Intent

[Resha Caner]

Not if you use the appropriate level of description - see my post on emergence.

I read it. My statement stands.

There are problems defining life on Earth - are viruses alive?

Yes. That was my point. But why are there problems with it? My proposed reason is that the definitions are post hoc. People choose things they perceive as alive and then try to fit a definition to them without really addressing why they thought it was alive in the first place. Were we to simply define the term and the tests for fulfilling that term, it seems the problem would largely disappear.

So back to one of my earlier questions - is there really a scientific purpose for the word 'life'? Or is it merely a classifying term for people who learn about a specific group of chemical reactions since it's too hard to learn about every chemical reaction? If we're going to acknowledge that leaves some 'edge cases' (as you called it) unexplainable, are we then defining a limit to science? Or, do we need a new term to expand into those edge cases? Maybe ... intent?

Objections to using such words intrigue me because, in times past, adopting words such as 'force' or 'reaction' was to appropriate words that were traditionally associated with mystical beliefs - still are. But now they have scientific meanings apart from the original mystical belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even on the cellular level, the cell "fights" to survive and will send signals to you so you can pull your hand back from the flame.

Your cells don't fight to survive (why the double-quotes?), the do what they're programmed by evolution to do. Millions of your cells self-destruct every day when they reach a certain age, or when their internal monitoring systems detect undesirable states. You could interpret this as 'selfless altruism' if you wish, but for many people, it's just anthropomorphism; intentionality implies mental states, which implies a mind (and so, a brain).

The chemical reaction resulting from volcanic eruptions, etc, just take whatever comes and could care less if the heat ends up destroying them...... Is it sentient or just following a program? Either way it is much more than just a mere chemical reaction......

Sorry, I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

 

[Speedwell]

I read it. My statement stands.



Yes. That was my point. But why are there problems with it? My proposed reason is that the definitions are post hoc. People choose things they perceive as alive and then try to fit a definition to them without really addressing why they thought it was alive in the first place. Were we to simply define the term and the tests for fulfilling that term, it seems the problem would largely disappear.

Either that, or the boundary between non-living and living is not a hard line.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I read it. My statement stands.

OK.

why are there problems with it? My proposed reason is that the definitions are post hoc. People choose things they perceive as alive and then try to fit a definition to them without really addressing why they thought it was alive in the first place. Were we to simply define the term and the tests for fulfilling that term, it seems the problem would largely disappear.

The problem is with finding a simple, generic definition that clearly distinguishes what is generally considered to be life from what is not. If you can come up with such a definition, I'd like to hear it.

... is there really a scientific purpose for the word 'life'? Or is it merely a classifying term for people who learn about a specific group of chemical reactions since it's too hard to learn about every chemical reaction?

Not sure what you mean by a 'scientific purpose' for the word 'life' - it is used in science to distinguish things that are part of the 'tree of life' on Earth from things that are not, and to describe things elsewhere that might have some fundamental characteristics in common with life on Earth. We categorise ourselves as living things, and we take an interest in, and have curiosity about, other living things. Science is a tool for exploring that interest and curiosity.

If we're going to acknowledge that leaves some 'edge cases' (as you called it) unexplainable, are we then defining a limit to science?

Not unexplainable; rather, not clearly defined. A definition is not an explanation.

Or, do we need a new term to expand into those edge cases? Maybe ... intent?

How do you infer intent? Perhaps more to the point, how do you define intent in the absence of mental states?

Objections to using such words intrigue me because, in times past, adopting words such as 'force' or 'reaction' was to appropriate words that were traditionally associated with mystical beliefs - still are. But now they have scientific meanings apart from the original mystical belief.

Word meanings change, and specialised fields often have specialised meaning for words (jargon). In science, the meaning of 'intent' is much as it is in general usage, a "mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. ... involving mental activities such as planning and forethought." wikipedia

 

[Resha Caner]

If you can come up with such a definition, I'd like to hear it.

