You have to remember that I'm simply sticking to the topic. In terms of decision-making complexity we are the top of the food chain I would say (though there is the possibility that we simply don't realize the abilities of animals). That's the whole point and I attribute no more than this to that.

One could very easily that the true beauty is in simplicity by which scale one would have to place our role in the causal chain as fairly ugly by comparison to most animals.

I don't think we're objectively special, but with all current information, we are capable of the most complex thoughts. It's only one of a number of ways that one might measure 'specialness'.

You have to remember that I'm simply sticking to the topic. In terms of decision-making complexity we are the top of the food chain I would say (though there is the possibility that we simply don't realize the abilities of animals). That's the whole point and I attribute no more than this to that.

One could very easily that the true beauty is in simplicity by which scale one would have to place our role in the causal chain as fairly ugly by comparison to most animals.

I don't think we're objectively special, but with all current information, we are capable of the most complex thoughts. It's only one of a number of ways that one might measure 'specialness'.
I understand this, but I still reject the proposition. I object to the very concept of specialness. I also do not agree with what I think are your concepts of "complex" and "simple." Plus, I don't see how the subjective quality of "beauty" can be applied to one but not the other, no matter which one prefers. And I do not see how being able to formulate complex thoughts makes us special -- at all, subjectively or objectively.

So a person can intend to do multiple things at any given time? Also that some intentions do not result in action?
Yes.

I don't know where a human being finds the capacity to rise above biological and external impulses to initiate intent.
Neither do I.

I understand this, but I still reject the proposition. I object to the very concept of specialness. I also do not agree with what I think are your concepts of "complex" and "simple." Plus, I don't see how the subjective quality of "beauty" can be applied to one but not the other, no matter which one prefers. And I do not see how being able to formulate complex thoughts makes us special -- at all, subjectively or objectively.

Are we taller than spider monkeys? I didn't exactly suggest that one was more beautiful than the other. I was just saying we are talking about a particular issue which is about as clear as height. There is no question that our ability to make a decision is more complex than a starfish and that the decision-making of pig is somewhere in the middle. It doesn't make them less than us in general. But on a scale of complexity of thought we are more highly complex in that particular way.

Is it offensive to you to hear that Michael Jordan plays basketball better than you? In terms of basketball, he is clearly better. Is he a better person than you? Nope. But he is a better basketball player.

I have huge qualms. THIS big... (go qualms!)

The way I see it, if we do not determine things --if it is not US doing them --then that is effectively saying that "we" (the thing that makes us "us") do not exist, because that thing really has nothing else to do in this universe (take away its properties and it is nothing). Things that affect my existence tend to give me qualms.
I find that at THIS POINT i have no qualms about it either way, since i will already attribute the responsibility that i deem necessary to each circumstance for which i either have the illusion of intent or the actual intent to, and i may never be the wiser for it EVEN IF i garner the illusion of consequence or the actual consequence itself.
Of course, a healthy dose of skepticism, existentialism and solipsism all wrapped up in a drippy, fettered package of the cognizant tumult of days/nights passed all tends to be in order here, from which i speak (type).

Also - the fact that i can either intend AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON INTENT or that i can DELUDE MYSELF about the whole situation is quite quickly remedied by the incisive ultimatum of action tends to make me not have so many qualms, as well. :)

if it is, it is.
Tat tvam asi.
*bows*

So does Soheran. ;)
I may .. i just MAY have actually said that as well at some point. :)

No - it just makes us mor of an 'effect' than a 'cause'... which isn't the same as being 'nothing'.

I see nothing un-nerving about that... if it is, it is.
That's just it ... there is no "us" if we're an effect, because what is "us" is what DOES things and IS things --being a positive, assertive or active player in the game. "I am this thing." "I do this thing."

Correct. Except that the programmer would have labeled it "intent." The inevitable result would be to make "intent" a meaningless word.
It doesn't matter what a "programmer" labels it, it is not intent if it's illusory, and therefore the programmer did not program us for intent.

As part of my on-going training in neuroscience, I have had the pleasure of personally measuring intent as it exists in the human cortex. I have as much reason to believe that intent exists as I have to believe that emotion and cognition exist. For whatever that is worth.
But what did you actually measure?

I understand this, but I still reject the proposition. I object to the very concept of specialness. I also do not agree with what I think are your concepts of "complex" and "simple." Plus, I don't see how the subjective quality of "beauty" can be applied to one but not the other, no matter which one prefers. And I do not see how being able to formulate complex thoughts makes us special -- at all, subjectively or objectively.
What makes me special is that I'm unique. :D

...just like everyone else.

It doesn't matter what a "programmer" labels it, it is not intent if it's illusory, and therefore the programmer did not program us for intent.
I'm agreeing with you.

It doesn't matter what a "programmer" labels it, it is not intent if it's illusory, and therefore the programmer did not program us for intent.

Why? The question is "do you think you are capable of intent?" And if the answer is yes, it doesn't matter if it's based on an incorrect assumption, you are intending things. Intending is an action that you do. The fact that you are doing the action regardless of whether it's just some reaction or whether it's something that is non-causal doesn't change. If you performed the action of intending then what does it matter why you thought you were performing it. You still felt intent. And that's the point.

It's like love. So what if the actual mechanism of love is chemical, it's still love. Why does the fact that your body relies on chemicals to make us feel. It doesn't. Intent is the same.

That's just it ... there is no "us" if we're an effect, because what is "us" is what DOES things and IS things --being a positive, assertive or active player in the game. "I am this thing." "I do this thing."

You are all those things. And you're still a flesh computer. Being that doesn't make you less active. There's still a you that is still very much a player. It just doesn't work the way you'd like it too. Or at least, the evidence doesn't suggest it works that way.

Are we taller than spider monkeys? I didn't exactly suggest that one was more beautiful than the other. I was just saying we are talking about a particular issue which is about as clear as height. There is no question that our ability to make a decision is more complex than a starfish and that the decision-making of pig is somewhere in the middle. It doesn't make them less than us in general. But on a scale of complexity of thought we are more highly complex in that particular way.

