The illusion of agency/intent

[Taraz]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[tame_deuces]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

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.

[Taraz]

[ 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.

[tame_deuces]

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'.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[Borodog]

[ 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]

[Piers]

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.

[carlo]

[ 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.