Not what Rand said

[Paul McEnery]

Sub atomic particles formed atoms because they "intended" to, atoms formed molecules because they intended to, which then formed more complex structures because these complex structures intended to and so on and so on... interesting.

You're right... no intention in people.

You misunderstand the nature of intention, which is better expressed by the words "agency" and "want".

Everything in the world has it's own inner drives, as it were; the patterns in which they self-assemble are bound to interact with their environment in a certain way; and at the same time, they are driven to overcome a certain internal lack -- everything's gotta eat.

At the end of the day, human intention is built of just the same stuff. What I am needs to express itself, and what I am just needs. That's all intention is.

[Steven Grant]

To be fair I don't think it was bartl who first brought that up... that is, bestiality.

I included bestiality as sexual conduct that does not result in pregnancy. Though it was once believed that it did, and monsters resulted.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

You're using the narrow definition of sex. Infantile sexuality is as well-recognized as adolescent sexuality (and indeed latent sexuality).

There's a tendency to confuse the terms sex (AKA sexual congress) and "infant sexuality," which would seem, if one were unfamiliar with the literature, to suggest that infants have some sort of adult sexual urges. Which, of course, is not meant at all.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

At the end of the day, human intention is built of just the same stuff. What I am needs to express itself, and what I am just needs. That's all intention is.

Of course, the difference between humanity and nature is that we have the means and capacity to intentionally ignore, alter or override our intentions. Despite being hungry, I can refuse to eat if I choose, or I can specifically choose what I eat, and when. Though that may not be the best example, because so can a housecat.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

You misunderstand the nature of intention, which is better expressed by the words "agency" and "want".

Everything in the world has it's own inner drives, as it were; the patterns in which they self-assemble are bound to interact with their environment in a certain way; and at the same time, they are driven to overcome a certain internal lack -- everything's gotta eat.

At the end of the day, human intention is built of just the same stuff. What I am needs to express itself, and what I am just needs. That's all intention is.

At the end of the day genes need to reproduce themselves... you said it yourself, man is a seed pod. Recombining genes have intention, to reproduce and you speak of it as if they do have inner drives.

There can only be one possibility to me, a continuum of form. At one extreme form without intention (say, fundamental physical objects), at the other forms created of pure intention (art). If you like you can think of it as consisting of complexity thresholds. But your statement "Either there is intention in nature, or there's no intention in people, because they're of the same order" is fallacious... they would not be of the same order IMO.

Perhaps you have mixed up form and function.

[Drusilla lives!]

... Though it was once believed that it did, and monsters resulted.

- Grant

How do you know there isn't a grain of truth in that idea? Perhaps early "modern" Homo sapiens attempted matings with Neanderthals or some other, as yet discovered species, which had very bad outcomes. These myths might have origins in such events, although that might require that Homo sapiens acquired language or some form of symbolic communication or symbolic thought process earlier then believed. Maybe at one point they did "all at once" (as depicted symbolically at the beginning of Kubrick's 2001).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Sucking on a woman's breast for example...what am I, a baby? Why does an adult need to engage in sucking behavior? Isn't the need to be inside someone an attempt to feel the comfort of being back in the womb?

Well, I do a bit of that because I enjoy it, and most girls enjoy it - don't really think much more about it than that when doing it really...

I mean you can analyze positions as well if you want, but I think you'll find most people are just going with what feels good at the time...

I see sex as any other kind of stupid addiction. Like the need to sit down and eat a gallon of ice cream. Glorifying it is silly. Slurp slurp SlurP!!

Well, you have fun ignoring it, and I'll have fun thinking about and doing it!

[Paul McEnery]

Of course, the difference between humanity and nature is that we have the means and capacity to intentionally ignore, alter or override our intentions. Despite being hungry, I can refuse to eat if I choose, or I can specifically choose what I eat, and when. Though that may not be the best example, because so can a housecat.

- Grant

If intentionality as we conceive it is anything other than an illusion, that is.

[Paul McEnery]

At the end of the day genes need to reproduce themselves... you said it yourself, man is a seed pod. Recombining genes have intention, to reproduce and you speak of it as if they do have inner drives.

There can only be one possibility to me, a continuum of form. At one extreme form without intention (say, fundamental physical objects), at the other forms created of pure intention (art). If you like you can think of it as consisting of complexity thresholds. But your statement "Either there is intention in nature, or there's no intention in people, because they're of the same order" is fallacious... they would not be of the same order IMO.