Is it offensive to you to hear that Michael Jordan plays basketball better than you? In terms of basketball, he is clearly better. Is he a better person than you? Nope. But he is a better basketball player.
Excuse me, but I think you did imply a qualitative preference. You listed the concepts of complex, intricate and beautiful and you used the adverb "more." You applied all these qualifiers to humans, and you used them in the context of your general concept of a higher purpose in life as determined by an intentional creator. I think it pretty clear that you were expressing a belief that humans are more these things than other creatures, and your use of the word "beautiful" strongly implies a positive preference. i.e. a qualitative judgment. But now you are saying that you just meant we are functionally different from other creatures? Hm. If you say so.

My objection is not based on comparison of individuals. Of course I am not offended that Michael Jackson is a better basketball player than me, just as I hope it will not offend him if I look better in a skirt that he does.

But I do not think that the functionality of the human brain is more complex, intricate, beautiful or any such thing than the functionality of the body of a starfish. I think they are both equally amazing and both equally likely to be important to the universe, for all that I know of the needs of the universe. Yes, the differences in the functionality of humans versus other creatures are as clear as height. What is not so clear to me is the "specialness" that was also quite clear by your choice of words earlier. Human functionality is what makes us perfect as humans. Starfish functionality is what makes starfish perfect as starfish. I see all beings in the universe as perfect. Since "perfect" is an absolute condition, there can be no qualitative comparison between perfect beings. I am not convinced -- in fact I actively doubt -- that the complex decision-making abilities of humans is more important to the universe than the ocean-bottom-cleaning abilities of a starfish (or whatever it is those critters do). I'm not trying to convince you of this; I'm just trying to explain my point of view.

But here is what I do challenge you on: What precisely does this have to do with "a higher purpose"?

I suggest that, if the connection is that god made us special so we could carry out his higher purpose, then you would be characterizing humans as "god's chosen creatures," as it were, i.e. better and more special than other life forms.

EDIT: I realize I am jumping the boundary between this thread and its parent thread, but we wouldn't have this one if it wasn't for that one, and anyway, why would we need to be special in order to form the intent to do what we do, if a starfish can do what it does without the specialness required to form intent? It would seem that you are suggesting an intent to do something beyond mere life functions.

It is quite simple really:

Either you make allowances for a form of intent where which intent can be relative to the demands of external and internal stimuli or nothing except perfection can ever have intent.


Put plainly either all intelligent beings in the universe have intent (albeit in some limited fashion) or nothing in this universe (and I do mean nothing) has intent.



If all of you "intent naysayers" are willing to live with the consequences of your definition of intent requiring freedom from all stimuli, then so be it. But it strikes me as rather odd (if not down right hilarious) that we have a word for something which cannot possibly exist.

NT

Excuse me, but I think you did imply a qualitative preference. You listed the concepts of complex, intricate and beautiful and you used the adverb "more." You applied all these qualifiers to humans, and you used them in the context of your general concept of a higher purpose in life as determined by an intentional creator.

No, I didn't. I was talking about a Creator at all. This is causality I'm talking about and it does not require a Creator.

I use 'more' referring to the complexity.

Here's what I said -

We happen to a much more complicated, much more in depth part of that chain.

I am again talking about the causal chain of decision-making. It's on a specific scale. The beauty is in the connection. I don't view us as the pinnacle of creation. I can imagine a number of reasons why our flaws might be necessary, but I can't pretend they do not exist.

Don't mix the two threads together. Yes, I believe in a creator, but my views, my actual views on the universe place values at the pinnacle of creation, not humanity. And those values exist outside of us, greater than us, and in most cases in spite of us.

I can see how you got what you got, but go back and read what I wrote again in that context. It's actually why I find our connection to everything else to be so beautiful. For other creatures enjoying that connection is quite natural, but our pride causes us to fight that connection. It's precisely the fact that we wish to view ourselves at the apex of the pyramid that we have such difficulty feeling that connection. It's why people get upset when we're treated like just another part of the causal chain, thought a much more complex node in the flow. It's the primary cause of the resistance of people to the idea of causality extending to us.

We are only apex if we limit the argument to a particular kind of activity. For our purposes here, we are. And I can see where you might think that I would feel like this is the most important way in which to measure, so many do, but I think when looking at humans it's not their complexity that I find impressive. In the end, I'm far more impressed by humans who can look past intelligence and see themselves as just another cog in the great machine.

EDIT: And this thread was not intended to be about this. I created it jokingly as a result of the other thread. Our discussion of intent and free will is not directly related to a higher purpose. In fact, it was meant to be more directly connected to personal purpose. The concept that we are not just part of causality is much more reliant on a Creator, than a simple causality model is. It relies on no higher purpose and if a higher purpose exists it would not change the mode of causality.

What makes me special is that I'm unique. :D

...just like everyone else.
...that's the sweet stuff. :)

Of course I am not offended that Michael Jackson is a better basketball player than me, just as I hope it will not offend him if I look better in a skirt that he does.

I like yer evil there. Good context, good delivery. *bows*

Why? The question is "do you think you are capable of intent?" And if the answer is yes, it doesn't matter if it's based on an incorrect assumption, you are intending things. Intending is an action that you do. The fact that you are doing the action regardless of whether it's just some reaction or whether it's something that is non-causal doesn't change. If you performed the action of intending then what does it matter why you thought you were performing it. You still felt intent. And that's the point.

It's like love. So what if the actual mechanism of love is chemical, it's still love. Why does the fact that your body relies on chemicals to make us feel. It doesn't. Intent is the same.
If it's illusion of intent then that's what the programmer programmed us for, unless he failed entirely in his program. That's still not intent. It does matter to me.

The "actual mechanism of love" is not love, it is the mechanism of love. Love is a blossoming flower in early morning dew.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the body "relies on chemicals to make us feel" and think, that the physical aspect of these things is what generates them. That's common sense. I do have a problem with those who entirely deny their non-physical, metaphysical nature. That's just irrational. The immaterial is not illusory, it's immaterial.

You are all those things. And you're still a flesh computer. Being that doesn't make you less active. There's still a you that is still very much a player. It just doesn't work the way you'd like it too. Or at least, the evidence doesn't suggest it works that way.
Oh? What is the way I'd like it to?

It is quite simple really:

Either you make allowances for a form of intent where which intent can be relative to the demands of external and internal stimuli or nothing except perfection can ever have intent.
Just curious: what does perfection have to do with anything?

Good book on this subject ( although I disagree with it's conclusion ) is Schopenhauer's "on the freedom of the will". Personally I come down on the side of free will, not that my two pence is worth diddly squat.

