Parallel traits question.

[Brightmoon]

From the video it looks deep homology is the category which may contain some of the methods.

Brightmoon, are you a fan or subscriber to PZ Myers?

Yes , I also read his blog Pharyngula, even though I’m not an atheist. He seems kinda sensible to me. And I agree with him about the science. I didn’t take evo devo classes when I took biology ( back in the Dark Agesso I’m getting a good overview of the subject

 

[SelfSim]

I am trying to be consistent when I use the word "design". I believe that design is intentional organization. But as I stated previously, if there is no intentional designer behind natural complexity, how can one then claim that intentionality itself is a product of unintentional causes. I do not believe this myself, I simply want someone to ground intentionality in something that is not unintentionality.

Intentionality is in the human mind of the human observer .. which also happens to be the same (type of) mind that developed the theory of Evolution from observations of past organisms. The TOE is used with the intention of being useful for making predictions wherever error-prone self-replication is observed in a resource limited system. The predictions themselves become testable.

If one takes the view that intentionality was always part of life's development, then from a scientific viewpoint, such a notion must become practically useful, by making its own testable predictions that can be used .. So what are they? How do we go about ensuring that a human experimenter's own intentionality is decoupled from influencing the outcomes of testing? If we can't decouple the experimenter's own intentionality, then what is the point of conducting such tests? We might as well not bother because the outcome is already defined by the intention.

I disagree that they do not care how the designer did it. It is an incredibly fascinating question, and though it remains unanswered it is not reasonable to reject the idea that design principles can be seen in nature. If you want to know how the designer did it, then try to find out, there is no reason for anyone to reject a legitimate area of research because there is a lack of data.

The notion isn't rejected on the basis of a lack of data .. it can be dismissed on the basis of the conundrum outlined above .. Ie: this would not be an objective test.

Unintentionality however, is distinguished by the underlying scientific laws (physics, etc) .. which don't invoke the experimenter's own intentionality, other by way of being practically useful for making predictions (which are themselves, in turn, consistent and independently verifiable). The testing of the various laws produces the very evidence for maintaining the distinction of 'unintentionality'.

Even if mathematics can prove something to be possible, assuming it accounts for all the variables, it doesn't prove the actuality. Looking at the world through the lens of mathematics is a good way to assume that what could have happened is what did happen.

Not so. Mathematics is based on tracking equivalences with its base axioms (or 'self-evident truths'). Mathematics alone, only ever allows retracing back to verify the consistency with these assumed base axioms. 'Proofs' in mathematics demonstrate (or lay out) the consistencies.

Objective reality (existence) however, is only ever established via the scientific method (which includes its objective testing). The 'possibility' aspect of what you mention, is constrained (again) by the guiding distinctions provided by the (already tested) laws of physics, chemistry, geophysics (etc).

Scientifically, what 'did happen' is always subject to fundamental uncertainties (imprecision), measurement accuracy limits (inaccuracy) .. and subsequent review with new data. Such statements are always tentative and are never held as being absolutely certain .. (otherwise, the distinctions of science vs religion converge .. thus diminishing the utility value of predictability).

 

[Sanoy]

Yes , I also read his blog Pharyngula, even though I’m not an atheist. He seems kinda sensible to me. And I agree with him about the science. I didn’t take evo devo classes when I took biology ( back in the Dark Agesso I’m getting a good overview of the subject

Hey Brightmoon. We are both Christians, and I know I would want someone to let me know the things I'm about to tell you. Myers isn't just an atheist scientist, he is an antitheist. He believes our religion is a disease, and likens Jesus to a parasitic tape worm that should be pooped out and flushed down the toilet. That is no doubt upsetting, but I hope it doesn't upset you toward me.

 

[Sanoy]

I can test objectively, the hypothesis that: 'your words may be the decriptions of an intentional agent'. I can also test the hypothesis that: 'DNA may be required to produce a human brain'. Both tests also lead to practical outcomes (there's tonnes of biomedical evidence for that). (Such tests can make use of semantic meanings to do so because that is consisent with the notion that we (the human mind) create those meanings).

