A Working Draft Design Argument

[GrandizerII]

Yes.

By the way, what do you mean when you say reality is intentional? I am interpreting it as meaning reality is intended/designed/authored per your conclusion wording. Is this interpretation correct? Just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the argument.

Yes, or that reality possess intentional properties.

But since you agree with the above question.

When it comes to the deterministic reality of the novel, or in the programmers reality, do you acknowledge that it’s not the characters in the novel or simulation assigning meaning and values but the author and programmer of that reality?

Novel characters do not, and cannot, actually assign meanings and values.

Programmed beings could still be able to assign meanings and values to things, even if ultimately they are only able to do so because of how they've been programmed.

In a world that is not a program or simulation, it is also the case that we can assign things because we have been conditioned to do so, but the difference here is that such a world is not necessarily intentional. Intentions arise as a result of our nervous systems and aren't necessarily regulated ultimately by something metaphysically grand. The act of intentionality could be physical at its core. Neurons fire a certain way in response to certain stimuli, and the eventual response would be the outcome of further neural firings in the brain that we abstractly refer to as intention/decision/deliberation.

[Acrobat]

Novel characters do not, and cannot, actually assign meanings and values.

Programmed beings could still be able to assign meanings and values to things, even if ultimately they are only able to do so because of how they've been programmed.

The characters in the novel and program are both subject to the determinism of their programs, that which they find of value and meaning is dictated by their programming. The programmed character may have the illusion of dictating that which has values and meaning but thats at best an illusion.

In a world that is not a program or simulation, it is also the case that we can assign things because we have been conditioned to do so, but the difference here is that such a world is not necessarily intentional.

What they have in common with the novel and the programmed characters, is that we’re a part of a deterministic reality, even if you want to reject the idea of an intentional source of this determinism. Like a sort of singularity absent of any intentional elements, that determines past present and future, all choices, meaning, values, truths, and meaning.

You keep wanting to say we ultimately determine/assign values and meanings, but this at best would be an illusion in a deterministic universe, you’d have to credit the singularity for that, just as we would the authors and programmers in my other examples.

[GrandizerII]

Novel characters do not, and cannot, actually assign meanings and values.

Programmed beings could still be able to assign meanings and values to things, even if ultimately they are only able to do so because of how they've been programmed.

The characters in the novel and program are both subject to the determinism of their programs, that which they find of value and meaning is dictated by their programming. The programmed character may have the illusion of dictating that which has values and meaning but thats at best an illusion.

In a world that is not a program or simulation, it is also the case that we can assign things because we have been conditioned to do so, but the difference here is that such a world is not necessarily intentional.

What they have in common with the novel and the programmed characters, is that we’re a part of a deterministic reality, even if you want to reject the idea of an intentional source of this determinism. Like a sort of singularity absent of any intentional elements, that determines past present and future, all choices, meaning, values, truths, and meaning.

You keep wanting to say we ultimately determine/assign values and meanings, but this at best would be an illusion in a deterministic universe, you’d have to credit the singularity for that, just as we would the authors and programmers in my other examples.

We are determined to assign. That's what I'm saying.

To get to "reality is an intentional work" you need some additional premises which are not in your argument.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't see how you've established that reality possesses values and meanings ultimately rooted in some first cause. Causality need not require intentionality.

What ultimately assigns values and meaning in a deterministic universe?

A set of neurological circuits that were configured to conceives of value and meaning and assign them to some object or concepts.   Nothing more.

---

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

Quantum mechanics say cause is in principle not a fundamental attribute of reality.   It is but an empirical fiction that approximate the gross behavior of systems at large scale under a set of contingent circumstances.   It has no deeper reality.     So P-4 is in principle, not just in application, bullshit.

[Brian37]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

Um no, just no.

This is just your own version of gap filling.

It is true that science has yet to figure out something or nothing prior to the singularity. What is not required however, is a super cognition to be the first cause either way.

Cognition is not required for life or non life at the molecular level, atomic level, or sub atomic level to make motion. In the same way Thor is not required to explain lightening, in the same way Poseidon is not needed to explain why hurricanes arise.

I see no problem with either something or nothing prior. I also don't see a cognition required regardless.

I am ok with infinity, but not in cognition sense, but in an infinite fluctuation between temporary states of off and on. Much like winter, spring, summer and fall keep repeating, but you wouldn't claim Frosty caused winter, or the Easter Bunny caused spring, or Mercury caused summer, or a jackolantern  caused fall.

[Acrobat]

What ultimately assigns values and meaning in a deterministic universe?

A set of neurological circuits that were configured to conceives of value and meaning and assign them to some object or concepts.   Nothing more.

A set of neurological circuits that were configured to conceives of value and meaning and assign them to some object or concepts.   Nothing more.

(October 13, 2019 at 11:13 pm) [/quote]
Equally true here as well:
“A set of neurological circuits that were configured to conceive truth, and assign “truth” to some objects or concepts.


Not to mention that the values and meanings we hold are a product of environmental factors that ultimately determine what you do or don’t value, what you assign meaning to. Your neurological circuits are just the strings on a puppet, that act in accordance with the environment that pulls them.

Appealing to our neurotical circuits as that which assigns meaning, is like saying the strings of a puppet decide where it should move.

You’re still failing to point out what pulls the strings, what actually assigns meaning and values to things.

[Acrobat]

We are determined to assign. That's what I'm saying.

That which determines assign, in my other examples it would be the programmer and the author not their characters.

For us, our environment assigns that which possess value, that which holds meaning, not us.

[chimp3]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

Do you compare "author designed" to "not designed"? A book or computer to a rock?

[Cod]

Why was the programmer so interested in giving us humans the privilege of pondering value and meaning? Why not the Giraffe or the Llama? Smells like a pile of shite to me.

[Acrobat]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

Do you compare "author designed" to "not designed"? A book or computer to a rock?

Sure, rocks don't assign meanings and values.