A Working Draft Design Argument

[Acrobat]

But the prior factors determined what I was to think, what thought transpires in my brain.

The prior factors produced the thought that arose in my consciousness. Consciousness is more like an awareness rather than an originator or assigner of things. A passenger observing the thoughts that form, then the cause of the thoughts themselves .

You're saying that consciousness under the postulate I provided must necessarily be an epiphenomenon, but I don't see why this must be so.

But even if I'm forced to concede that, the act of assigning values and meaning is then reduced to physical processes happening in our nervous systems (or similar such systems in possible alien beings), so we're still ultimately the arbiter of meaning and value, because we possess these systems.

Those physical process cause us to recognize values and meaning, but we’re not the arbiter of them, we’re a passenger, not the captain. We don’t dictate the destination. 

My consciousness mind might see a value being attached to certain things, a meaning to life            revealed, but I watch this as a man at a movie, not as a director.

I’m a character and a reader of a story, not it’s author.

[GrandizerII]

You're saying that consciousness under the postulate I provided must necessarily be an epiphenomenon, but I don't see why this must be so.

But even if I'm forced to concede that, the act of assigning values and meaning is then reduced to physical processes happening in our nervous systems (or similar such systems in possible alien beings), so we're still ultimately the arbiter of meaning and value, because we possess these systems.

Those physical process cause us to recognize values and meaning, but we’re not the arbiter of them, we’re a passenger, not the captain. We don’t dictate the destination. 

My consciousness mind might see a value being attached to certain things, a meaning to life            revealed, but I watch this as a man at a movie, not as a director.

I’m a character and a reader of a story, not it’s author.

Ok, you can put our consciousness aside, no problem. Biological processes in our bodies lead to the act of assigning meaning and value. Assigning itself would be explicable in terms of the physical, in accordance with how our brains are wired to perceive.

[Acrobat]

Those physical process cause us to recognize values and meaning, but we’re not the arbiter of them, we’re a passenger, not the captain. We don’t dictate the destination. 

My consciousness mind might see a value being attached to certain things, a meaning to life            revealed, but I watch this as a man at a movie, not as a director.

I’m a character and a reader of a story, not it’s author.

Ok, you can put our consciousness aside, no problem. Biological processes in our bodies lead to the act of assigning meaning and value. Assigning itself would be explicable in terms of the physical, in accordance with how our brains are wired to perceive.

Our biological processes are all contingent process. Determinism doesn’t begin at our biology. External deterministic factors act on our biology, causing it to recognize certain values and meanings.

Our biology isn’t the captain here either, just another passenger on the ship. P4 is unavoidable, in my view.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Brentano would respond that only mental states have intentionality.  How would you answer that objection?

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Ok, you can put our consciousness aside, no problem. Biological processes in our bodies lead to the act of assigning meaning and value. Assigning itself would be explicable in terms of the physical, in accordance with how our brains are wired to perceive.

Our biological processes are all contingent process. Determinism doesn’t begin at our biology. External deterministic factors act on our biology, causing it to recognize certain values and meanings.

Our biology isn’t the captain here either, just another passenger on the ship. P4 is unavoidable, in my view.

The disagreement isn't with P4 but with P5 itself, but maybe I made the mistake of focusing on the wrong part of that premise. Here's how you worded P5:

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

Maybe I should instead ask you how "reality is an intentional work" follows logically from "reality possesses values and meanings, ultimately rooted in first cause". Reality, and the various objects within it, may possess values and meanings, but if these values and meanings are assigned post hoc, then it does not necessarily follow that reality itself must have been authored/designed.

[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.

Brentano would respond that only mental states have intentionality.  How would you answer that objection?

Boru

Let’s put it this way, only something like a mind can assign values and meanings.

If determinism is true, then it’s not our minds assigning values and meanings.

In a novel, the characters find certain meanings and values to things, did the character assign these things values and meaning, or the author?

Imagine if a man were able to create a computer simulated reality much like our very own, with programmed characters that see themselves much like we do, the programmer assigns meanings and values to certain things in the characters realities. The characters comes to recognize values and meanings not much different than we do. They might be under the impression that they themselves are arbiters and creators of value and meaning. But that’s not really true is it?

Did their mind assign meaning and values to things, or would you agree that it was the mind of the programmer?

[GrandizerII]

Brentano would respond that only mental states have intentionality.  How would you answer that objection?

Boru

Let’s put it this way, only something like a mind can assign values and meanings.

If determinism is true, then it’s not our minds assigning values and meanings.

In a novel, the characters find certain meanings and values to things, did the character assign these things values and meaning, or the author?

Imagine if a man were able to create a computer simulated reality much like our very own, with programmed characters that see themselves much like we do, the programmer assigns meanings and values to certain things in the characters realities. The characters comes to recognize values and meanings not much different than we do. They might be under the impression that they themselves are arbiters and creators of value and meaning. But that’s not really true is it?

Did their mind assign meaning and values to things, or would you agree that it was the mind of the programmer?

1. We're not novel characters.

2. If this world is not a simulation/program, then it's not been established that it's intentional. Your hypotheticals don't support your OP argument; rather your argument depends on such hypotheticals in order for the conclusion to be true.

Ultimately, however, it's not clear that your argument is even valid.

[Acrobat]

1. We're not novel characters.

2. If this world is not a simulation/program, then it's not been established that it's intentional. Your hypotheticals don't support your OP argument; rather your argument depends on such hypotheticals in order for the conclusion to be true.

Ultimately, however, it's not clear that your argument is even valid.

1) assigning meaning and values requires intention, such as in my examples of a novel, and computer program. (Hence why they’re often referred to as mental properties)!

Do you agree?

[GrandizerII]

1. We're not novel characters.

2. If this world is not a simulation/program, then it's not been established that it's intentional. Your hypotheticals don't support your OP argument; rather your argument depends on such hypotheticals in order for the conclusion to be true.

Ultimately, however, it's not clear that your argument is even valid.

1) assigning meaning and values requires intention, such as in my examples of a novel, and computer program. (Hence why they’re often referred to as mental properties)!

Do you agree?

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.

[Acrobat]

1) assigning meaning and values requires intention, such as in my examples of a novel, and computer program. (Hence why they’re often referred to as mental properties)!

Do you agree?

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 really the characters in the novel or simulation assigning meaning and values but the author and programmer of that reality?