However, the hypothesis that: 'There may be an intentional agent which produced DNA and thence the (human brain) intentional agent', is objectively untestable and thus leads to mostly impractical outcomes. A belief is: 'A notion held as being true for any reason'. An 'intentional agent' is capable of conceiving both beliefs and objective tests. When something is objectively untestable, it is excluded from scientific thinking and designated as being a belief (as per the definition above).
The 'paradox' described earlier, relies on the untestable hidden assumption that 'something exists', (or 'is true'), independently from the mind conceiving that (it is based on pure logic). It is thus, based on a belief.

I don't need any beliefs to conclude that your words and their meanings 'may be the decriptions of an intentional agent' .. I can test for that, whereas the paradox described remains as objectively untestable .. until you rise to the challenge I presented above, albeit more elaborately worded as: 'Cite the objective test which unequivocally leads to the conclusion that something exists independently of the human mind perceiving it'.

You cannot objectively test that other 'intentional' minds exist, a fact that may explain your unwillingness to even provide the test you alluded to. You can only infer that other minds exist from the apprehension of meaning and intent. As I said, modern materialist science is denying the existence of the mind, or denying the mind a causal influence. So if you have a test, as you say you do, then it would be good to inform the materialist scientists that you have objectively tested other minds because they are presently unaware of your research.

You are correct if you are saying that the proposition that the DNA system was created is untestable by scientific means. But not all knowledge is testable by scientific means either, for example the existence of other 'intentional' minds.

 

[Brightmoon]

Hey Brightmoon. We are both Christians, and I know I would want someone to let me know the things I'm about to tell you. Myers isn't just an atheist scientist, he is an antitheist. He believes our religion is a disease, and likens Jesus to a parasitic tape worm that should be pooped out and flushed down the toilet. That is no doubt upsetting, but I hope it doesn't upset you toward me.

I’m well aware of that as I’ve been reading his blog for over a decade. Given some of the incredibly stupid and harmful things some believers do and say, I find I’m in agreement with him most of the time, despite the fact that I’m not an atheist . Hes a feminist which as a woman I appreciate as he gets it that women don’t want to disrespected and bullied just because we’re women. Honestly a lot of Christian men don’t seem to understand that we aren’t property. He’s also a biologist and does explain the genetics of development which I find fascinating .

 

[SelfSim]

You cannot objectively test that other 'intentional' minds exist, a fact that may explain your unwillingness to even provide the test you alluded to. You can only infer that other minds exist from the apprehension of meaning and intent.

All scientific conclusions are drawn from inferences and I can test these. Testable conclusions (and predictions) and their supporting data, are what provides the closest science gets to regarding as 'the truth' in any of science's testable models/descriptions/theories. That's how science works and how its concept of 'truth' is used. This is all that I was 'alluding to' .. and perhaps not what you were expecting.

If you believe you are thinking scientifically, then this is part of the process you would be following. Where you don't follow that process, you are not thinking scientifically.

As I said, modern materialist science is denying the existence of the mind, or denying the mind a causal influence.

Where on earth did that come from?
There is a long objective history demonstrating that science evolved from human minds thinking scientifically ... just look it up .. take examples of past notable scientific minds then read up on model dependent realism to complete the picture. Are you telling me these scientists did not use their minds in making their achievements in science and that you refute that model dependent realism does not require a scientifically thinking mind ?!
How on earth can you reasonably argue that science 'denies' such abundant objective evidence such as this? That's just pure absurdity.

Where's your evidence for your claim that science is denying the existence of the mind as a causal influence of say .. science itself?

So if you have a test, as you say you do, then it would be good to inform the materialist scientists that you have objectively tested other minds because they are presently unaware of your research.

I'm testing yours right now. All I have to do is to look ... I understand the meaning of your sentences because you're using language I understand to convey your meaning. This feat could not be accomplished without another human mind. The objective evidence is in the words you choose .. one can only deny that by not paying attention to that fact.

You are correct if you are saying that the proposition that the DNA system was created is untestable by scientific means.

The DNA molecule model is extensively objectively defined in science. Just look at the opening statements in that link .. (I'll underline all of the already tested definitions it contains):

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses.

