The illusion of agency/intent
 

Just as there is an evolutionary advantage to fawns being born in running form, so there is a huge evolutionary advantage to be born with a perspective of 'agency' in entities in our environment. Iow, the innate assumption that there is an intent behind an action is an effective method of framing our environment. The fact there is no intent still allows that perspective to do less overall harm than not having it.
It doesn't cause too many problems if we believe that water 'wants' to run downhill since that also allows us to believe the lion 'wants' to eat us or George wants my carrots.

People born without this perspective are severely handicapped in their ability to survive. The fact that we imbue situations with 'intent' and it helps us make usually good decisions does not mean there is intent everywhere ( some would say 'anywhere').

The many optical illusions we experience because of the assumptions our visual system make about the environment are a good example of how false assumptions 'usually' are effective even though they are wrong.

The claim that there must be intent because it seems there is intent is like claiming everything has an orange tinge and not taking into account the orange light you're shining on it. If it wasn't so sad, claims that are based on "well, is sure 'seems' like ...." would be frustrating beyond endurance.
/end rant
ahhhhhhhhhhh, luckyme

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just as there is an evolutionary advantage to fawns being born in running form, so there is a huge evolutionary advantage to be born with a perspective of 'agency' in entities in our environment. Iow, the innate assumption that there is an intent behind an action is an effective method of framing our environment. The fact there is no intent still allows that perspective to do less overall harm than not having it.
It doesn't cause too many problems if we believe that water 'wants' to run downhill since that also allows us to believe the lion 'wants' to eat us or George wants my carrots.

People born without this perspective are severely handicapped in their ability to survive. The fact that we imbue situations with 'intent' and it helps us make usually good decisions does not mean there is intent everywhere ( some would say 'anywhere').

The many optical illusions we experience because of the assumptions our visual system make about the environment are a good example of how false assumptions 'usually' are effective even though they are wrong.

The claim that there must be intent because it seems there is intent is like claiming everything has an orange tinge and not taking into account the orange light you're shining on it. If it wasn't so sad, claims that are based on "well, is sure 'seems' like ...." would be frustrating beyond endurance.
/end rant
ahhhhhhhhhhh, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Its a very common illusion that pervades just about everything. Try reading a book ABOUT THE TOPIC of falsely assigning agency to things and count the number of metaphors or idioms or phrases that the author unintentionally uses that convey agency to inanimate things. Just TRY and find a book on evolution that doesn't subconsciously depict evolution as an evil mad genius in some great big laboratory or something similar.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

It is basically an effective way of handling information, and it fits with our perception of ourselves - intent before action.

Interestingly in psychology you can show in controlled settings and in observatory settings how action can influence opinion, and in many cases how memory can change - making you believe you had another intent than you did (last one is done by interviewing people directly after an action, and then interviewing them at a later time and noting the differences in their answers - an extremely fascinating subject).


So it isn't only limited to things we observe, it is also something we do in regard to ourselves. So it would seem it is some basic information handling process our brains does which is more effective and 'fit for survival' than an alternative.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is basically an effective way of handling information, and it fits with our perception of ourselves - intent before action.

Interestingly in psychology you can show in controlled settings and in observatory settings how action can influence opinion, and in many cases how memory can change - making you believe you had another intent than you did (last one is done by interviewing people directly after an action, and then interviewing them at a later time and noting the differences in their answers - an extremely fascinating subject).


So it isn't only limited to things we observe, it is also something we do in regard to ourselves. So it would seem it is some basic information handling process our brains does which is more effective and 'fit for survival' than an alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, its one of those things where false negatives VASTLY outweigh false positives in terms of risk and consequence, so the default is to almost always assign agency. Swearing at that stupid coffee table that jumped out at me for the third time this week makes me feel foolish afterwards, but blankly staring at that mountain lion bearing down on me is a bit more dire.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

I find this sort of philosophical hand-wringing not very useful. You can call intent an "illusion" if you like, but it certainly objectively exists in some sense. You could certainly use "intent" in the sense that water intends to run down hill; I defy you to show that it doesn't. It demonstrates that it does. The reason that we don't do this is that it isn't a very useful way to think about the actions of water. It is, however, extremely useful to frame the study of human action in terms of intent. People act purposefully in specific ways utilizing specific means because they intend (whatever that entails) for certain outcomes to result, for certain ends to be reached. They could intend for different outcomes or ends to be reached, and then they would act in different ways. Getting all philosophically exercised about intent being an "illusion" only serves to obscure that human beings actually do have goals they are trying to reach, wants they are trying to satisfy. Whether these goals are chosen analogously to the way water "chooses" to flow downhill does not matter in the least.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

Yeah, but you get into a problem when you realize that people can do things and afterwards have clear memories of intentions that weren't there. What people do will form belief.

