|
|
#1
10-17-2007, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 
|
|
#2
10-17-2007, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
10-17-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#4
10-17-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
10-17-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
10-17-2007, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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'.
|
|
#8
10-17-2007, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#9
10-17-2007, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
10-17-2007, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