It is a model which tests out well .. as are all of science's operational definitions. According to your 'logic' I must be 'incorrect' in saying that .. which flys in the face of the evidence in front of your eyes.

But not all knowledge is testable by scientific means either, for example the existence of other 'intentional' minds.

I don't care for testing 'knowledge' (in the unscientific sense you may(?) mean it). I can test the meanings of words however .. and in so doing, I shall produce abundant evidence of the human mind at work. Using language to describe the mind's perceptions gives rise to the 'existence' and 'reality' of those perceptions which is transmitted to other minds. Some of those mind models may be untestable .. (they are beliefs in the case where they invoke the concept of reality, however).

This is the process of how we create reality, and by implication, how human minds thereby 'own' the responsibility for it. Science's reality is distinguished from beliefs by its objective testing process .. both types of reality however require a human mind as a 'cause', (your word), if you like.

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

Well if you remove the human designer from the equation, you have also removed the meaning in your words as well as any perceptions of life, or existence .. or anything! Your point just got zapped into meaningless oblivion, for starters.

You're right. If I did not exist, I couldn't perceive a thing, and my words would mean nothing because they also wouldn't exist.

I am not arguing that perception exists without a mind to perceive it, I am arguing that the mind, assuming it is a result of the natural unfolding of chance and the laws of physics, must be just as natural as anything else, and our ability to perceive and perform with intention must also be a natural phenomenon. Therefore, intelligent design, as performed by humans, is a product of natural processes, and since these natural processes can stumble upon a way to perceive themselves and act with intention, nature is therefore an intelligent designer through the agency of humans.

When humans design something, are we shaping nature with intention, or is our intention a slave to nature? Which is the slave and which is the master?

While I do not agree that a designer used the evolutionary process to create the diversity of life we see, that scenario still attributes life to an intelligent source.

How?

If it is true that a designer used evolution (I do not personally believe this), then evolution is a product of a designer.

 

[Sanoy]

All scientific conclusions are drawn from inferences and I can test these. Testable conclusions (and predictions) and their supporting data, are what provides the closest science gets to regarding as 'the truth' in any of science's testable models/descriptions/theories. That's how science works and how its concept of 'truth' is used. This is all that I was 'alluding to' .. and perhaps not what you were expecting.

If you believe you are thinking scientifically, then this is part of the process you would be following. Where you don't follow that process, you are not thinking scientifically.

Where on earth did that come from?
There is a long objective history demonstrating that science evolved from human minds thinking scientifically ... just look it up .. take examples of past notable scientific minds then read up on model dependent realism to complete the picture. Are you telling me these scientists did not use their minds in making their achievements in science and that you refute that model dependent realism does not require a scientifically thinking mind ?!
How on earth can you reasonably argue that science 'denies' such abundant objective evidence such as this? That's just pure absurdity.

Where's your evidence for your claim that science is denying the existence of the mind as a causal influence of say .. science itself?

I'm testing yours right now. All I have to do is to look ... I understand the meaning of your sentences because you're using language I understand to convey your meaning. This feat could not be accomplished without another human mind. The objective evidence is in the words you choose .. one can only deny that by not paying attention to that fact.

The DNA molecule model is extensively objectively defined in science. Just look at the opening statements in that link .. (I'll underline all of the already tested definitions it contains): It is a model which tests out well .. as are all of science's operational definitions. According to your 'logic' I must be 'incorrect' in saying that .. which flys in the face of the evidence in front of your eyes.

I don't care for testing 'knowledge' (in the unscientific sense you may(?) mean it). I can test the meanings of words however .. and in so doing, I shall produce abundant evidence of the human mind at work. Using language to describe the mind's perceptions gives rise to the 'existence' and 'reality' of those perceptions which is transmitted to other minds. Some of those mind models may be untestable .. (they are beliefs in the case where they invoke the concept of reality, however).

This is the process of how we create reality, and by implication, how human minds thereby 'own' the responsibility for it. Science's reality is distinguished from beliefs by its objective testing process .. both types of reality however require a human mind as a 'cause', (your word), if you like.