'I hit the guy, he must have deserved it' happens just like 'The guy is a bastard, I should hit him', and you can show this mechanism in both observatory and controlled settings.

People will rationalize their actions and form beliefs consistent with them, and memory will even change to make them think they had this belief before the action took place (which can also be shown in both controlled and observatory settings).

An easy example is dressing randomly sampled people up in police uniforms, and they will quickly assume traits of behavior and opinion they associate with policeofficers compared to control groups.

This gives room for some interesting observations, for instance 'I am a member of this political movement, I should have its political views' can happen just like the opposite 'I have these political views, I should join a political movement that agrees with them'.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to show that it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

et tu.

luckyme

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is, however, extremely useful to frame the study of human action in terms of intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. Isn't that the "evolutionary advantage" I was referring to. The trap to avoid is thinking the framing must be an objective property of the observed and/or to overapply it. That's like believing the sun orbits the earth because it 'seems that way'.

[ QUOTE ]
I find this sort of philosophical hand-wringing not very useful. You can call intent an "illusion" if you like, but it certainly objectively exists in some sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Shouldn't it be up to the positive claimant to provide evidence? And to not make claims based on 'intent' without it. I agree it exists, but perhaps in a similar way the Big Dipper exists.

luckyme

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find this sort of philosophical hand-wringing not very useful. You can call intent an "illusion" if you like, but it certainly objectively exists in some sense. You could certainly use "intent" in the sense that water intends to run down hill; I defy you to show that it doesn't. It demonstrates that it does. The reason that we don't do this is that it isn't a very useful way to think about the actions of water. It is, however, extremely useful to frame the study of human action in terms of intent. People act purposefully in specific ways utilizing specific means because they intend (whatever that entails) for certain outcomes to result, for certain ends to be reached. They could intend for different outcomes or ends to be reached, and then they would act in different ways. Getting all philosophically exercised about intent being an "illusion" only serves to obscure that human beings actually do have goals they are trying to reach, wants they are trying to satisfy. Whether these goals are chosen analogously to the way water "chooses" to flow downhill does not matter in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

A major problem, as tame deuces alluded to, is that our actions quite often have little to do with our initial goals and intentions. We give post hoc explanations for a large percentage of our actions and we are very, very easily manipulated by outside factors.

While I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have any control over our actions, it is also very important to recognize that there are often much more powerful explanations for our actions aside from our intentions. Practically the entire field of social psychology is dedicated to discovering these other factors and we've learned quite a lot about how and why we act. I don't see how talking about this "obscures" the fact that we have intentions. It is every human's default belief that we have intent and it's not likely that anybody would deny this in any absolute sense.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is, however, extremely useful to frame the study of human action in terms of intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. Isn't that the "evolutionary advantage" I was referring to. The trap to avoid is thinking the framing must be an objective property of the observed and/or to overapply it. That's like believing the sun orbits the earth because it 'seems that way'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it's like that at all. And until you know a great deal of rather esoteric things, believing the sun probably orbits the earth because it 'seems that way' is obviously the correct way to go.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find this sort of philosophical hand-wringing not very useful. You can call intent an "illusion" if you like, but it certainly objectively exists in some sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Shouldn't it be up to the positive claimant to provide evidence? And to not make claims based on 'intent' without it. I agree it exists, but perhaps in a similar way the Big Dipper exists.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume the converse. Intent does not exist. Why did your post get written? Whatever your answer is, what is so wrong about labeling that "intent", particularly because it is so incredibly useful to do so?

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find this sort of philosophical hand-wringing not very useful. You can call intent an "illusion" if you like, but it certainly objectively exists in some sense. You could certainly use "intent" in the sense that water intends to run down hill; I defy you to show that it doesn't. It demonstrates that it does. The reason that we don't do this is that it isn't a very useful way to think about the actions of water. It is, however, extremely useful to frame the study of human action in terms of intent. People act purposefully in specific ways utilizing specific means because they intend (whatever that entails) for certain outcomes to result, for certain ends to be reached. They could intend for different outcomes or ends to be reached, and then they would act in different ways. Getting all philosophically exercised about intent being an "illusion" only serves to obscure that human beings actually do have goals they are trying to reach, wants they are trying to satisfy. Whether these goals are chosen analogously to the way water "chooses" to flow downhill does not matter in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

A major problem, as tame deuces alluded to, is that our actions quite often have little to do with our initial goals and intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because your intentions change easily or rapidly for reasons you don't fully understand (or anyone else, including psychologists) doesn't mean that our actions have "little to do with our goals and intentions". It's essentially meaningless to claim that someone can act (in the purposeful sense of the word) other than as they intend at the time of the action. "I punched him in the face, but I didn't intend to." Uh, yes, you did. It might not have been your initial goal or intention, but it was certainly your goal and intention at the time you acted.