My intent (eyeroll) is not to introduce a new definition, but to explore (first) why the existing definitions are problematic. To say they are unclear ... um ... yeah, thanks Captain Obvious, but that doesn't help me much.

Not sure what you mean by a 'scientific purpose' for the word 'life' - it is used in science to distinguish things that are part of the 'tree of life' on Earth from things that are not, and to describe things elsewhere that might have some fundamental characteristics in common with life on Earth. We categorise ourselves as living things, and we take an interest in, and have curiosity about, other living things. Science is a tool for exploring that interest and curiosity.

Sorry. I know your comment is sincere, but to me it seemed a nest of circular references that I couldn't untangle enough to make a coherent reply.

How do you infer intent? Perhaps more to the point, how do you define intent in the absence of mental states?

You were closer the first time - infer. I took a shot at a definition in post #14, but I'm not happy with it. It is mostly, as you said, projecting my own behaviors onto other objects in the world that seem similar to me. I don't know yet where you stand in all this. Are you convinced it's all chemical and just not yet explained - we're just chemical machines. Or is there more to it? Or maybe I'm the only one in the entire universe that is truly sentient, and I'm just projecting that you're sentient as well. Or maybe ...

... Anyway, my intent (second) is to understand why some think it is inappropriate to assign intent.

Word meanings change, and specialised fields often have specialised meaning for words (jargon). In science, the meaning of 'intent' is much as it is in general usage, a "mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. ... involving mental activities such as planning and forethought." wikipedia

Sigh. Hmm. So you're good with "mental states"?

I see something exhibit behavior that is similar to what I do with intent. I study this thing, trace it to a subsystem that I call "brain", and label this behavior "mental state". All the while I'm completely convinced this behavior is explained by chemical reactions.

I see something exhibit behavior that is similar to what I do with intent. I study this thing and trace it to a subsystem that I call "amoeba". All the while I'm completely convinced this behavior is explained by chemical reactions, so I don't call it "mental state".

You don't see a problem here?

 

[zippy2006]

That's part of it. But also, if definitions are not done carefully, they can obscure important phenomena or ascribe them to inappropriate causes.

Definitions are group specific, and must be understood as such. In science and philosophy the concept of "intent" has been used in various ways. The vast majority of arguments over this topic seem to be related to a misunderstanding of a particular party's definition.

(This of course means that if anyone is going to argue for a position in this thread, they would do well do give a clear definition of what they mean by "intent.")

 

[zippy2006]

...For example, in this post you begin to give a litmus test for intent (which approximates a definition):

First, let me reiterate that in using the word intent, I am not implying sentience. Rather I am implying a sort of higher capability - when the external environment is not deterministic, something exhibits intent by making consistent choices based on something internal. When the external environment makes it possible for the cell to either live or die, the cell consistently pursues a course of life, whereas when an external environment makes it possible for a volcanic reaction to continue or end, the course of action is random.

What makes this discussion difficult is that the "something" internal which I interpret as intent is, for the most part, unknown. So I can't prove intent, and I'm not trying to. But neither can you prove any alternative. My requirement would be the ability to predict the outcome, but that is not yet possible. So, I was just wondering what leans you away from intent when there is no quantifiable means for justifying leaning one direction or the other? Is it your unbelief of other things that creates a pattern of unbelief here?

Second, neither chemistry nor biology is my thing. My science is mechanics. However, it's not hard to find evidence of non-deterministic behavior in simple organisms. So while there may not be a strong reason to say such behavior displays intent, neither is there any reason to say we can explain that behavior through simple chemistry. So, again, is it faith that it will be explained someday? [edit: And by using the word "faith", I'm not trying to trap you into admitting some type of scientism. Like intent, it's just the word that pops out that fits what I wanted to say. If you have another word that's better, that's fine.]

Third, then, let me clarify my use of the word "emergent". Something is emergent if a system behavior can't be explained through reductionism - through the sum of the parts. An example would be chaos, where a system has several possible solutions, and under the given conditions there is no way to determine which solution will result.