I was waiting for your objective test, not a description of science. The science of the mind I am referring to does not use "mind" as you would use it. They use it as processes to avoid the homunculus problem, or render it epiphenominal.

The personal test you are using for me, is not a test, it's an inference based on semantic content and a semantic paradigm. From those two facts, which also exist in greater form in the DNA, you have inferred intent, the same thing an ID proponent does when he or she sees the DNA. You are mistaken that this "feat", IE my posts could not be accomplished without intention, nor do you have reason to believe that they couldn't. Eugene Goostman fooled humans into thinking he was a human, google duplex can already fool people and AI will only get better from there. Can we infer intent from AI....we can can't we, and we would be right to do so because they are mechanisms of our own intent. The same inference of 'intent behind the mechanisms' can be made for ourselves.

I saw nothing in your explanation of DNA that would explain how we could scientifically test to see if the DNA system was created. You say you don't care for testing knowledge but I can't imagine you actually mean what you're saying so maybe there is a language barrier there, and perhaps also over my statement about DNA?

 

[SelfSim]

I was waiting for your objective test, not a description of science. The science of the mind I am referring to does not use "mind" as you would use it. They use it as processes to avoid the homunculus problem, or render it epiphenomenal.

I don't think you're recognising an objective test in progress here. I can more formally state the mind dependency hypothesis being tested here (in a separate post), if necessary ..

It makes no major difference how 'mind' is defined. Call it 'brain', 'mental processes', etc .. if that makes you more comfortable.

The personal test you are using for me, is not a test, it's an inference based on semantic content and a semantic paradigm.

You mean its a scientifically formed objective test .. which, from your above assertion, (ie: 'personal test'), you do not recognise as being such, eh?
I think you now have your answer as to why you keep getting a description of how science works in my responses to you. Its important to understand the context of a concept, in order to understand what it means.

From those two facts, which also exist in greater form in the DNA,

I see you invoke 'exists in' again, perhaps in the forlorn hope that this will somehow make your argument about semantic meaning in the DNA molecule, as being 'true'(?) And yet the existence of 'true', (aka 'truth'), itself, is untestable .. and therefore I am justified in saying this statement relies entirely on a belief and not an objective test/evidence .. from the very outset.
You need to demonstrate the objective evidence to support your claim here.

I agree that 'semantic content' and 'semantic paradigm' are the underlying base models used in tracking descriptions of what happens during various observed DNA processes, and for describing the molecule itself (ie: the object). They respectively form the basis of an objective test from which objective evidence is able to be generated .. those semantic models exist in that they are systematically (objectively) logged and then tested .. but the notion that those models somehow also exist in the DNA molecule, independently from the human minds that created these models, is objectively unsupportable. Science only tests its models .. and never, ever: 'the thing itself' (the latter words have no meaning in science).

Even if you invoke inference here, you still haven't accounted for pareidolia influences by citing a test whose outcome is capable of discounting this as the primary influence for your conclusions relating to human independent 'intent'.

.. you have inferred intent, the same thing an ID proponent does when he or she sees the DNA.

No .. The 'intent' behind the models under test (semantic ones) is extensively documented (or otherwise objectively evidenced). Any 'intent' you infer when 'an ID proponent sees the DNA' is not necessarily predicated on an objective basis .. nor does it make any attempts to objectively exclude the human (mind) pareidolia phenomenon, nor does it make any attempts to objectively exclude the objectively untestable belief in the existence of 'truth'.

You are mistaken that this "feat", IE my posts could not be accomplished without intention, nor do you have reason to believe that they couldn't. Eugene Goostman fooled humans into thinking he was a human, google duplex can already fool people and AI will only get better from there. Can we infer intent from AI....we can can't we, and we would be right to do so because they are mechanisms of our own intent. The same inference of 'intent behind the mechanisms' can be made for ourselves.

I am not 'mistaken' about that ... whether I am speaking to Eugene Goostman, or the authors of some other AI, makes no difference to my argument .. both exhibit 'intent' from the meanings of their descriptions.
You have also just demonstrated that point, although your post seemed to start out making the opposite argument for some odd reason(?)