The "actual mechanism of love" is not love, it is the mechanism of love. Love is a blossoming flower in early morning dew.
Perfect. Intent is exactly like that. The program is the just the mechanism of intent. Intent is a blossoming flower in the early morning dew. Or well, it's some kind of flower with thorns and it's kind of pretty in the right light. But you get the picture.

Oh? What is the way I'd like it to?

Different than how I'm describing.

Tat tvam asi.
*bows*

Ah. Wise words. Words to meditate on.

Tat Tvam Asi

It's like what I said, only moreso. :)

That's just it ... there is no "us" if we're an effect, because what is "us" is what DOES things and IS things --being a positive, assertive or active player in the game. "I am this thing." "I do this thing."

Why?

What if 'us' is actually defined by experience, rather than by action?

(Thinking about it - our bodies seem greatly influenced by what they DO, but our minds seem shaped by what they 'see'...)

I like yer evil there. Good context, good delivery. *bows*
I used the wrong celebrity name though. Michael Jackson doesn't play basketball. I meant Michael Jordan. I think Michael Jackson would actually look better in a skirt than Michael Jordan, but I'm still confident I would look the best of the three of us. However, judging from the way I play basketball, Michael Jackson probably would be better at it than me. Dead people are better at basketball than I am.

No, I didn't. I was talking about a Creator at all. This is causality I'm talking about and it does not require a Creator.

I use 'more' referring to the complexity.

Here's what I said -



I am again talking about the causal chain of decision-making. It's on a specific scale. The beauty is in the connection. I don't view us as the pinnacle of creation. I can imagine a number of reasons why our flaws might be necessary, but I can't pretend they do not exist.

Don't mix the two threads together. Yes, I believe in a creator, but my views, my actual views on the universe place values at the pinnacle of creation, not humanity. And those values exist outside of us, greater than us, and in most cases in spite of us.

I can see how you got what you got, but go back and read what I wrote again in that context. It's actually why I find our connection to everything else to be so beautiful. For other creatures enjoying that connection is quite natural, but our pride causes us to fight that connection. It's precisely the fact that we wish to view ourselves at the apex of the pyramid that we have such difficulty feeling that connection. It's why people get upset when we're treated like just another part of the causal chain, thought a much more complex node in the flow. It's the primary cause of the resistance of people to the idea of causality extending to us.

We are only apex if we limit the argument to a particular kind of activity. For our purposes here, we are. And I can see where you might think that I would feel like this is the most important way in which to measure, so many do, but I think when looking at humans it's not their complexity that I find impressive. In the end, I'm far more impressed by humans who can look past intelligence and see themselves as just another cog in the great machine.
I see what you are saying. I cannot disagree with it on the whole, because it is a perfectly valid point of view to have. There are still fundamental points of disagreement, but they are so minute, that I think I will abandon them and wait for meatier bones to come up for picking.

EDIT: And this thread was not intended to be about this. I created it jokingly as a result of the other thread. Our discussion of intent and free will is not directly related to a higher purpose. In fact, it was meant to be more directly connected to personal purpose. The concept that we are not just part of causality is much more reliant on a Creator, than a simple causality model is. It relies on no higher purpose and if a higher purpose exists it would not change the mode of causality.
And the lesson is: Jokes are the most volatile form of communication known to man.

Why?

What if 'us' is actually defined by experience, rather than by action?

(Thinking about it - our bodies seem greatly influenced by what they DO, but our minds seem shaped by what they 'see'...)
I included experience in what I said. Experience is the "IS" and action is the "DOES", and neither are "us". We are the thing *doing* the action, and the thing *having* the experience.

Different than how I'm describing.
How evasive. :D

Perfect. Intent is exactly like that. The program is the just the mechanism of intent. Intent is a blossoming flower in the early morning dew. Or well, it's some kind of flower with thorns and it's kind of pretty in the right light. But you get the picture.
Then the program for intent is not one for an illusory thing, but one designed to produce the actual thing, i.e. the mechanism.

Then the program for intent is not one for an illusory thing, but one designed to produce the actual thing, i.e. the mechanism.

Yes, that's the point though. I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me on purpose or not. Intent is the result of the program and it leads to another program running that creates the action. It is one of the inputs into the will program that wills an action or does not and that output creates the actually motor activity that performs the action. Intent is simply the name we give to the output of the program we are discussing.

Yes, that's the point though. I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me on purpose or not. Intent is the result of the program and it leads to another program running that creates the action. It is one of the inputs into the will program that wills an action or does not and that output creates the actually motor activity that performs the action. Intent is simply the name we give to the output of the program we are discussing.
No, the point I was arguing at this point in the thread was that illusory intent is not intent (Muravyets, post #53), so the program that wrote intent could not produce illusory intent unless the programmer made a big boo-boo.

I don't know what you think I was agreeing with you about. :p I still disagree that the computer analogy fits us appropriately, and that we have no self-determination (post #9).

No, the point I was arguing at this point in the thread was that illusory intent is not intent (Muravyets, post #53), so the program that wrote intent could not produce illusory intent unless the programmer made a big boo-boo.

I'm not claiming the intent is illusory. It's just how some people view it. The programmer didn't make a boo-boo if programmer was trying to make a program that ended with us feeling intent and feeding the next part of our programming. Some would call the 'intent' feeling illusory, just as some would call the 'love' feeling illusory upon hearing the natural explanation of it, but both operate within design specs and both are rewarding to the causal chain as well as to the flesh computer.

I don't know what you think I was agreeing with you about. :p I still disagree that the computer analogy fits us appropriately, and that we have no self-determination (post #9).
Because the self is a part of the determination program, we do have exactly that. We are the sum of our experiences and our parts. The self exists because if I substitution another 'self' in there, I get a different output. The issue you take is that I claim the self is generated and you want to assign some sort of metaphysical component to the self. Regardless of which it is, however, the self exists.

Yes.

I would say that intents must be mutually exclusive, one cannot intend to act in two different ways at once.

Neither do I.

Then where do they find this ability to originate intent?

How evasive. :D

I wasn't actually being evasive. It was the best answer I knew how to give.

I would say that intents must be mutually exclusive, one cannot intend to act in two different ways at once.
I didn't say people can intend to act in two different ways at once about the same thing. I said people can have multiple intentions at the same time. They can be intentions about different things coming up simultaneously. In that case, the intentions would be competing rather than mutually contradictory.