Perhaps you have mixed up form and function.

In what sense?

In any case, nope, they're of exactly the same order, and art is certainly not pure intention in any way.

In fact, art and language operate exactly the same way as genetics which is exactly the same as atomic physics. They're all self-assembing patterns, emergent forms of smaller elements attaching and detaching. Nothing more to it than that.

[Drusilla lives!]

If intentionality as we conceive it is anything other than an illusion, that is.

Well then you're a determinist after all.

[Paul McEnery]

Well then you're a determinist after all.

Somebody might be, but I'm not.

As far as I'm concerned, the multiverse is the sum total of all possible eventualities. Each path through those eventualities describes a universe, and the live of each of those universes winds down like a finite battery, where the "energy" contained within that "battery" is the array of possibilities. So that the heat death of the universe should actually be considered as the possibility death of the universe, as all possibilities converge on the single post fact inevitability that particular universe ends as.

None of which has anything to do with the issue of human intention, which is, as I say, simply of the same order as any other intention. The emergence of consciousness alters very little about intention, since almost everything consciousness does is, well, being aware. Not deciding or intending or doing -- that's all a matter of subconscious and indeed determinist process.

Where consciousness gets interesting is in the realm of genuine choice between genuinely distinct and available possibilities. Not that it's certain there's any such thing, mind; but if there is, consciousness gets to switch the tracks from one determinist path to another. But that's nothing to do with intention, which is an entirely different matter.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

As far as I'm concerned, the multiverse is the sum total of all possible eventualities.

As far as I'm concerned, we're all actually half-fish and half-giraffe, but our consciousness convinces us that we're people.

[Drusilla lives!]

In what sense?

In any case, nope, they're of exactly the same order, and art is certainly not pure intention in any way.

In fact, art and language operate exactly the same way as genetics which is exactly the same as atomic physics. They're all self-assembing patterns, emergent forms of smaller elements attaching and detaching. Nothing more to it than that.

Now you've got yourself denying your own intentions... never ceases to amaze me what lengths people will go to to win an argument. I hope you're speaking of "external minds" and not your own. Personally I'm quite comfortable with the illusion, if it is such.

For me patterns are not of the same order, for you they are. For me the mind is configured and formed from life experience and this is reflected in the "pattern" which is held in the brain, a physical object. It holds your pattern, but that pattern is distinct from the brain. What you might be speaking of is the "functioning" of the brain which operates on this pattern. But I'm not sure now of what your intentions are. :)

[Drusilla lives!]

Somebody might be, but I'm not.

As far as I'm concerned, the multiverse is the sum total of all possible eventualities. Each path through those eventualities describes a universe, and the live of each of those universes winds down like a finite battery, where the "energy" contained within that "battery" is the array of possibilities. So that the heat death of the universe should actually be considered as the possibility death of the universe, as all possibilities converge on the single post fact inevitability that particular universe ends as.

None of which has anything to do with the issue of human intention, which is, as I say, simply of the same order as any other intention. The emergence of consciousness alters very little about intention, since almost everything consciousness does is, well, being aware. Not deciding or intending or doing -- that's all a matter of subconscious and indeed determinist process.

Where consciousness gets interesting is in the realm of genuine choice between genuinely distinct and available possibilities. Not that it's certain there's any such thing, mind; but if there is, consciousness gets to switch the tracks from one determinist path to another. But that's nothing to do with intention, which is an entirely different matter.

Multiverses??? For a minute there I thought you were serious. :)

I think you're reading to many comic books... specifically DC comics, but Marvels are just as bad on this point I guess.

[Steven Grant]

How do you know there isn't a grain of truth in that idea? Perhaps early "modern" Homo sapiens attempted matings with Neanderthals or some other, as yet discovered species, which had very bad outcomes. These myths might have origins in such events, although that might require that Homo sapiens acquired language or some form of symbolic communication or symbolic thought process earlier then believed. Maybe at one point they did "all at once" (as depicted symbolically at the beginning of Kubrick's 2001).

I suspect it's more likely that the legend comes from genetic defect babies - no guy wants to admit he fathered a defect, so his wife must be sleeping around with dogs or devils - but while it isn't possible that, say, humans and chimpanzees mated and produced offspring, it - um - conceivable that, say, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal mated, since they were at least contemporaneous twigs of the same branch. (And had symbolic comprehension.)

But that would still not be the same thing as sleeping with bears or leopards or sheep...

- Grant