I'll conclude by noting that when I quoted you, your phrase indicated we can explain much of the behavior. So I would then emphasize: yes, much, but not all. However, I don't want to make too much of that, since at one point you also said it can be wholly explained. Maybe you believe it can be wholly explained, but I would dispute that. Per the link I gave above, I would maintain life can only be partially explained by chemistry - even at the lowest levels.

1. The entity acts non-deterministically.
2. The entity performs actions based on something internal.

It seems like you are claiming that if both of these conditions are met then intent exists in the entity, or at the very least that these are necessary conditions for intent. In any case, one has to know what they are talking about. If we don't know what "intent" is, then we cannot identify it or adjudicate the question of whether it exists in one cell or another.

• Resha: Does this cell have intent?
• Scientist: What do you mean by intent?
• Resha: I don't really know.
• Scientist: Then the answer is, "Maybe."

 

[Resha Caner]

If we don't know what "intent" is, then we cannot identify it or adjudicate the question

Yes, I get that. As you noted post #14 was more a listing of conditions necessary for intent than a definition of it. I don't want to get complicated or bogged down on this point. I'm thinking something very simple: intent - to set a goal

A fire doesn't set a goal to burn the forest. It just burns. To set a goal would indicate appropriating means to thwart that which would stop the fire, or gathering the forest to burn it more efficiently.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'd like to better understand the paradigm of unbelievers when dealing with life in science.

For my own part, when I use words like "purpose" or "intent" in talking within scientific disciplines, I don't mean to ascribe any kind of sentience to what I'm describing. It's just that, because I'm a person and think in terms of purpose and intent, some things are hard to describe without using those words and I don't feel it's necessary to jump through hoops and burden my description with a lot of obtuse words just to enforce a philosophical paradigm.

But maybe I just don't "get it" yet. I understand there is a perspective that, under the given conditions, whatever happens happens per the scientific rules in play.

But I guess my question is this: Do you see a difference in the chemical reactions that result from a volcanic eruption versus those that occur to sustain a living cell apart from simple categorical distinctions? In other words, is there ever a justification for ascribing 'intent' to the cell?

Yes. It's fun to ascribe "intent" to things.
In fact, humans seem to be pre-wired
to seek a "higher-purpose" to things.
The Evolution of Faith | Psychology Today

 

[Resha Caner]

The Evolution of Faith | Psychology Today

I love it when people say they're not going to argue for something and then argue for that something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My intent (eyeroll) is not to introduce a new definition, but to explore (first) why the existing definitions are problematic. To say they are unclear ... um ... yeah, thanks Captain Obvious, but that doesn't help me much.

Meh. As I said, they are ambiguous for edge cases. If you don't see that as a problem with a definition, you'll have little to explore.

Sorry. I know your comment is sincere, but to me it seemed a nest of circular references that I couldn't untangle enough to make a coherent reply.

OK. If it helps, I was using Nasa's definition, "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". On Earth, that means the 'tree of life'.

Perhaps if you explain what you mean by a 'scientific purpose' for the word 'life' I can give a more informative answer.

- infer. I took a shot at a definition in post #14, but I'm not happy with it. It is mostly, as you said, projecting my own behaviors onto other objects in the world that seem similar to me.

I don't know yet where you stand in all this. Are you convinced it's all chemical and just not yet explained - we're just chemical machines. Or is there more to it?

Yes, it's all chemical, we're chemical machines; and yes, there is more to it, just as a car may be only a collection of quantum excitations but you can still use it to drive from home to the office. See my post on emergence.

... Anyway, my intent (second) is to understand why some think it is inappropriate to assign intent.

I'm broadly with Dennett on the intentional stance, but I go with the common (and scientific) understanding that it is, as Wikipedia describes, a "mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. ... involving mental activities such as planning and forethought."

So you're good with "mental states"?

Yes, as a broad generalisation of modes of thinking, i.e. certain kinds of patterns of activity in the brain.