[ QUOTE ]
We give post hoc explanations for a large percentage of our actions and we are very, very easily manipulated by outside factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that prior intent (whatever that is) did not exist. Clearly it did, or you wouldn't have acted.

[ QUOTE ]
While I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have any control over our actions, it is also very important to recognize that there are often much more powerful explanations for our actions aside from our intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems meaningless to me, an arbitrary division. While there might be many things contributing to what forms our intentions, claiming those things to be somehow different from intentions actually seems not just meaningless, but wrong. If these other things don't contributate to the formation of intent, what does?

[ QUOTE ]
Practically the entire field of social psychology is dedicated to discovering these other factors and we've learned quite a lot about how and why we act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I.e., how we form and modify our intentions.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how talking about this "obscures" the fact that we have intentions. It is every human's default belief that we have intent and it's not likely that anybody would deny this in any absolute sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what the OP did.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]




An easy example is dressing randomly sampled people up in police uniforms, and they will quickly assume traits of behavior and opinion they associate with policeofficers compared to control groups.



[/ QUOTE ]

What do you take this to show?

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because your intentions change easily or rapidly for reasons you don't fully understand (or anyone else, including psychologists) doesn't mean that our actions have "little to do with our goals and intentions".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is a crux to it that you can't get past. For example as shown by the milgram experiments.

When asked people assume around 1% of other people would sadistically kill another person when told to do so. They also report that they would be abhorred by doing such an action.

In experimental settings around 66% of respondents will 'kill' (they are lead to believe it is atleast very harmful...the happy 70s when psychologists could do anything) another individual by increasing electroshock when told by an authority figure (not in any legal sense mind you) to do so.

The experiment is widely replicated across cultures & genders, and seems to be a generalized trait in any human populace.

What this means is that a near 60% of the living populace will when given authorative command perform actions which completely contradicts their own belief and whatever intention they have of their own regarding taking another person's life, and the authority does not have to be 'binding' (as in there hasn't even have to be any punishment whatsoever for not doing the action, nor a reward for not doing it), imagine the numbers with a binding - you could probably reach 80-90% easy.

Now imagine what the effect of this has on _any_ society?

Simply by rising to authority you can make people go against their own conviction and belief? You can even begin to question the principle that humans are always responsible for their own actions, when the numbers are this high we aren't talking own intent anymore - we are talking base psychological mechanisms to follow leadership regardless of personal belief - free will has nothing to do with it.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

None of that shows that people act other than as they intend to. All you've shown is that people's intentions can be easily swayed.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

An example of the many ‘tricks’ the mind plays on you in order to do its job.

The brain is a decision-making organ. Its aim is to constantly make sensible decisions in situations where they matter. There is no particular reasons that the beliefs that the mind develops to help with its decision making correspond to reality, except to the extent that having accurate beliefs might improves the practical results of decision making.

If believing that water wants to go down hill makes it easier to make practically successful decisions then you mind is correct to use that belief. Similarity holding some crazy or irrational belief is no problem if it does not result in making personally harmful decisions, like deliberately flying planes into buildings.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assume the converse. Intent does not exist. Why did your post get written? Whatever your answer is, what is so wrong about labeling that "intent", particularly because it is so incredibly useful to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many things. The predictions about human action made based on the intent model are inaccurate. An understanding of volitional processes in human beings may give us greater insight into human behavior or even allow us to cure illnesses. Being able to recognize what we control versus what we do not control in terms of our actions allows us to modify those actions. And so on.

[ QUOTE ]
None of that shows that people act other than as they intend to. All you've shown is that people's intentions can be easily swayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one making the claim here that action is based on intent, the onus is on you. But if you insist...

In many cases, the action precedes the intent - thus the action cannot causally depend on the intent. Therefore, there are cases of human action in which intent is present but in which intent has absolutely no contribution to the formulation of the action itself. This isn't an important distinction?