Then where do they find this ability to originate intent?
I don't know.

EDIT: Scratch that. I believe the ability to originate intent is inherent in our consciousness. Where does the consciousness come from? Everywhere and nowhere. I said earlier in this thread that I view both life and individual selves as eternal, perfect, a continuous cycle without beginning or end. What purpose is fulfilled by life/consciousness/intent? Beyond pragmatic applications in every day existence, I do not believe there is a purpose. Why do we need intent, or even consciousness? I don't know.

I didn't say people can intend to act in two different ways at once about the same thing. I said people can have multiple intentions at the same time. They can be intentions about different things coming up simultaneously. In that case, the intentions would be competing rather than mutually contradictory.

I think you are conflating desire and intent.

I don't know.

EDIT: Scratch that. I believe the ability to originate intent is inherent in our consciousness. Where does the consciousness come from? Everywhere and nowhere. I said earlier in this thread that I view both life and individual selves as eternal, perfect, a continuous cycle without beginning or end. What purpose is fulfilled by life/consciousness/intent? Beyond pragmatic applications in every day existence, I do not believe there is a purpose. Why do we need intent, or even consciousness? I don't know.

I don't think consciousness is proactive, I think it only receives perception.

Seems like the answer is obvious to me, but some individuals seem intent on arguing that point. Since I was asking a different question in the other thread, I thought I would make this one so that it could be discussed here and we can focus on the point of the other thread.

I really am interested in seeing if anyone disagrees and says people are not capable of intent.

EDIT: My position is, yes, people can intend to do things.
"Intent" is an illusion unless accompanied by action consonant with said intent. :p

I see two extremes:

First: we're totally free. Easy to wrap our heads round as we've pretty much been beleiving this for.... forever. Absolute free will and our only constraints being that of the physical world and those dogmas we choose to live by.

Second: The universe is nihilistic and predetermined (though not in a sense where someone necessarily knows what will happen, but there is a course set none the less). Nothing is random and all actions are merely reactions from one initial action (eg, big bang), including the unknown things that happen in our brains which constitutes what we understand as intent.

Either way, neither can really be proven as they are each utterly water-tight insofar as neither can really be disproved. So..... what does it matter which you believe? Either all actions and reactions are predetermined because it's just another domino in the run, or we're masters of our own destiny and our actions relate directly to our intent. Either way, it doesn't or needn't effect our daily lives in a practical sense.

One odd testimony for you though - not sure which side could take this and run with it:

Some time ago back when I was in school, I as many a teenager does, found the beauty in doing nothing. Just being able to sit with nothing but peace and turning your brain off for a while (that now seems impossible and a waste of time - how much simpler it was then....ah). In so doing, I ran a little experiment because I got to thinking about how strange it was that I merely had to think about moving a limb and it just did it. Over examining it all, it just seemed outright weird/amazing that there was not a conscious part of me that needed to give due consideration to which muscles to activate and which to relax. Then I thought about not moving whichever limb it was. After this, I tried to move again but it was as though my conscious thoughts had become divorced from my body and so it became impossible to move. Both odd and scary - not actual paralysis but a kind of self made paralysis because I was caught in my own little thought experiment. It took a violent mental jolt to make me snap out of it - the equivalent of a kick up the arse but within my conscious thoughts. Then I was back in control again.

So, was that predetermined that I would think like that and those subsequent reactions (or lack of) merely part of that poiunt in the existence of the universe, or was I in direct control, making a conscious effort to separate thought and body?

It was an odd experience and not one I've ever been keen to attempt again, but it seemed somehow....slightly....kinda relevant.



Kin Wicked
Leader of the Wikaedian People

I think you are conflating desire and intent.
I don't think so. I intend to build a career as a self-employed artist. I also intend to build my bank account by a certain amount within a certain time frame. Both of those are practical projects which will be carried out by actions which are fueled by intent. In other words, I have already moved them off the "desires" list and onto the "things to do" list. I have begun both projects. However, it turns out that the functionality of launching an arts career and the functionality of making money quickly do not mesh. I cannot do both at the same time. So, I have to choose which to defer. Two intents that compete with each other for action.

I don't think consciousness is proactive, I think it only receives perception.
I disagree, obviously.

"Intent" is an illusion unless accompanied by action consonant with said intent. :p
Well, it might appear Grendel and myself have an agreement upon something!

Also - the fact that i can either intend AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON INTENT or that i can DELUDE MYSELF about the whole situation is quite quickly remedied by the incisive ultimatum of action tends to make me not have so many qualms, as well.

I used the wrong celebrity name though. Michael Jackson doesn't play basketball. I meant Michael Jordan. I think Michael Jackson would actually look better in a skirt than Michael Jordan, but I'm still confident I would look the best of the three of us. However, judging from the way I play basketball, Michael Jackson probably would be better at it than me. Dead people are better at basketball than I am.
I had my suspicions about that, but i'm admittedly poorly-educated in matters Jackson (and Jordan as well), so i went along with the joke to see where it would lead.
And indeed, it did.
:)

And dead people ... George? Mason? Rube?

I had my suspicions about that, but i'm admittedly poorly-educated in matters Jackson (and Jordan as well), so i went along with the joke to see where it would lead.
And indeed, it did.
:)

And dead people ... George? Mason? Rube?
They're all better at basketball than me -- and I don't even know who they are. :D

They're all better at basketball than me -- and I don't even know who they are. :D
Dead Like Me.

A most excellent and depressingly shortlived cable series. :(
Rube is THE Montoya from "The Inigo Montoya Principle".
And the Crestor commercials.

Dead Like Me.

A most excellent and depressingly shortlived cable series. :(
Rube is THE Montoya from "The Inigo Montoya Principle".
And the Crestor commercials.
Ah. Mandy Patankin. No wonder I didn't watch it (Inigo Montoya was the best thing he ever did). But yes, I'd bet he's WAY better at b-ball than me. ;)

Ah. Mandy Patankin. No wonder I didn't watch it (Inigo Montoya was the best thing he ever did). But yes, I'd bet he's WAY better at b-ball than me. ;)
I know he's done some biking, but i don't know how savvy he is on court. *shrugs*

I totally and utterly recommend that show as an affable expenditure of time and consciousness. I'm still a bit miffed about them quitting so early. TOO early. :(

I'm not claiming the intent is illusory. It's just how some people view it. The programmer didn't make a boo-boo if programmer was trying to make a program that ended with us feeling intent and feeding the next part of our programming. Some would call the 'intent' feeling illusory, just as some would call the 'love' feeling illusory upon hearing the natural explanation of it, but both operate within design specs and both are rewarding to the causal chain as well as to the flesh computer.
That I agree with, in context.

