Agency and Intentionality in Nature

[Phronesis]

I'm not sure that I like the concept much, but "the capacity of a mind to make choices, some of which might affect the physical world". What is yours?

Why do you think that is better or less "dumbed down"?

What is wrong with "a system that is able to act on its own behalf" (or even the one in the OP )? Those five points describe it well. Just because you don't like the concept does not mean it is invalid .

I think you need to look a bit higher up the food chain to find conscious purpose. All you have is basic chemistry. Think Venus Flytrap.

I think you should read the part about "work cycles and self-organization" and the parts about "constraints". After you have read it, apply it to the following:
More about catalysis and the selectivity of enzymes.
Consider the following:

RNA

RNA constituents
​

Say you have the following soup of chemicals and they magically react with each other (note, they don't, they need catalysts but assume they do)

Phosphodiester bond formation​

Note, there are thousands of possibilities. Specific enzymes (generated through the ribosome machinery) direct the biosynthesis of RNA and not the other molecules. Only when RNA is synthesized can it participate in self-organizational process if the sequences permit it.

No apply self-organization, catalysts and constraints to the idea of "work". Got it? Basic chemistry ...

 

[rwenzori]

I think you should read the part about "work cycles and self-organization" and the parts about "constraints". After you have read it, apply it to the following:
More about catalysis and the selectivity of enzymes.
...
Note, there are thousands of possibilities. Specific enzymes (generated through the ribosome machinery) direct the biosynthesis of RNA and not the other molecules. Only when RNA is synthesized can it participate in self-organizational process if the sequences permit it.

No apply self-organization, catalysts and constraints to the idea of "work". Got it? Basic chemistry ...

What is your point? Basic chemistry is no issue. You normally wish to posit intent, but your English is a bit garbled again - "No apply self-organization.." is gibberish.

I'm glad you are not trying to defend that Kauffman's kite flying, at least.

 

[Phronesis]

What is your point? Basic chemistry is no issue. You normally wish to posit intent, but your English is a bit garbled again - "No apply self-organization.." is gibberish.

You know it just needs a "w". No need to play dumb.

I'm glad you are not trying to defend that Kauffman's kite flying, at least.

Kauffman's kite flying? More empty rhetoric?
"a system that is able to act on its own behalf". Sounds about right, as well as his 5 points expanding on it.

So how about reading that bit then and applying self-organization, catalysts and constraints to the idea of "work". Got it? Basic chemistry... Surely you can't evade constructive arguments forever, or can you?

 

[arf9999]

Seems like these ants intentionally developed a successful system.

Nope. Cart before the horse.

 

[Phronesis]

Nope. Cart before the horse.

Certainly no accident.

 

[arf9999]

Certainly no accident.

Not a single one, no.


/shouldn't this be in PD section? Then I wouldn't be tempted to enter into pointless debate...

 

[Phronesis]

Not a single one, no.

Yep, molecular autonomous systems acting on their own behalf. No accidents .

/shouldn't this be in PD section? Then I wouldn't be tempted to enter into pointless debate...

Another person that does not like scientific examples of how organisms act purposefully and to an end in their environment? What is wrong, why does a certain segment of the population object to these scientific examples of agency?

 

[arf9999]

Yep, molecular autonomous systems acting on their own behalf. No accidents .

On the contrary, plenty of accidents, millions, each assisting to avoid a certain type of action.

Another person that does not like scientific examples of how organisms act purposefully and to an end in their environment? What is wrong, why does a certain segment of the population object to these scientific examples of agency?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Do social animals adapt their environment? Yes.
Does symbiosis exist? Yes.
Are dolphins intelligent? Yes.
Are dolphins and apes self-aware? It seems likely.
Is all of this interesting? Indubitably.

Should our surprise and lack of understanding cause us to shout out "GODDIDIT!!!"? No. That would reduce us to the level of a caveman worshipping the sun.

Please continue to post your marvels of nature and continue to make up terms, but please stop trying to hide your ID agenda behind reams of quotemining.

 

[Phronesis]

On the contrary, plenty of accidents, millions, each assisting to avoid a certain type of action.

Or, molecular autonomous agents using chance and selection to avoid certain actions and act towards others.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You did object to this thread being in this section .

Please continue to post your marvels of nature and continue to make up terms, but please stop trying to hide your ID agenda behind reams of quotemining.

Make up terms? Also, why can't the works of other be used to support an argument. Always so quick to ask for references, now you object if the relevant parts are given?
And please stop to try and hide your "materialist of the gaps" type of arguments and agenda to try and explain away agency and intentionality.
Do you really think we are more than sexed up cavemen anyway? Were do you think evolution is going? Does it have a direction? Why?