More interestingly, is the observation that no matter how many machine/automation steps removed from a human mind we get, all such mechanisms are ultimately designed to interface with our senses and present their data such that it can be understood by our perceptions .. All of them .. no exceptions ... but more importantly, that statement is objectively testable and subsequently, abundantly evidenced.

I saw nothing in your explanation of DNA that would explain how we could scientifically test to see if the DNA system was created.

.. and you won't .. Because that query is based on an unstated, hidden, assumed belief in the existence of some kind of mind independent 'truth' (in this case, the mind independent 'existence of a creator'). It is thus ignorable when following the scientific method.

You say you don't care for testing knowledge but I can't imagine you actually mean what you're saying so maybe there is a language barrier there, and perhaps also over my statement about DNA?

I wrote my thoughts on 'knowledge' in another post. Here are the contents:

The standard that: to 'know' something it must always end up being 'true', (as exemplified by 'justified true belief' as an attempted philosophical definition), to me, is a classic example of what its proponents would like it to mean ... rather than what they really mean. See, this is a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, (eg: about God), or never use the word 'know' at all.

Scientific thinkers however would be more inclined to come up with an operational definition which might say: 'the test of knowing, (at least when restricted to testable outcomes), is akin to the odds a person would give on being right, (ie: 'I'm 95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they really 'know'.
(Note also that the suggested operational definition, makes use of science's concept of uncertainty .. as in: 'the odds').

 

[Gottservant]

Got a few questions for those that know more about this stuff than me. If you are giving an answer to this OP please @ me, or quote some bit of it so I get notified and it doesn't get lost in the side discussions. (it's not a strict thread so side discussions are fine)[...]

There might be different methods for certain things,[...]
Thanks in advance.

I found this really insightful.

There are degrees of design, aren't there?!

Yet on the other hand, there can't be corporate degrees (degrees and degrees added) without something having united them? A parallel force, as it were?

 

[Sanoy]

I don't think you're recognising an objective test in progress here. I can more formally state the mind dependency hypothesis being tested here (in a separate post), if necessary ..

It makes no major difference how 'mind' is defined. Call it 'brain', 'mental processes', etc .. if that makes you more comfortable.

You mean its a scientifically formed objective test .. which, from your above assertion, (ie: 'personal test'), you do not recognise as being such, eh?
I think you now have your answer as to why you keep getting a description of how science works in my responses to you. Its important to understand the context of a concept, in order to understand what it means.

I see you invoke 'exists in' again, perhaps in the forlorn hope that this will somehow make your argument about semantic meaning in the DNA molecule, as being 'true'(?) And yet the existence of 'true', (aka 'truth'), itself, is untestable .. and therefore I am justified in saying this statement relies entirely on a belief and not an objective test/evidence .. from the very outset.
You need to demonstrate the objective evidence to support your claim here.

I agree that 'semantic content' and 'semantic paradigm' are the underlying base models used in tracking descriptions of what happens during various observed DNA processes, and for describing the molecule itself (ie: the object). They respectively form the basis of an objective test from which objective evidence is able to be generated .. those semantic models exist in that they are systematically (objectively) logged and then tested .. but the notion that those models somehow also exist in the DNA molecule, independently from the human minds that created these models, is objectively unsupportable. Science only tests its models .. and never, ever: 'the thing itself' (the latter words have no meaning in science).

Even if you invoke inference here, you still haven't accounted for pareidolia influences by citing a test whose outcome is capable of discounting this as the primary influence for your conclusions relating to human independent 'intent'.

No .. The 'intent' behind the models under test (semantic ones) is extensively documented (or otherwise objectively evidenced). Any 'intent' you infer when 'an ID proponent sees the DNA' is not necessarily predicated on an objective basis .. nor does it make any attempts to objectively exclude the human (mind) pareidolia phenomenon, nor does it make any attempts to objectively exclude the objectively untestable belief in the existence of 'truth'.