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A major problem, as tame deuces alluded to, is that our actions quite often have little to do with our initial goals and intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because your intentions change easily or rapidly for reasons you don't fully understand (or anyone else, including psychologists) doesn't mean that our actions have "little to do with our goals and intentions". It's essentially meaningless to claim that someone can act (in the purposeful sense of the word) other than as they intend at the time of the action. "I punched him in the face, but I didn't intend to." Uh, yes, you did. It might not have been your initial goal or intention, but it was certainly your goal and intention at the time you acted.

[ QUOTE ]
We give post hoc explanations for a large percentage of our actions and we are very, very easily manipulated by outside factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that prior intent (whatever that is) did not exist. Clearly it did, or you wouldn't have acted.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two go hand in hand. What I am saying is that we very often don't know why we have acted in a certain way and we make up stories to justify/explain them. When I used the term "initial goal" I meant that we have one intention going into the action and then after we have acted in conflict with our beliefs we say, "oh I must have actually wanted to do X instead." Think of it in terms of cognitive dissonance if you know what that term means.

There was a recent study that I read about using a neuroscience technique called TMS. This tool basically magnetically stimulates part of your brain so that it's functioning is depressed. The researchers showed that people performed certain motor actions before they were consciously aware of the intention to do so. It was a really fascinating study, I'll try to dig it up. You can chalk this up to "reflex" if you want, but some of these actions were quite complex. There are lots of actions that are actually "reflexes" in this sense for which we construct just so stories.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have any control over our actions, it is also very important to recognize that there are often much more powerful explanations for our actions aside from our intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems meaningless to me, an arbitrary division. While there might be many things contributing to what forms our intentions, claiming those things to be somehow different from intentions actually seems not just meaningless, but wrong. If these other things don't contributate to the formation of intent, what does?

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are quite different. Is something a goal or an intention if we aren't consciously aware of it? If I act because of situation A but I believe that my goal is actually B, was A actually my intent? I would argue that it was not. I guess this is kind of a semantic argument, but I want to be clear here. We normally understand intent as conscious planning, but we often unconsciously do things in conflict with these plans.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Practically the entire field of social psychology is dedicated to discovering these other factors and we've learned quite a lot about how and why we act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I.e., how we form and modify our intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, are they intentions if we don't know that why we are acting in this way?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how talking about this "obscures" the fact that we have intentions. It is every human's default belief that we have intent and it's not likely that anybody would deny this in any absolute sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what the OP did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the OP was saying that all of our actions aren't a result of our intentions. If he was suggesting that none of our actions flow from our intentions I would disagree with him.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

Yeah Taraz says it well here. Basically if you are going to define intent as 'the driving force behind every action a man does', then obviously we aren't having an Argument Boro, but then your definition in all honesty isn't very interesting. It is like saying things fall the ground and leaving it at that.

What we're saying is that your desire, normative belief and your rational thought are far from always good indicators of what you will do. And these things are what people generally refer to when they say the word 'intention'.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
believe the OP was saying that all of our actions aren't a result of our intentions. If he was suggesting that none of our actions flow from our intentions I would disagree with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP only touched on human intent parenthetically with the wussy " ( some would say anywhere ) " comment. The OP was a more general bemoaning about having to listen to claims about intent,goals or purpose in virtually anything else.
rocks. water. pastoral scenes. volcanoes, frost. viruses. mildew. bacteria. dandelions. sponges. starfish. birds. chimps. humans.
We've evolved to default to assigning intent in our interaction with our surroundings ( vestiged in swearing at coffee table ) but once we're aware of that innate approach, it's up to us to demonstrate that the intent we're claiming is actually 'out there' and not an inside job.

luckyme

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assume the converse. Intent does not exist. Why did your post get written? Whatever your answer is, what is so wrong about labeling that "intent", particularly because it is so incredibly useful to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many things. The predictions about human action made based on the intent model are inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, what exactly is this "intent model" you speak of?

[ QUOTE ]
An understanding of volitional processes in human beings may give us greater insight into human behavior or even allow us to cure illnesses. Being able to recognize what we control versus what we do not control in terms of our actions allows us to modify those actions. And so on.

[ QUOTE ]
None of that shows that people act other than as they intend to. All you've shown is that people's intentions can be easily swayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one making the claim here that action is based on intent, the onus is on you. But if you insist...