I see something exhibit behavior that is similar to what I do with intent. I study this thing, trace it to a subsystem that I call "brain", and label this behavior "mental state". All the while I'm completely convinced this behavior is explained by chemical reactions.

I see something exhibit behavior that is similar to what I do with intent. I study this thing and trace it to a subsystem that I call "amoeba". All the while I'm completely convinced this behavior is explained by chemical reactions, so I don't call it "mental state".

You don't see a problem here?

No, I don't see a problem. They're both bags of chemicals, and they're both collections of quantum excitations, but they have different levels of organisation. You need to identify the appropriate level and use the rules and language appropriate to that level. Intent is part of the language used for systems (e.g. creatures) that have the high-level cognitive capabilities of planning and forethought.

Do you think an amoeba has high-level cognitive capabilities that permit planning and forethought (i.e. modeling the environment, self, future scenarios, etc.), or is it clearly much simpler than that?

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I don't see a problem.

OK. If you don't see a problem there isn't much more for us to discuss. The example was meant to show how your distinctions appear arbitrary to me - that they loop back on themselves in self-contradictory ways and, in the end, amount to nothing more than, "Because I said so".

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, I get that. As you noted post #14 was more a listing of conditions necessary for intent than a definition of it. I don't want to get complicated or bogged down on this point. I'm thinking something very simple: intent - to set a goal

A fire doesn't set a goal to burn the forest. It just burns. To set a goal would indicate appropriating means to thwart that which would stop the fire, or gathering the forest to burn it more efficiently.

Why can't burning be a goal? I could set a goal for myself, "Burn stuff." That's a goal. Your definitions are too simple to aid the complicated question of your OP. Maybe it would be easier to just explain what you think the precise difference is between the two cells?

...or are you saying that intent implies an intermediate step, and thus the possibility of failure? That an entity which attempts some act as a means to a further end is properly manifesting intent?

OK. If you don't see a problem there isn't much more for us to discuss. The example was meant to show how your distinctions appear arbitrary to me - that they loop back on themselves in self-contradictory ways and, in the end, amount to nothing more than, "Because I said so".

The materialist will reduce both cases to chemical reactions in the end, but that doesn't mean the materialist thinks they are the same with respect to intent. For the materialist, intent is just a specific kind of chemical reaction (or chain or configuration or emergent property of chemical reactions). Frumious explained this above.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why can't burning be a goal? I could set a goal for myself, "Burn stuff." That's a goal. Your definitions are too simple to aid the complicated question of your OP. Maybe it would be easier to just explain what you think the precise difference is between the two cells?

...or are you saying that intent implies an intermediate step, and thus the possibility of failure? That an entity which attempts some act as a means to a further end is properly manifesting intent?



The materialist will reduce both cases to chemical reactions in the end, but that doesn't mean the materialist thinks they are the same with respect to intent. For the materialist, intent is just a specific kind of chemical reaction (or chain or configuration or emergent property of chemical reactions). Frumious explained this above.

Bad form, my friend.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. If you don't see a problem there isn't much more for us to discuss. The example was meant to show how your distinctions appear arbitrary to me - that they loop back on themselves in self-contradictory ways and, in the end, amount to nothing more than, "Because I said so".

OK. I don't see what you see, but if you're prepared to be more specific, I can reassess my position.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the materialist, intent is just a specific kind of chemical reaction (or chain or configuration or emergent property of chemical reactions). Frumious explained this above.

There is more to it than that, as I said. Emergent properties are qualitatively different from those of the substrate from which they emerge. This is what makes the difference.

 

[Resha Caner]

OK. I don't see what you see, but if you're prepared to be more specific, I can reassess my position.

You answered the OP, and I appreciate that. Thanks.

I'm not trying to change your mind, and I doubt I could. I was just trying to understand some of the reasons, so I was digging to see how many rocks we could turn over.

