On Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:25:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> >> To act on itself, as far as I can understand it, would mean to be 
> uncaused 
> >> or truly random, which is indeed incompatible with determinism. But why 
> >> should that have anything to do with "intentionality"? 
> > 
> > 
> > What is intention if not acting on, or better 'through' yourself? 
>
> Intention in the colloquial sense is when I want to do something. I 
> still want to do things whether my brain processes are deterministic 
> or probabilistic. 
>

I agree in the sense that your definition picks up on the independence of 
intention from deterministic-probabilistic (unintentional) conditions, but 
if we are talking about how a universe which was purely d-p would wind up 
having something within it that could have "intention", then it doesn't 
make sense. We can't say that "In a universe which is entirely 
unintentional, it is not a problem that intention exists anyways."

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to