In many cases, the action precedes the intent - thus the action cannot causally depend on the intent. Therefore, there are cases of human action in which intent is present but in which intent has absolutely no contribution to the formulation of the action itself. This isn't an important distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using a purposefully narrow definition of "intent" just so that you can support your point. Who cares if motor action can precede the "sense of volition"? If I reach for my glass of water a split second before my conscious awareness "realizes" I am thirsty, in what way does that show that I didn't intend to take a drink? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Is it your honest claim that such actions are purely random? Clearly some subconcious part of me "knows" that I am thirsty and reaches for the glass. My consciousness catches up a split second later. Who cares? In what meaningful way does that subconscious part not "intend" to take the action?

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
The researchers showed that people performed certain motor actions before they were consciously aware of the intention to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the question. The fact that motor actions can be initiated prior to the actor being aware of the intention to act does not mean that prior intention does not exist.

I would just like at ask why there is so much arguing going on if nobody is intent on having an argument. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

I assumed that you were referring to conscious intent - if you're talking about intent in such a broad sense that it can be ascribed to unconscious behaviors, then we're talking about two different things. Are you saying we "intend" to take reflexive actions as well? What about actions like the beating of the heart - do you ascribe intent to those?

If so, then I agree that there is no useful distinction between actions with intent and actions without intent, but I would also say that the idea of "intent" serves no useful purpose unless such a distinction can be made.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed that you were referring to conscious intent - if you're talking about intent in such a broad sense that it can be ascribed to unconscious behaviors, then we're talking about two different things. Are you saying we "intend" to take reflexive actions as well? What about actions like the beating of the heart - do you ascribe intent to those? If so, then I agree that there is no useful distinction between actions with intent and actions without intent, but I would also say that the idea of "intent" serves no useful purpose unless such a distinction can be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's not useful to talk about intent in those cases, any more than it is to say that a stone intends to fall. But in the case of say reaching for a glass of water, in what sense is it meaningful to claim that the person taking the action does not intend to do so, regardless of when his conscious mind notices the "sense of volition"?

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

Well, maybe not so useful. But if you can get the majority of a human populace to break some of the most fundamental principles they have...the research I mentioned earlier was inspired by the nurnberg process, and the conclusion was clear - the majority of us are capable of the very atrocious (holocaust, rwanda genocide, war crimes you name it) acts we deem despicable simply because we are human and we tend to follow leadership - but at the same time almost none of us would ever utter or have any intention of doing such things. And trust me, we all like to think we are the exceptions.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

When I think of an action being "intended," I think of a person consciously formulating the action. If the action isn't consciously formulated, but is rather automatic or even involuntary, then I think that action should be considered differently from consciously formulated actions.

This is clearly not what you mean by "intent." Please clarify.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just as there is an evolutionary advantage to fawns being born in running form, so there is a huge evolutionary advantage to be born with a perspective of 'agency' in entities in our environment. Iow, the innate assumption that there is an intent behind an action is an effective method of framing our environment. The fact there is no intent still allows that perspective to do less overall harm than not having it.
It doesn't cause too many problems if we believe that water 'wants' to run downhill since that also allows us to believe the lion 'wants' to eat us or George wants my carrots.

People born without this perspective are severely handicapped in their ability to survive. The fact that we imbue situations with 'intent' and it helps us make usually good decisions does not mean there is intent everywhere ( some would say 'anywhere').

The many optical illusions we experience because of the assumptions our visual system make about the environment are a good example of how false assumptions 'usually' are effective even though they are wrong.

The claim that there must be intent because it seems there is intent is like claiming everything has an orange tinge and not taking into account the orange light you're shining on it. If it wasn't so sad, claims that are based on "well, is sure 'seems' like ...." would be frustrating beyond endurance.
/end rant
ahhhhhhhhhhh, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure as to your meaning as to "intent". To have intent there must be an entity who intends the same such as intending to produce a lion, or elephant, or tree or anthracite coal, or even Man. Implicit in "intent" is that it has not come to completion or even failure. It relates more to the calm before the storm, the storm may not come.

That individual man "intends" is without doubt but not always. His digestive system digests but appears unrelated to his "intent" as this part of Man is hidden from his cognitive perception.