With that said, I don't want to abandon you mid conversation if there's a question you're curious about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You answered the OP, and I appreciate that. Thanks.

You're welcome.

I'm not trying to change your mind, and I doubt I could. I was just trying to understand some of the reasons, so I was digging to see how many rocks we could turn over.

But I would like to hear why what I say doesn't seem cogent or coherent or whatever, so I can reassess my position if necessary.

With that said, I don't want to abandon you mid conversation if there's a question you're curious about.

As I said, I'd be interested to hear more specifically why my distinctions "appear arbitrary" to you - in what way or sense "they loop back on themselves in self-contradictory ways and, in the end, amount to nothing more than, 'Because I said so'".

The positions I post here are not Hegelian claims to absolute knowledge, just what seem plausible interpretations of the information I've encountered; they're open to revision and they're not the same as they were a year ago or five years ago.

 

[Resha Caner]

As I said, I'd be interested to hear more specifically why my distinctions "appear arbitrary" to you - in what way or sense "they loop back on themselves in self-contradictory ways and, in the end, amount to nothing more than, 'Because I said so'".

OK. Maybe a few procedural notes first. If the purpose is understanding I'm on board. If this becomes more a debate to prove who is right and wrong, I'll quickly lose interest. I understand the nature of the conversation requires a bit of that, but if that becomes the objective, I'll likely drop out.

Second, we may find I misunderstood you on a few things, so there may be further clarification necessary on your part.

Finally, my own position is just as likely to evolve as yours. I'm not trying to move any goal posts - that's just the way it is. I'm usually aware of how strong my position is - how well I can hold my ground in a debate. I came into this thread knowing I had the weaker position - at least in terms of my preparedness. With post #25 I reached a point of clarity, at least for myself. I'm now much more confident in my position, so it becomes a matter of how well I can communicate what's in my head.

With that, I'll start by saying I feel as if you're stuck (maybe unconsciously) on human intent rather than a generalized concept of intent. As such, you appear to make leaps that don't follow - I have an intent centered in my brain, therefore organisms without brains are without intent. You express this through ideas such as levels and emergence, but you've not established why intent requires levels and emergence. It seems you're arguing intent requires a specific level of complexity without really defining complexity. You're just assuming more levels means more complexity, more likelihood for emergence, etc.

But what if, say, I have two organisms. OrgA has 2 levels, each of complexity 10, for a total of 2x10 = 20. OrgB has 3 levels, each of complexity 4, for a total of 3x4 = 12. Therefore, OrgA is more complex (and per your apparent inclination) more likely to exhibit intent. But it contradicts one of your premises since OrgA has fewer levels.

I was coming from a different direction that had no requirements of levels or complexity, though I was toying with the idea that emergence might explain an intent apart from chemistry. Rather, my approach was more to say, "Define intent. Then, if the organism displays that behavior, it has a capacity for intent regardless of how it might be structured."

My own thinking would be that emergence depends on things like chaos, and chaos can occur in the simplest of systems.

My example, which attempted to replicate your position, used identical wording that came to two different conclusions. The only basis for those conclusions were two arbitrarily chosen, artificially imposed labels. I think the fact that you can see differences in the two organisms is getting conflated with the labels. So I stripped out the observed differences, and built the example only on (what appeared to me) to be arbitrary, disconnected reasons attached to the labels, not the mechanics of the differences.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your cells don't fight to survive (why the double-quotes?), the do what they're programmed by evolution to do. Millions of your cells self-destruct every day when they reach a certain age, or when their internal monitoring systems detect undesirable states. You could interpret this as 'selfless altruism' if you wish, but for many people, it's just anthropomorphism; intentionality implies mental states, which implies a mind (and so, a brain).

Sorry, I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

Evolution didn't program them to do anything......

And here we are back to the concerns of the OP concerning the words purpose and intent. Evolution (which doesn't exist in the first place) is not a rational thinking being and programed nothing..... The cell (if you want to leave God out of the equation), did it all by itself.....

and back to intent we go......