I am not 'mistaken' about that ... whether I am speaking to Eugene Goostman, or the authors of some other AI, makes no difference to my argument .. both exhibit 'intent' from the meanings of their descriptions.
You have also just demonstrated that point, although your post seemed to start out making the opposite argument for some odd reason(?)

More interestingly, is the observation that no matter how many machine/automation steps removed from a human mind we get, all such mechanisms are ultimately designed to interface with our senses and present their data such that it can be understood by our perceptions .. All of them .. no exceptions ... but more importantly, that statement is objectively testable and subsequently, abundantly evidenced.

.. and you won't .. Because that query is based on an unstated, hidden, assumed belief in the existence of some kind of mind independent 'truth' (in this case, the mind independent 'existence of a creator'). It is thus ignorable when following the scientific method.

I wrote my thoughts on 'knowledge' in another post. Here are the contents:

(It would help a lot if you would craft your replies concisely with a clear goal in mind as things are it feels like you are listing your stream of consciousness as you read my reply.)

You still haven't given me the objective test you keep alluding to. The definition of mind does matter if you want mind to have intentionality. And if you want to invoke solipsism here things will not go well for you. I'll give you a second opportunity to backtrack and not deny truth itself, which would include your own comments btw.

We use semantic content and semantic paradigm as a useful model for description because it innately appears that way, just as other minds do. Science falls under methodological naturalism, and while it might be useful to think of it in that model, it must ultimately reject that it is actually there as it does with the intentionality of the mind. So if you want to hold to scientific rigor for the DNA you must hold scientific rigor against the human mind because there is no objective scientific test under materialism that yields intentionality for the mind, only processes.

Intentful semantic content cannot be empirically verified, it is apprehended. You have no objective test to verify humans are anything more than moist robots. You are in fact inferring intentionality and intention, so until you decide that you want to list this objective test of yours, stop mentioning it. You infer intent for Eugene Goostman but it has neither intent, nor intentionality. That Goostman can "exhibit intent" and can fool a human is exactly why you don't have an objective test, but infer intention as I said. Things like pareidolia go both ways. That's the point of my post, the same tools to deny inference from the DNA can be used against the mind itself which the DNA constructs under materialism.

You say you have an argument but i have yet to see what your argument actually is, your responses have been so unfocused, and verbose that it has been difficult to acquire. A successful argument from you will confirm intent for the mind while rejecting intent for the DNA that constructed the mind, and which is at least equally complex as the mind, without special pleading. That is where you should be focusing your attention. So far you have asserted intent for the mind, specially pleaded for intent bias in the DNA but not the mind, and gone off on a number of tangents in the process.

 

[SelfSim]

(It would help a lot if you would craft your replies concisely with a clear goal in mind rather than the dictation of your stream of consciousness as you read my reply.)

Ha!

So you challenge me to demonstrate ‘intention’ in my responses .. which of course I have no problem in doing .. but, of course, I’ll just be giving you the way my brain makes sense of your challenge .. (which would then be my intention).

But you actually have to look to see that.
(And 'conciseness' isn't really a concern for me).

You still haven't given me the objective test you keep alluding to.

I just did (again) above.

The definition of mind does matter if you want mind to have intentionality. And if you want to invoke solipsism here things will not go well for you. I'll give you a second opportunity to backtrack and not deny truth itself, which would include your own comments btw.

Cute attempt!

I have not denied ‘truth itself’ .. Rather I have stated the obvious ie: there’s no objective test which would lead us to the conclusion that such a thing exists independently from the human brains (or minds) that conceive it.

There .. Now cite your test which would support the contrary position.

See, your alternative produces a model that artificially separates our brains from what is giving our brains their perceptions of the existence of some independent truth (or independent intent).

You do know your brain participates in how it perceives, yes?

We use semantic content and semantic paradigm as a useful model for description because it innately appears that way, just as other minds do. Science falls under methodological naturalism, and while it might be useful to think of it in that model, it must ultimately reject that it is actually there as it does with the intentionality of the mind. So if you want to hold to scientific rigor for the DNA you must hold scientific rigor against the human mind because there is no objective scientific test under materialism that yields intentionality for the mind, only processes.