 

[arf9999]

Or, molecular autonomous agents using chance and selection to avoid certain actions and act towards others.

self contradictory meaningless nonsense.

You did object to this thread being in this section .

Here's why:

And please stop to try and hide your "materialist of the gaps" type of arguments and agenda to try and explain away agency and intentionality.
Do you really think we are more than sexed up cavemen anyway? Were do you think evolution is going? Does it have a direction? Why?

 

[Phronesis]

self contradictory meaningless nonsense.

Just because you say so? ROFL... ok...
Guess you are not really open to discuss scientific findings on how molecular systems use chance and selection . Because YOU said so....

 

[rwenzori]

You know it just needs a "w". No need to play dumb.

Sorry, I'm not psychic either. Why not read your posts before submitting them - it'll save you some embarrassment.

Kauffman's kite flying? More empty rhetoric?
"a system that is able to act on its own behalf". Sounds about right, as well as his 5 points expanding on it.

LOL! It is incompatible with your OWN definition at post #1:

Definition of agency:

* Agency is the ability to intentionally manipulate information for a purpose.
* The manipulation of information represents the intentions of an agent.
* The reason for the manipulation of information serves as the purpose of an agent to represent himself.
* An agent is not a passive spectator of unfolding actions, but the author thereof.

You might remember - intentionality is a property of mind, again by your ( erroneous in any case ) definition LOL! You ARE getting yourself in a muddle!

By Kauffman's dumbed-down definition the Venus Flytrap is an "agent", but not by yours quoted above.

So how about reading that bit then and applying self-organization, catalysts and constraints to the idea of "work". Got it? Basic chemistry... Surely you can't evade constructive arguments forever, or can you?

Not really much point wasting more time on Kauffman's speculative article - his definitions and assumptions are incorrect as I have already shown - even on your own definitions LOL.

I see you have weaseled a mod to move my posts. I think arf9999 is right - there is no science in here so the thread should be moved to PD.

 

[rwenzori]

Were do you think evolution is going? Does it have a direction? Why?

What are your own answers to those questions?

 

[Phronesis]

Sorry, I'm not psychic either.

You're not stupid either, so stop trying to stall a discussion.

LOL! It is incompatible with your OWN definition at post #1:

No it is not. Intentionality was mentioned in the title. Plenty of examples can be given of human intentionality. However, since intentionality is limited to humans, plenty of examples can be given of nano-intentionality as well (as defined by Tecumseh... pre-mind directionality or "aboutness" or intent if you want). You might also remember the word "intentionally" and "intentions" were used for the definition of agency in the OP. Not intentionality. Different meanings in context.
And "a system that is able to act on its own behalf" is good enough to describe agency and from there it can be expanded from, like the 5 points given. Here they are again.

such a system should be able to
1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Perform at least one work cycle.
3) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
4) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.
5) Be able to choose between at least two alternatives.

"Choose" has little to do with the human language of choice, just that a molecular autonomous system is able to recognize a stimulus as either being good or bad for itself and then respond to the stimulus.

You might remember - intentionality is a property of mind, again by your ( erroneous in any case ) definition LOL! You ARE getting yourself in a muddle!

You remember nano-intentionality don't you? New distinct definition . Pre-mind directionality...

By Kauffman's dumbed-down definition the Venus Flytrap is an "agent", but not by yours quoted above.

Here again you say it is dumbed-down, however don't give a reason why. Just because you said so? Sorry, your argument then fails because he actually made an argument and you have given no reason to discard his definition.

Not really much point wasting more time on Kauffman's speculative article - his definitions and assumptions are incorrect as I have already shown - even on your own definitions LOL.

You assert other's definitions are wrong based on your own confusion of terms? Sorry, I'd rather take the arguments from Kauffman and wait for you to actually make an argument. Did you really read the whole article? Come on, be constructive...

I see you have weaseled a mod to move my posts.

Which posts? This post that you agreed you will change, you did in fact change it (after agreeing to do so), and now have changed it back. Why?

I think arf9999 is right - there is no science in here so the thread should be moved to PD.

Wow, another one of those that does not like scientific examples of how organisms act purposefully and to an end in their environment? What is wrong, why does a certain segment of the population object to these scientific examples of agency?

There are PLENTY of other examples.

Bacterial Decision-making Explained By 'Moving' Theory
The make decisions and there is a theory why. Supports the notion of molecular autonomous agents.

