[Borodog]

[ 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?