As soon as one tries to say anything in the philosophy of solipsism, (which you mention before), then logic is lost. It is simply another belief system, based like all the others on vague and indescribable concepts, pretending to be something that it's not. And all that comes before we even get into the issue of how useless of a belief system it is. I'm only pointing out its base logical fallacy at the moment.

The way to make solipsism actually true, in the scientific sense, is to redefine it as noticing that the first model one has to create, in order to build a concept of "mind", is a model for one's own mind. The mind that has no model for itself knows not the first thing about minds-- but it's still a model, all the same. The first step is to jettison pretenses, and just look at what is actually going on with our minds. And that starts with noticing that "what is actually going on" is that we are modelling ourselves, and the model we come up with not only depends on our minds, it is the basis of what we mean by our minds. But we cannot use any kind of logical imperatives to say what is true, we have only models and our ability to test those models, or alternatively, our ability to simply choose a belief system, without the need to test it.
If one is to use an impossible and useless meaning for what it is to "know something," then one can only say "it is impossible to know anything, including that I exist." You can try to present a logical proof that you have to exist, and all I'll do is ask you some questions about the words you used in your "proof," and when you cannot answer those questions within your proof, we will see that your proof is no proof at all.
Nor does it make any sense to mean by our word "knowing" something that never happens and is impossible, for why would we ever choose that meaning for that word? It's almost like people forget where meaning comes from in the first place: from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs.
That's it, there's nothing else that our minds do that we could associate with our concept of "knowing." Even if you drop a rock on your toe, and you say "I know I'm in pain right now," all I have to do is ask you what "I" is, what "now" is, and what "pain" is, and you will see all the modelling you are doing to be able to "know you are in pain right now".
The same goes for knowing intentionality of the mind.

So with this, I can maintain full scientific rigor in claiming that what we mean by mind is a base testable model which also holds for intentionality of the mind and is also in keeping with the scientific rigor of testability of the DNA model. They're all models describable in language and can be tested as such.

 

[Sanoy]

Ha!

So you challenge me to demonstrate ‘intention’ in my responses .. which of course I have no problem in doing .. but, of course, I’ll just be giving you the way my brain makes sense of your challenge .. (which would then be my intention).

But you actually have to look to see that.
(And 'conciseness' isn't really a concern for me).

I just did (again) above.

Cute attempt!

I have not denied ‘truth itself’ .. Rather I have stated the obvious ie: there’s no objective test which would lead us to the conclusion that such a thing exists independently from the human brains (or minds) that conceive it.

There .. Now cite your test which would support the contrary position.

See, your alternative produces a model that artificially separates our brains from what is giving our brains their perceptions of the existence of some independent truth (or independent intent).

You do know your brain participates in how it perceives, yes?

As soon as one tries to say anything in the philosophy of solipsism, (which you mention before), then logic is lost. It is simply another belief system, based like all the others on vague and indescribable concepts, pretending to be something that it's not. And all that comes before we even get into the issue of how useless of a belief system it is. I'm only pointing out its base logical fallacy at the moment.

The way to make solipsism actually true, in the scientific sense, is to redefine it as noticing that the first model one has to create, in order to build a concept of "mind", is a model for one's own mind. The mind that has no model for itself knows not the first thing about minds-- but it's still a model, all the same. The first step is to jettison pretenses, and just look at what is actually going on with our minds. And that starts with noticing that "what is actually going on" is that we are modelling ourselves, and the model we come up with not only depends on our minds, it is the basis of what we mean by our minds. But we cannot use any kind of logical imperatives to say what is true, we have only models and our ability to test those models, or alternatively, our ability to simply choose a belief system, without the need to test it.
If one is to use an impossible and useless meaning for what it is to "know something," then one can only say "it is impossible to know anything, including that I exist." You can try to present a logical proof that you have to exist, and all I'll do is ask you some questions about the words you used in your "proof," and when you cannot answer those questions within your proof, we will see that your proof is no proof at all.
Nor does it make any sense to mean by our word "knowing" something that never happens and is impossible, for why would we ever choose that meaning for that word? It's almost like people forget where meaning comes from in the first place: from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs.
That's it, there's nothing else that our minds do that we could associate with our concept of "knowing." Even if you drop a rock on your toe, and you say "I know I'm in pain right now," all I have to do is ask you what "I" is, what "now" is, and what "pain" is, and you will see all the modelling you are doing to be able to "know you are in pain right now".
The same goes for knowing intentionality of the mind.