What are your own answers to those questions?

Amazing, yet again you demand I answer the questions I pose, however you don't object to arf99999 not actually answering it (and you btw). When will the hypocrisy stop?
I'll answer it as soon as you or arf9999 actually make a decent attempt to do so .

 

[rwenzori]

TelePhrone, you old slubberdegullion you! My, how you do dissimulate and equivocate when your contradictions are thrown in your face LOL!

In the meantime - you should stop lying - I'll post your own definitions in large type to show your contradictions and confusion if you wish. But lying is, well, so unchristian LOL!


I'm glad you limit intentionality to humans - it shows progress in your thinking. I don't think the assertion is correct though - I have not done much investigating, but I think it would apply to many animals. I'm working on my own theory of a basic conscious mind - I might even post it when I have got a bit further.

Note that you still make a fundamental error in your confusion of "aboutness" with intent though - there is no necessary connection at all.

If "choose" has little to do with "choice" then someone is just misusing language, clearly, and should come up with a new term, since "choice" is defined as the "act of choosing" LOL. Any variation of "intent" won't cut it.

So your dubious concepts of "nano-intentionality" or "Kauffman dumb agency" boil down to basic causality and chemistry once again. No conscious choice, no mind, no intention, just normal reaction.

Kauffman could indulge in a little scientific experimentation to make his point - such a pity that he does not and merely speculates. Choice implies that some whatevers will go against the grain - he could demonstrate that this happens, though he would need to show that the "dwarstrekkers" are identical to the "straight-and-narrows".

And of course, that it is not the result of "Brownian motion" ROFL!

 

[Phronesis]

From this

I'm glad you limit intentionality to humans - it shows progress in your thinking. I don't think the assertion is correct though

To this

- I have not done much investigating, but I think it would apply to many animals. I'm working on my own theory of a basic conscious mind - I might even post it when I have got a bit further.

Yeah, uhm, I think you can stop acting like you know what intentionality is all about and calling others liars. You have not done much investigating by your own admission.

So your dubious concepts of "nano-intentionality" or "Kauffman dumb agency" boil down to basic causality and chemistry once again. No conscious choice, no mind, no intention, just normal reaction.

My "nano-intentionality"? And Kauffman's "dumb agency"? Yeah, come back when you actually have a point instead of insulting others mmkay. All you are doing is indulging in a few ad hominems, empty rhetoric and your empty assertions that "this stuff does not comply/gel with me so I just disagree". You are stuck on terms, get over it, deal with it.

Either deal with the terms given (you know those accepted for peer-review) or go and make up your own nonsense and see if you can get it published. As is, I see no reason why your empty assertions, rhetoric and baseless ad hominems should be taken seriously.

Here deal with these, or take your empty assertions somewhere else :
Molecular autonomous agent: "a system that is able to act on its own behalf"

such a system should be able to
1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Perform at least one work cycle.
3) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
4) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.
5) Be able to choose between at least two alternatives.

Nano-intentionality: Crucial pre-mental properties of a cell that can
1) respond to (somewhat) novel circumstances, eventualities for which it is not specifically-prepared by the evolutionary "memory" instantiated in its DNA.
2) discover, through an individual process of trial and error, some "adaptive" (in the physiological sense) response or solution.
3) in various ways incorporate the results of this discovery into its own structure, thus "recording" or "remembering" (in a non-mental sense) this past, individual history.


Now plenty of scientific examples of molecular systems can be given that describe these definitions very nicely. Just because you don't like the terms has no baring on their validity. Live with it.

So how about that post you agreed to change, changed it, and then changed back? Going to change it again?

 

[rwenzori]

From this

To this

Yeah, uhm, I think you can stop acting like you know what intentionality is all about and calling others liars. You have not done much investigating by your own admission.

I have not done much investigating of conscious intent demonstrated by animals, as I stated. Not only can you not write English, you cannot read it very well either, as several of us have remarked upon.

My "nano-intentionality"? And Kauffman's "dumb agency"? Yeah, come back when you actually have a point instead of insulting others mmkay. All you are doing is indulging in a few ad hominems, empty rhetoric and your empty assertions that "this stuff does not comply/gel with me so I just disagree". You are stuck on terms, get over it, deal with it.

Lollers! I have shown both of their theories to be dodgy previously. Deal with it. Normal causality and basic chemistry.

Either deal with the terms given (you know those accepted for peer-review)

Let us bow before the god of peer-review! Nothing can be incorrect!