Because the self is a part of the determination program, we do have exactly that. We are the sum of our experiences and our parts. The self exists because if I substitution another 'self' in there, I get a different output. The issue you take is that I claim the self is generated and you want to assign some sort of metaphysical component to the self. Regardless of which it is, however, the self exists.
Then there not "no other choice", okay.

I don't think that cause-and-effect is like a program, though. A program implies a programmer and an intended, deliberate outcome; it is a plan. WE make plans, we don't know that Nature does. That's a TREMENDOUS leap from not knowing to knowing. It suggests that Nature is alive, that it has a consciousness comparable to our own...

When a certain effect follows a cause, I don't even know that another effect COULDN'T have happened --I can't even know enough to say that. How can others? How can you?

I disagree with your assessment of my position on 'self'. I don't think I've actually explained myself to you on this board, unless you've read other threads I've posted in.

"Intent" is an illusion unless accompanied by action consonant with said intent. :p
Define illusion, please.

Second: The universe is nihilistic and predetermined...
Those terms are mutually exclusive. If the universe is predetermined then it obeys set laws.

I believe that the Universe is physically deterministic.

However, since our psychological traits are high-level, loose descriptions of neural processes of unthinkable complexity, "Intent" does indeed exist, more or less the same way Temperature exists, even if it maps onto molecular motion.

I would say that intents must be mutually exclusive, one cannot intend to act in two different ways at once.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that people can and often do intend to act in two (or more) different ways at once.

Then where do they find this ability to originate intent?
Why would we expect that it is possible to find an ability to originate intent, and that if it is possible that it is possible for humans to do so? Or were you meaning to imply that finding an ability to originate intent a necessary prerequisite for humans to characterised by 'intent'?

I think you are conflating desire and intent.
A desire is a 'want/wish', an intent is an act of either emotion or reasoning, that has the capacity and tendency to influence behaviour and acts.

That I agree with, in context.


Then there not "no other choice", okay.

I don't think that cause-and-effect is like a program, though. A program implies a programmer and an intended, deliberate outcome; it is a plan. WE make plans, we don't know that Nature does. That's a TREMENDOUS leap from not knowing to knowing. It suggests that Nature is alive, that it has a consciousness comparable to our own...

No, it doesn't require a plan. The program we are talking about is an organic one. The designer is the laws of nature. It requires no more deliberateness than a gravity program or an energy program. And yes, I can create a program with specs that will cause it to create other programs. Given enough and enough materials it's likely that organics would create things we could adequately compare to programs. Programs in their simplest forms are nothing more than a set of laws by which things that operate within must abide.

When a certain effect follows a cause, I don't even know that another effect COULDN'T have happened --I can't even know enough to say that. How can others? How can you?

We do it all the time. You accept causality because you'd be dead if you didn't. Yes, it's possible that you can point a gun at your head and pull the trigger and flowers will burst forth with a sweet, sweet scent. Please don't try it, however. And I doubt you would. We can't know anything. However, if we're going to have a reasonable discussion, we have to treat what we observe as if it's real and all observable evidence points to a causal relationship.

I disagree with your assessment of my position on 'self'. I don't think I've actually explained myself to you on this board, unless you've read other threads I've posted in.
I was worried I wasn't capturing it right. I actually thought better of using you as an example after I did it. I've read a lot of what you've read about it, but I've always been a bit bad at capturing other people's positions when I don't agree with them.

No, it doesn't require a plan. The program we are talking about is an organic one. The designer is the laws of nature. It requires no more deliberateness than a gravity program or an energy program. And yes, I can create a program with specs that will cause it to create other programs. Given enough and enough materials it's likely that organics would create things we could adequately compare to programs. Programs in their simplest forms are nothing more than a set of laws by which things that operate within must abide.
Ah! So you're talking about a program that's not a program; in other words, a definition of program that I am not familiar with and isn't in my dictionary. Okay, I can work with that.

We do it all the time. You accept causality because you'd be dead if you didn't. Yes, it's possible that you can point a gun at your head and pull the trigger and flowers will burst forth with a sweet, sweet scent. Please don't try it, however. And I doubt you would. We can't know anything. However, if we're going to have a reasonable discussion, we have to treat what we observe as if it's real and all observable evidence points to a causal relationship.
No, I accept causality because everything I know and everything I perceive is past tense. It's already happened. Cause has already had an effect, and then I preceive it. Any determination of outcome has already gone down, and can't be changed. But I don't know if there could have been another way it could have gone down.

I was worried I wasn't capturing it right. I actually thought better of using you as an example after I did it. I've read a lot of what you've read about it, but I've always been a bit bad at capturing other people's positions when I don't agree with them.
'kay.

Ah! So you're talking about a program that's not a program; in other words, a definition of program that I am not familiar with and isn't in my dictionary. Okay, I can work with that.

It's analogy. You're not a computer either.

No, I accept causality because everything I know and everything I perceive is past tense. It's already happened. Cause has already had an effect, and then I preceive it. Any determination of outcome has already gone down, and can't be changed. But I don't know if there could have been another way it could have gone down.

'kay.

The point is that you accept it in so many ways even in regards to future events. Do you think any outcome is possible when you pull the trigger on a gun or do you expect that the outcome is fixed (at the point when you pull the trigger)? If it doesn't go off do you think some magical entity switched out the bullet with a dud or do you think a dud was made purchased and put there? I don't suggest that the outcome is always fixed. I claim that the outcome is fixed when all of the factors are the same.

There is no reason to believe the human brain works any differently than that.

It's analogy. You're not a computer either.
But not a good analogy. If the processes of nature are to be compared to a program, and a plan is a vital part of the function of a program, then the analogy you are making is going to include a plan in the processes of nature.

The point is that you accept it in so many ways even in regards to future events. Do you think any outcome is possible when you pull the trigger on a gun or do you expect that the outcome is fixed (at the point when you pull the trigger)? If it doesn't go off do you think some magical entity switched out the bullet with a dud or do you think a dud was made purchased and put there? I don't suggest that the outcome is always fixed. I claim that the outcome is fixed when all of the factors are the same.

