The myth of 1%

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The only focal objection is the term 'intent' implies thinking about what it is doing based on the definition of the term.

Correct. The word intent implies consciousness. Only conscious things can intend. This includes some animals, but not life itself. That's the objection to using the word in that context. Life doesn't intend. Mind does.

But at the molecular level metabolisms enable the release of wavelengths and the process of increasing a qubit of energy(EM) to build structures. The wavelength of em, is the importance, not the heat upon the group. Do you have any single set of literature that represents the process to the atoms and wavelength of em to make even 1 structure of a living system? NO because physics does not drill down to such specifics ... You are now able to see where I have my head, to the level of the atoms and energy (each wavelength aka qubit/photon of energy itself).

What? I thought that we were talking about life and its intentions if any. You're at the scale of the subatomic. Life is an epiphenomenon of matter channeling energy that begins to manifest at the scale of chemistry (atoms, ions, molecules). Atoms aren't alive. Photons aren't alive. Protons and electrons aren't alive. Mind, however, might be an epiphenomenon that manifests at the level of the subatomic, perhaps as standing particle-waves or as coherence among subatomic particles analogous to superconductance or in quantum computing.

 

[Bthoth]

Correct. The word intent implies consciousness. Only conscious things can intend. This includes some animals, but not life itself. That's the objection to using the word in that context. Life doesn't intend. Mind does.

I agreed on the term and perhaps that a new term should be used. The concept of having an intent to survive, is what is correct.

What? I thought that we were talking about life and its intentions if any.

It is. But I was giving you a scope of why I am a bit different in perspective.

You're at the scale of the subatomic.

Living systems, processes are bound to the atomic interactions. You used the term metabolism.

Life is an epiphenomenon of matter channeling energy that begins to manifest at the scale of chemistry (atoms, ions, molecules).

There's a cool word. But I must disagree with your bland approach. As you see it, life is an accident of just mixed up chemicals that started breathing.

Atoms aren't alive. Photons aren't alive. Protons and electrons aren't alive.

Great........... At least we have a starting point.

Mind, however, might be an epiphenomenon that manifests at the level of the subatomic, perhaps as standing particle-waves or as coherence among subatomic particles analogous to superconductance or in quantum computing.

The coherence of energy upon mass is how life, mind and eventually consciousness exist.

But that after effect approach of Epiphenomenon is weird to wrap up unless trying to address mind vs consciousness perhaps.

My point to dive into atoms and energy is, that the process of atoms combining are based on em upon the elements. Bohr analogy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one has been kicking you. And you screwed up again. Yes, we all know the meaning of the phrase. If you claim "strawman" you have to show how they misrepresented your position. From what I have seen you are not the best communicator at times so it might not be a strawman that you are running into. People may not be understanding your poorly written posts.

To be a strawman the misrepresentation must be intentional. And I do not think that has ever been the case with your posts.

It wasn't a straw man argument. It wasn't even an argument. It was a statement of fact relevant to the discussion and addressing prior unsupported claims.

You know the drill. Got nothing. Can't refute your opponent in the debate Lean on logical fallacies. If that doesn't work, turn to ad hominem insults and posturing. It's like there is a playbook.

I still don't agree, nor have I seen that there is evidence of any understanding of this science. Any science. Now there is evidence that logic isn't well understood either. Didn't see that coming.

I'm still enjoying that paper that was used as evidence that turned out to be a demonstration against the claims of intent. LOL! You gotta love the self-refuting post.

 

[Valjean]

I agreed on the term and perhaps that a new term should be used. The concept of having an intent to survive, is what is correct.

If you agree the term implies conscious will, why do you keep using it in some completely different sense.?
Try substituting "conscious plan" and "conscious planning" for "intent" and "intention" in your previous posts. Maybe that will help you see our point.

 

[Bthoth]

If you agree the term implies conscious will, why do you keep using it in some completely different sense.?

I agree, that it hurt your feelings and why you continue to punch at me.


I did not use the term to imply conscious-will in "Life: intent to continue."

Try substituting "conscious plan" and "conscious planning" for "intent" and "intention" in your previous posts. Maybe that will help you see our point.

Will it make you feel better?


Read 'What is LIfe' by E Schroadinger to understand similar comprehension.

 

[Bthoth]

Tough crowd