Be a good fellow and point me to some peer-level reviews of the papers you quote. That is - if anyone has bothered LOL.

Looks like you are seriously confused about your own terms:

Molecular autonomous agent: "a system that is able to act on its own behalf"

Which is a dumbed-down, convenient replacement, though incompatible with:

Definition of agency:

• Agency is the ability to intentionally manipulate information for a purpose.
• The manipulation of information represents the intentions of an agent.
• The reason for the manipulation of information serves as the purpose of an agent to represent himself.
• An agent is not a passive spectator of unfolding actions, but the author thereof.

For example, an agent wants to get out of a room that has a door. Unlocking and opening of the door is intentionally done to exit a room. An agent has actively manipulated the lock and door handle and pulled on it to open it for the purpose of intentionally getting on the other side of it. The agent also closes the door and locks it in order to leave it as it was found. Thus, the opening, unlocking and closing and locking of the door is a representation of the intentions of the natural agent and cannot be explained by chance and natural laws operative in that environment.
...
Beautiful example of an intentional plan laid out by agents in order to manipulate the environment as a means to an end.

Intentionality is the ability of a mental state to refer to something outside of itself and has the purpose of guiding behaviour. An intentional mental state may have no effect on material reality and may only consist of information (like a plan). It is when an agent acts to change the make up of the material (like implementing a plan) that the representations of the agent (executing a plan) become intentional states in themselves.

By your definitions minds have intent and exhibit purpose. By your definitions call them "agents". You can't have your cake and eat it, or should I say biscuit, you bad yeti!

Your Tecumseh Fitch and Kauffman boys, either by mistake or intent ( LOL! ), fall into the classic trap of using terms incorrectly, and bending them to suit their own conclusions. Just like you, and many ID drones. Now I don't mind if they publish their theories using neutral terms - maybe they have a point or two. But as academics they should be wary of their own desires to find purpose where there is none. Or at least be aware that their sloppy usage of terms would be pounced upon by those with a different agenda.

Now please stop merely repeating and repeating the same stuff over and over. It's all just causality, reactions, chemistry. Come back when you think you have some firmer evidence.

About "that post" - you didn't bring your side of the bargain. Shame. Deal with it.

 

[Phronesis]

I have not done much investigating of conscious intent demonstrated by animals, as I stated.

So you really don't know or have investigated "mind" and come to conclusions which entities have minds and whhich do not have? I am sorry, could you run your definition of what "mind" is again?

Lollers! I have shown both of their theories to be dodgy previously. Deal with it. Normal causality and basic chemistry.

Not only have you failed to describe causality, but you have failed to show you have basic knowledge about chemistry (remember catalysts, work, constraints etc.?). I really don't know what you are waffling on about here . Want to actually answer questions instead of making empty assertions? And why don't we go into a little more detail about the chemistry and biochemistry of life to see how far your waffling can take you .

Be a good fellow and point me to some peer-level reviews of the papers you quote. That is - if anyone has bothered LOL.

Wow, if you don't have an argument, knock the peer-review system and make up your own assertions. Nonsense like ..."because I said so". Like this:

Which is a dumbed-down, convenient replacement, though incompatible with:

Because you said so hey?

How is a definition of agency incompatible with intentionality and nano-intentionality. Like I said, intent and intention was not used to allude to intentionality (who is actually conflating terms all along ROF). And yet again you fail to engage with the terms given, you just waffle onwards say "this is nonsense because I said so". Stuck on terms as usual.

Deal with these please, without making baseless assertions.
Molecular autonomous agent: "a system that is able to act on its own behalf"

such a system should be able to
1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Perform at least one work cycle.
3) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
4) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.
5) Be able to choose between at least two alternatives.

Nano-intentionality: Crucial pre-mental properties of a cell that can
1) respond to (somewhat) novel circumstances, eventualities for which it is not specifically-prepared by the evolutionary "memory" instantiated in its DNA.
2) discover, through an individual process of trial and error, some "adaptive" (in the physiological sense) response or solution.
3) in various ways incorporate the results of this discovery into its own structure, thus "recording" or "remembering" (in a non-mental sense) this past, individual history.

By your definitions minds have intent and exhibit purpose. By your definitions call them "agents".

Your Tecumseh Fitch and Kauffman boys, either by mistake or intent ( LOL! ), fall into the classic trap of using terms incorrectly, and bending them to suit their own conclusions.

Yet, here you are, admitting you have not really looked into intentionality and mind but criticise peer-reviewd level literature. Highly amusing I must say, but the waffling is obvious.