There is no reason to believe the human brain works any differently than that.
You are correct, if I go to pull the trigger only two outcomes present themselves to me to predict what the gun will do, based on what has happened before: the gun will go off, or it will fail to go off. And I don't imagine that the brain (a physical object) works much differently.

But not a good analogy. If the processes of nature are to be compared to a program, and a plan is a vital part of the function of a program, then the analogy you are making is going to include a plan in the processes of nature.

Analogies only extend as far as the creator of the analogy would like them to. You could argue that comparing a man to a cat in an analogy doesn't work because he doesn't have whiskers, but it's not really germaine.

You are correct, if I go to pull the trigger only two outcomes present themselves to me to predict what the gun will do, based on what has happened before: the gun will go off, or it will fail to go off. And I don't imagine that the brain (a physical object) works much differently.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that people can and often do intend to act in two (or more) different ways at once.

I cannot imagine that, in the moment that intent causes action, that a person can intend to do two things at once. It seems that, since we are incapable of behaving in two separate manners at once, holding two intentions would only lead to indecision and ultimately inaction.

Why would we expect that it is possible to find an ability to originate intent, and that if it is possible that it is possible for humans to do so? Or were you meaning to imply that finding an ability to originate intent a necessary prerequisite for humans to characterised by 'intent'?

I believe that people can possess intent, I believe it is something that happens to them, rather than something originated in them.

What that addressed was Muravyets statement that he believed that humans "have the power to intend", in and of themselves (at least that is how I interpreted it).

A desire is a 'want/wish', an intent is an act of either emotion or reasoning, that has the capacity and tendency to influence behaviour and acts.

I would define "intent" as an effect and cause of acts, rather than an act itself. Where he was using intent to describe future goals and desires, I would use intent to describe the state of mind that brings about action.

Analogies only extend as far as the creator of the analogy would like them to. You could argue that comparing a man to a cat in an analogy doesn't work because he doesn't have whiskers, but it's not really germaine.
No, it's more like comparing a man to a cat that is in no way like a cat. Your program is not a program.

No, it's more like comparing a man to a cat that is in no way like a cat. Your program is not a program.

So I haven't described any way that a person is like a flesh computer. Huh. And here I thought we discussed it for several pages. Interesting that suddenly there are NO similarities. Golly.

Your computer analogy is lost on me, foolish mortal. I belong to an era pre-1980's, when computers were nothing more than large boxes with flashing lights and whirley noises that occasionally talk (come to think of it, they still are) and in no way resemble a human being.

I have programmed (in binary, no less) and a program is a plan to take inputs and produce outputs. Your program, you admit, is not a plan, therefore it is a program that is not program.

Your computer analogy is lost on me, foolish mortal. I belong to an era pre-1980's, when computers were nothing more than large boxes with flashing lights and whirley noises that occasionally talk (come to think of it, they still are) and in no way resemble a human being.

I have programmed (in binary, no less) and a program is a plan to take inputs and produce outputs. Your program, you admit, is not a plan, therefore it is a program that is not program.

Ha, so you simplified a definition and I don't abide by it so my analogy doesn't work. You got the important parts. It takes inputs and gives outputs. For our purposes what goes on inside the black box and how it got there is unimportant.

A program: 6 a : a plan for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer) b : a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a computer) c : a sequence of coded instructions (as genes or behavioral responses) that is part of an organism

We can definitely be described as encoded with instructions. The program analogy stands. In fact, hmmmm.... what's part c of that definition? I guess even the makers of the Mirriam-Webster dictionary liked my analogy. Interesting choice on their part since according to you I misused the definition.

I cannot imagine that, in the moment that intent causes action, that a person can intend to do two things at once. It seems that, since we are incapable of behaving in two separate manners at once, holding two intentions would only lead to indecision and ultimately inaction.
However, you did not respond to the post in which I explained that that's not what I was saying.

When I said "multiple intents," I meant intents about different things coming up simultaneously. Thus you would be intending to do only one thing about each thing, but you would be dealing with both things at the same time. Like my intents about my career and my intents about my bank account. Two different things, each with one intent, both happening simultaneously and conflicting/competing with each other. Faced with two intents at the same time, I must consciously choose which to act on.

Why not let me know if that makes sense to you, rather than continuing to puzzle over something I wasn't saying?

I believe that people can possess intent, I believe it is something that happens to them, rather than something originated in them.

What that addressed was Muravyets statement that he believed that humans "have the power to intend", in and of themselves (at least that is how I interpreted it).
You interpreted correctly.

FYI, it's she.

I would define "intent" as an effect and cause of acts, rather than an act itself. Where he was using intent to describe future goals and desires, I would use intent to describe the state of mind that brings about action.
I see intent as related to desire, but not the same thing. Intent is a driving force behind action. However, I pointed out -- and I think this is what started this -- that intent does not always lead to action. I mentioned this in response to Jocabia's argument that intent is programmed into us. One of my only slightly facetious objections was that it was not a very useful program as it does not always result in anything, and I suggested that the program for intent and the program for action must be separate.

If we treat the point seriously, however, it more likely that it is because the process of realizing intent through action can be interrupted. As you pointed out, the intent can be superceded before the action is realized, and that, perhaps, is why every day ends at my house with a sink full of dirty dishes, despite my intention to wash them.

FYI, it's she.

AND HOW!!!

AND HOW!!!
Calm down, you. ;)

Calm down, you. ;)
Well, i second it.
And congrats on your postrank. :)

Not sure what that prior discussion/debate was.. but ofcourse we are capable of intent. DuH.

Ha, so you simplified a definition and I don't abide by it so my analogy doesn't work. You got the important parts. It takes inputs and gives outputs. For our purposes what goes on inside the black box and how it got there is unimportant.

A program: 6 a : a plan for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer) b : a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a computer) c : a sequence of coded instructions (as genes or behavioral responses) that is part of an organism

We can definitely be described as encoded with instructions. The program analogy stands. In fact, hmmmm.... what's part c of that definition? I guess even the makers of the Mirriam-Webster dictionary liked my analogy. Interesting choice on their part since according to you I misused the definition.
"B" still requires a plan, because a human is ultimately responsible and humans manipulate machines with a work-saving purpose.

"C" then is what you're talking about, but that makes no analogy to a machine computer. The examples there are biological ones.