Is it possible that the concept of "purpose" might be more relevant when considering external nature and Man himself.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assumed that you were referring to conscious intent - if you're talking about intent in such a broad sense that it can be ascribed to unconscious behaviors, then we're talking about two different things. Are you saying we "intend" to take reflexive actions as well? What about actions like the beating of the heart - do you ascribe intent to those? If so, then I agree that there is no useful distinction between actions with intent and actions without intent, but I would also say that the idea of "intent" serves no useful purpose unless such a distinction can be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's not useful to talk about intent in those cases, any more than it is to say that a stone intends to fall. But in the case of say reaching for a glass of water, in what sense is it meaningful to claim that the person taking the action does not intend to do so, regardless of when his conscious mind notices the "sense of volition"?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between what the conscious mind notices and what it does not. Murder vs. Manslaughter for example. Or cases where you were harmed in some way by someone who meant you know harm. Let's say I dump a glass of water out of my third story window. Is there no difference between the case where I know you're underneath me and the case where I just want to get rid of some water? In both cases I meant to throw out some water, but in one case I had the intent to get you wet and in the other case I did not. Regardless of these intentions however, you got wet.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

Why won't anybody tell me why all of this arguing is going on if nobody is intent on having an argument? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I just don't get the point of claiming that a person picking up a glass of water does not intend to pick up the glass of water, based on some fuzzy claim that not all of his mind came to the idea at the same time. Unless the glass of water picked itself up, the hand that picked it up was controlled by nerves that are themselves controlled by the brain of the actor, so claiming that he does not intend to pick the water up seems . . . silly. This is like claiming that when rocks fall, it's not really something called "gravity", it's only an "illusion of something we call gravity." Totally meaningless.

I would also be totally amazed if this phenomenon of action without realization extended because trivial cases like scratching an itch or picking up a glass of water without thinking about it. "WTF? Here I am a neurosurgeon, but the whole time I inteded to go to art school!"

Or luckyme: "I keep intending to not intend anything, but . . . "

I don't see this going anywhere, since we all seem to be saying the same types of things over and over, so consider me conceded.

Peace.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is like claiming that when rocks fall, it's not really something called "gravity", it's only an "illusion of something we call gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]

If gravity as we conceive of it is shown to be 'wrong', that does not mean the rock hasn't fallen. It does mean the perception of the cause was flawed. Calling the new thing 'gravity' also isn't usually a good approach. If two identifiably different explanations are concerned it's usually better to give them different names.

"He reached for the glass".
" Why? "
" Let's call all possible explanations 'intent'" seems a strange approach.

luckyme

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

And then ofcourse there is the thing that action can cause opinion, which is, to say the least, interesting.

Re: The illusion of agency/intent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The researchers showed that people performed certain motor actions before they were consciously aware of the intention to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the question. The fact that motor actions can be initiated prior to the actor being aware of the intention to act does not mean that prior intention does not exist.



[/ QUOTE ]

The model of volition and agency this study assumes is too simple. Clearly we can have beliefs, for example, that are dispositional in nature and so not occurrent. Nor do all of our actions have to be explained on the basis of conscious thoughts, as in occurrent thoughts that are being entertained at the moment of action. Nor can we even consciously recall having any accompanying thoughts with respect to some actions--like when we drive to work on 'auto-pilot' and can't recall taking a right turn at Elm Street and then getting onto the freeway, even though we know we did.

In fact, the vast majority of our actions occur without any accompanying thoughts like "Now I will open the door, now I will put my right foot in front, now my left..." This fact does not undermine the idea of volitional behavior or action, unless one is operating with a simplistic model that claims I must always be consciously entertaining my thoughts to act in certain ways. Given this, it is not at all surprising that the brain can "initiate movement" before we are "consciously aware" of any thought we might have to move in a certain way.

One point of clarification--I just had a protracted discussion about "intentional agency" in another thread. The sense of "intentional" introduced in that thread by me, from an example by John Perry, is not the same sense of "intentional" that this article is discussing. "Intentional" in the sense that Perry was discussing refers to the sense of intentionality introduced by Franz Brentano as the mark of the mental--our ability to think "about" and represent things outside of ourselves mentally. "Intentional content" in this context refers to the meaning of, say, belief statements that represent the world as being a certain way (e.g., "I believe that Indianapolis won the Super Bowl last year" is 'about' the Indianapolis Colts and represents the world as being such that the Colts won the Super Bowl last year)--and the content of the belief, given by the meaning of the statement following the that-clause, is what then goes into the explanation of the behavior of an intentional agent. This is not the same sense of intentionality we have in mind when we say something like "I intended to throw the rock at the window."

Wrong!
 

Intent is in fact tangible in that it directly creates future actions. Determining intent allows us to predict future events with greater accuracy.

Nope, I\'m wrong!
 

Misread part of your post and didn't see that you said what I said. I'm an idiot... sorry.