Just like you, and many ID drones. Now I don't mind if they publish their theories using neutral terms - maybe they have a point or two.

Oh joy, another ad hominem - "ID drones". Yep, guess it rings true that those who do not have an argument go after personal attacks.

Now please stop merely repeating and repeating the same stuff over and over. It's all just causality, reactions, chemistry. Come back when you think you have some firmer evidence.

Yeah repeat your same old incoherent materialist mantra. Computers are also just wires, by they have derived intentionality as well (they play chess). Heck you can even describe them to be agents, although they lack three specific properties

1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
3) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.

About "that post" - you didn't bring your side of the bargain. Shame. Deal with it.

You agreed to remove them and I am unaware of any bargains made before or after you removed them. You also did it sneakily and failed to mention when I allegedly "did not bring my side of the bargain" of your mythical deal. Malicious! If only the MODS become aware of your tactics! I think the good people of MyBB have seen enough of your underhanded tactics to come to the conclusion that you are not interested in any form of structured and constructive debate. Empty rhetoric, trash-talk, baseless assertions and an aversion for honestly attempting to actually answering questions.

Why don't you want to enter in a structured debate hey? What is wrong? Tell you what, why don't you get a few people to join you and let's see if you can actually hold your own in a structured and constructive debate.

 

[rwenzori]

So you really don't know or have investigated "mind" and come to conclusions which entities have minds and whhich do not have? I am sorry, could you run your definition of what "mind" is again?

What part of "by animals" did you not get? No need to ascribe all sorts of fanciful drivel to me just because you can't read LOL.

Not only have you failed to describe causality, but you have failed to show you have basic knowledge about chemistry (remember catalysts, work, constraints etc.?).

You don't mean "quantum indeterminacy" and "Brownian motion" - your favourite fundamental forces at the heart of your "machines" - do you? ROFL ROFL

How is a definition of agency incompatible with intentionality and nano-intentionality.

The interesting phenomenon that you demonstrate is that you love to quote others, but clearly cannot understand what you post and quote. Can you not see the contradictions I posted? LOL!

Yeah repeat your same old incoherent materialist mantra. Computers are also just wires, by they have derived intentionality as well (they play chess).

I'm not sure I buy the concept of "derived" intentionality ( even on your erroneous definition of intentionality ).

You agreed to remove them and I am unaware of any bargains made before or after you removed them. You also did it sneakily and failed to mention when I allegedly "did not bring my side of the bargain" of your mythical deal. Malicious! If only the MODS become aware of your tactics! I think the good people of MyBB have seen enough of your underhanded tactics to come to the conclusion that you are not interested in any form of structured and constructive debate. Empty rhetoric, trash-talk, baseless assertions and an aversion for honestly attempting to actually answering questions.

Why don't you want to enter in a structured debate hey? What is wrong? Tell you what, why don't you get a few people to join you and let's see if you can actually hold your own in a structured and constructive debate.

It's very hard to debate with someone who cannot even understand the quotes he mines.

Are you feeing a bit hard done by that my post stands. Oh dear. What about this then, and this? I'm thinking "empty rhetoric, trash-talk, baseless assertions and an aversion for honestly attempting to actually answering questions".

 

[Phronesis]

1) Could you give your definition of "mind"?
2) Can you say why mind is limited to certain organisms?

Right, so no serious objections to the following definitions. All subsequent discussions are going to centre around them.
Molecular autonomous agent: "a system that is able to act on its own behalf"

such a system should be able to
1) Reproduce with heritable variation.
2) Perform at least one work cycle.
3) Have boundaries such that it can be individuated naturally.
4) Engage in self-propagating work and constraint construction.
5) Be able to choose between at least two alternatives.

Nano-intentionality: Crucial pre-mental properties of a cell that can
1) respond to (somewhat) novel circumstances, eventualities for which it is not specifically-prepared by the evolutionary "memory" instantiated in its DNA.
2) discover, through an individual process of trial and error, some "adaptive" (in the physiological sense) response or solution.
3) in various ways incorporate the results of this discovery into its own structure, thus "recording" or "remembering" (in a non-mental sense) this past, individual history.

Are you feeing a bit hard done by that my post stands.

I don't know why you should boast about your dishonesty. You agreed to remove a******s from your post because other people have received warnings for posting it. You did in fact change it. And you did in fact change it back. Sneaky and dishonest and then you came with the bogus idea that you had some sort of deal. Another lie. You removed it and we had no deal because other people have received warnings for it, yet you continue to post it. I don't know why the MOD only removed the first instance. Did you put it back again?