But you're right, the use of the term program stands, though no longer as an analogy.

Well, i second it.
And congrats on your postrank. :)
Why, is it some kind of a milestone? Do I get a prize? Will there be cake?

"B" still requires a plan, because a human is ultimately responsible and humans manipulate machines with a work-saving purpose.

"C" then is what you're talking about, but that makes no analogy to a machine computer. The examples there are biological ones.

But you're right, the use of the term program stands, though no longer as an analogy.

It is an analogy. I can't believe you don't know what an analogy is. It's not an exact comparison. It's a general comparison. And it is, in many ways, similar. If you were correct that this analogy does not stand than it wouldn't be dissimilar in some ways, it would be dissimilar in all ways, something you CANNOT show.

Analogy - 2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Notice anything about that definition. I made a comparison based on some particulars between two things that are otherwise unlike. If you can show me how that's not an analogy and Webster is wrong, I'd love to see it.

It is an analogy. I can't believe you don't know what an analogy is. It's not an exact comparison. It's a general comparison. And it is, in many ways, similar. If you were correct that this analogy does not stand than it wouldn't be dissimilar in some ways, it would be dissimilar in all ways, something you CANNOT show.
Alright, I retract everything I've said to date. You're right, 6.c is an analogy that compares biological 'program' to a computer program. Your 'determinism' is an analogy that compares cause-and-effect to a computer program.

I know what an analogy is; all I am saying (over and over) is that the analogy doesn't work for me. Now I know, it is not required that it work for me in order for it to be an analogy --that's not what I'm saying, either. It doesn't work to actually explain to me what you are trying to say (and assuming everyone will automatically understand). I'm saying that it doesn't work for me, because a program is a plan.

Alright, I retract everything I've said to date. You're right, 6.c is an analogy that compares biological 'program' to a computer program. Your 'determinism' is an analogy that compares cause-and-effect to a computer program.

I know what an analogy is; all I am saying (over and over) is that the analogy doesn't work for me. Now I know, it is not required that it work for me in order for it to be an analogy --that's not what I'm saying, either. It doesn't work to actually explain to me what you are trying to say (and assuming everyone will automatically understand). I'm saying that it doesn't work for me, because a program is a plan.

Well, pretend, just pretend, that it's a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism or a computer. Pretend that the word program means that. And pretend that I'm referring to the fact that the inputs (your experiences and the events in the world around you) are put in and that the outputs (your thoughts and actions) are put out. And pretend, just pretend that I'm referring to your brain being the computer or mechanism and that it runs the program and that it uses those programs and some others to control your body. Let's pretend that's the analogy I made.

You can treat it like a game. A game where we don't treat it as a bad analogy because you don't like the conclusions.

Well, pretend, just pretend, that it's a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism or a computer. Pretend that the word program means that. And pretend that I'm referring to the fact that the inputs (your experiences and the events in the world around you) are put in and that the outputs (your thoughts and actions) are put out. And pretend, just pretend that I'm referring to your brain being the computer or mechanism and that it runs the program and that it uses those programs and some others to control your body. Let's pretend that's the analogy I made.
Let me puzzle this out. Instructions are coded *by* someone or something, and if there is an intended outcome then you have yourself a plan in place. If there is no intended outcome, then you either have random events (events whose outcome is unpredictable to a conscious observer) or predictable events. How do we, the observers, distinguish between the two, or say that all events have a predictable outcome?

I see no reason to assume based on my observation of events that the outcome that happened MUST happen.

The alternative is that you are looking at it totally objectively, in which case predictability is not even an issue. All variables ARE taken into account and all events do have a predictable outcome. You have removed the subject (the observer) from the picture.

(I'm just going to avoid the word 'program' as I still think it's a bad analogy.)

Let me puzzle this out. Instructions are coded *by* someone or something, and if there is an intended outcome then you have yourself a plan in place.

Let's assume it's the natural outcome of the set of instructions.

If there is no intended outcome, then you have random events (events whose outcome is unpredictable to a conscious observer).

Don't confuse intended with expected. There is an expected outcome. We needn't know if someone or something intended said outcome.

So once again, you have (as I said earlier) no basis on which to presume that the outcome you observe could not have been something other than what happened.

Yes, I do. You've not shown anything. Prove it's random. Go ahead. I'll wait. As of yet, there's no evidence that it's even possible that it's random.

Meanwhile, there have been tons of studies done to show that researchers can get a given output by fixing the inputs.

I see no reason to assume that the outcome that happened MUST happen.

(I'm just going to avoid the word 'program' as I still think it's a bad analogy.)

Since I'm using the words correctly and you're trying to use them differently than I used them and it's my analogy, I fear this is nothing I can do about that. The analogy works and it uses the words in exactly the way intended by me and by the dictionary.

Let's assume it's the natural outcome of the set of instructions.



Don't confuse intended with expected. There is an expected outcome. We needn't know if someone or something intended said outcome.



Yes, I do. You've not shown anything. Prove it's random. Go ahead. I'll wait. As of yet, there's no evidence that it's even possible that it's random.

Meanwhile, there have been tons of studies done to show that researchers can get a given output by fixing the inputs.
I made some edits to my post after posting.

I made some edits to my post after posting.

Well, that's no fun. Now you covered your bases and we essentially agree. Rarrgh! What are we gonna do now? I say you're too short to ride on The Joker rollercoaster. What do you think about that?

Well, that's no fun. Now you covered your bases and we essentially agree. Rarrgh! What are we gonna do now? I say you're too short to ride on The Joker rollercoaster. What do you think about that?
Right! As I said before, I am fine with determinism as an entirely objective view of the universe, with no consideration for the subjective perspective that produces(?) the supernatural.

Right! As I said before, I am fine with determinism as an entirely objective view of the universe, with no consideration for the subjective perspective that produces the supernatural.

There you go with your dropping arguments again.

There you go with your dropping arguments again.
?

?

The Joker Rollercoaster argument. I'm tired of having to explain every little detail to you.

The Joker Rollercoaster argument. I'm tired of having to explain every little detail to you.
I didn't get the whole Joker thing... so I ignored it.

I didn't get the whole Joker thing... so I ignored it.

It was totally random. I was just trying to be strangely contrary since we seem to have run out of things to debate on this topic.

However, you did not respond to the post in which I explained that that's not what I was saying.