So with this, I can maintain full scientific rigor in claiming that what we mean by mind is a base testable model which also holds for intentionality of the mind and is also in keeping with the scientific rigor of testability of the DNA model. They're all models describable in language and can be tested as such.

I am still waiting for that objective test, and also waiting for you to start focusing your replies. Nothing you said has anything to do with my post now. After going through 3 irrelevant sections you go into a long section about making solipsism true and then end your entire remark with that. What the heck are you talking about? Focus on the target you want your reply to reach, and craft your reply like an arrow aimed at the target, rather than a bulky blunt instrument that you hurl at the target. I gave you the format of what your argument should look like to appropriately address my comment. That is where you should focus your effort.

 

[SelfSim]

So where are we then?

Pick a definition: here's one (taken at random).
Intentionality can be defined (in philosophy) as:
‘the quality of mental states (e.g. thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes) which consists in their being directed towards some object or state of affairs’

The hypothesis that: ‘Intentionality might require a human mind’ is objectively testable.
So, let's put it to the test.
I propose a thought experiment:
A sniper takes aim and shoots at his target. The target is killed. The sniper is asked what was his intention. His response was ‘to kill the target’. His response is objective evidence of the quality of his mental state of: ‘intent’ (as verified by him). It takes a human mind to have a model of 'a quality of mental state' and a human mind to describe it using language. There is no objective evidence supporting any other means.

So, can a DNA molecule model describe its mental state to provide similar objective evidence?

The answer is obviously, ’no’.

Can a human mind infer intent from the human’s model of a DNA molecule? Sure it can .. but how does one separate the intent of the observer’s mind from the objective model it observes/tests? The observer is only ever observing (and testing) its model of 'DNA molecule'. The observer can choose to include ‘intent’ in that model, but the only objectively tested context such a property can have is applicable to the observer’s model of its own mind. There is no other evidence or even an objective test which would indicate otherwise.

We can conclude that any objective evidence that a mind ‘sees’, thus pertains to itself, so what is human ‘intent’ doing in a model of a molecule? We can conclude that it must be a belief and thus we can disregard it and move on with testing objectively.

ETA: Where 'a belief' is any notion held as being 'true' for any reason.

 

[Sanoy]

So where are we then?

Pick a definition: here's one (taken at random).
Intentionality can be defined (in philosophy) as:
‘the quality of mental states (e.g. thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes) which consists in their being directed towards some object or state of affairs’

The hypothesis that: ‘Intentionality might require a human mind’ is objectively testable.
So, let's put it to the test.
I propose a thought experiment:
A sniper takes aim and shoots at his target. The target is killed. The sniper is asked what was his intention. His response was ‘to kill the target’. His response is objective evidence of the quality of his mental state of: ‘intent’ (as verified by him). It takes a human mind to have a model of 'a quality of mental state' and a human mind to describe it using language. There is no objective evidence supporting any other means.

So, can a DNA molecule model describe its mental state to provide similar objective evidence?

The answer is obviously, ’no’.

Can a human mind infer intent from the human’s model of a DNA molecule? Sure it can .. but how does one separate the intent of the observer’s mind from the objective model it observes/tests? The observer is only ever observing (and testing) its model of 'DNA molecule'. The observer can choose to include ‘intent’ in that model, but the only objectively tested context such a property can have is applicable to the observer’s model of its own mind. There is no other evidence or even an objective test which would indicate otherwise.

We can conclude that any objective evidence that a mind ‘sees’, thus pertains to itself, so what is human ‘intent’ doing in a model of a molecule? We can conclude that it must be a belief and thus we can disregard it and move on with testing objectively.

ETA: Where 'a belief' is any notion held as being 'true' for any reason.

Intentionality is not the same thing as intention. Regarding the DNA, we are talking about the product of intention.