When I said "multiple intents," I meant intents about different things coming up simultaneously. Thus you would be intending to do only one thing about each thing, but you would be dealing with both things at the same time. Like my intents about my career and my intents about my bank account. Two different things, each with one intent, both happening simultaneously and conflicting/competing with each other. Faced with two intents at the same time, I must consciously choose which to act on.

Why not let me know if that makes sense to you, rather than continuing to puzzle over something I wasn't saying?

I understand what you are saying, and I explained that I defined intent differently than you, and that you were actually describing intent.

From my perspective, you desire qualities for your career and your bank account, that is the act. The effect of that act is an intent, a state of mind that wills you to action. That is what I mean when I say intent happens to you. It is a quality that arises from desires.

she[/i].

My apologies. I am generally unconcerned with gender on Ns, and I default to "he." You will be a "she" from now on.

I see intent as related to desire, but not the same thing. Intent is a driving force behind action. However, I pointed out -- and I think this is what started this -- that intent does not always lead to action. I mentioned this in response to Jocabia's argument that intent is programmed into us. One of my only slightly facetious objections was that it was not a very useful program as it does not always result in anything, and I suggested that the program for intent and the program for action must be separate.

If we treat the point seriously, however, it more likely that it is because the process of realizing intent through action can be interrupted. As you pointed out, the intent can be superceded before the action is realized, and that, perhaps, is why every day ends at my house with a sink full of dirty dishes, despite my intention to wash them.

I am more and more inclined to say that intent and action are simultaneous, which would make my previous statement erroneous. Intent would only be eliminated through action or complete inability to act.

Taking another stab at this...

We still make a decision whether another outcome was impossible or not.
How so?

A decision requires some sort of intent. If we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent.
Why? If I intend to do something, how is that NOT intent? It doesn't matter if I repeatedly put a person in a situation where they could choose a or b and I kept the scenario in such a way that they would always choose b, it would not change whether or not they intended to do it.

Intent is a question of whether or not someone runs the intent program not of whether or not they could have changed the outcome.

...

I've said this before. Let's we're programmed. Intent and choice are just programs that run. Whether or not we can change the outcome with a 'free will' doesn't change whether or not the program ran. It only changes whether the inputs and outputs are fixed.
My dictionary says that intent is "the design or aim that something be," and that happens from the perspective of a conscious being. A subject. So intent is something we do. From a subject perspective it is "I intend to do something..." From the objective perspective, intent happens, leading to (whatever). From the objective perspective, decisions get made --there is no subject involved, no "I" involved. The inputs are what create the outputs, not us. Not "I".

We can use the objective perspective to describe the process of decision-making in terms of input/output of events that have already taken place --this leads to that leads to the outcome. We can use it to make a prediction of future events --this will lead to that will lead to the outcome. "The design or aim that something be" is such an objective description... a bit in a process, each bit in the process dependent upon the thing(s) that came before, those things that determine it, and each bit determining something that comes after. It ignores us and our participation in events.

That is an objective description of intent. Actual intent is something we do. It is "I intend to do something..." It requires our participation in events.

I said (above) that making a decision requires some sort of intent. "I make a decision," requires "I intend this to be." That is subjective, looking at the wilful act of the individual.

I said that if we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent. If we are looking at the 'program' where outcomes are determined by inputs, then we have excluded the subject and are describing a process. The subject is gone, and with it the wilful act. The functional intent has been replaced by a description of intent in the objective context.

If we are looking at intent as the 'program' for which there is only one outcome to the decision we make, then we are using the objective perspective that ignores the subject. The "decision we make" is gone, replaced by the decision that gets made. The "intent that we do" is gone, replaced by intent happening.

Your 'intent program' or 'free will' program are an attempt to look at subjective things objectively. I get that. But from the objective perspective, we do not intend things. We have been removed from the picture, and replaced with a likeness (description) of ourselves.

Taking another stab at this...



My dictionary says that intent is "the design or aim that something be," and that happens from the perspective of a conscious being. A subject. So intent is something we do. From a subject perspective it is "I intend to do something..." From the objective perspective, intent happens, leading to (whatever). From the objective perspective, decisions get made --there is no subject involved, no "I" involved. The inputs are what create the outputs, not us. Not "I".

We can use the objective perspective to describe the process of decision-making in terms of input/output of events that have already taken place --this leads to that leads to the outcome. We can use it to make a prediction of future events --this will lead to that will lead to the outcome. "The design or aim that something be" is such an objective description... a bit in a process, each bit in the process dependent upon the thing(s) that came before, those things that determine it, and each bit determining something that comes after. It ignores us and our participation in events.

That is an objective description of intent. Actual intent is something we do. It is "I intend to do something..." It requires our participation in events.

I said (above) that making a decision requires some sort of intent. "I make a decision," requires "I intend this to be." That is subjective, looking at the wilful act of the individual.

I said that if we are programmed to do only one thing then there is no intent. If we are looking at the 'program' where outcomes are determined by inputs, then we have excluded the subject and are describing a process. The subject is gone, and with it the wilful act. The functional intent has been replaced by a description of intent in the objective context.

If we are looking at intent as the 'program' for which there is only one outcome to the decision we make, then we are using the objective perspective that ignores the subject. The "decision we make" is gone, replaced by the decision that gets made. The "intent that we do" is gone, replaced by intent happening.

Your 'intent program' or 'free will' program are an attempt to look at subjective things objectively. I get that. But from the objective perspective, we do not intend things. We have been removed from the picture, and replaced with a likeness (description) of ourselves.

False. You are one of the inputs. I never excluded the subject. Only you did. We are debating what the 'subject' is made up of, not pretending they do not exist.

You are one of the inputs.
Right, we can be described objectively. Everything can.

I never excluded the subject.
Right, you never did that; the objective perspective does that.

We are debating what the 'subject' is made up of, not pretending they do not exist.
Right; we are describing the subject objectively, as if an object.

None of this contradicts what I said.

Subject: a person or thing that undergoes or may undergo some action; that which thinks, feels, perceives, intends, etc., as contrasted with the objects of thought, feeling, etc.

Object: a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed; a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer.

The subject can be the object of discussion, but the 'subject' I was referring to that was removed was the individual from the subjective perspective, the one who DOES stuff. You said it yourself, " If I intend to do something, how is that NOT intent?" Intent is something we do, the self.

One more definition:
Self: the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.