does nature have intentionality?

Padawanbater2 said:

What are you defining as 'nature'? Of course you don't think other things in nature have intentionality, like hurricanes and volcanoes. I agree with you that our basic instincts are pointing towards reproduction, but I wouldn't necessarily call that intentionality, I don't see any active aspect in the process. Similarly, I wouldn't call blinking or breathing 'active'

Click to expand...

twostrokenut said:

Oh how I laughed at this one....belief in something bigger than yourself is weak minded? What then is the collective?
I digress.....I will leave you to play with your football bat.

Click to expand...

Zaehet Strife said:

Nature in the sense of everything, just trying to exist and keep on going, the atoms that make up everything... every time they break apart they create something new, sometimes different, sometimes more complex... it seems if it can become more and more complex it does so... and does whatever it can in order to keep becoming more and more complex, more successful at existing.

So in that sense, i think "nature", has the intention to survive... to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex in order to continue to preserve it.

It just makes sense to me that way, the phenomena of the physical world collectively... seems to me when i observe it, to be doing just that.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

then reconcile that view with trisomy 21.

Click to expand...

Zaehet Strife said:

Mutations are a part of nature. Either trying something new, or trying something different... it seems that the mutation that creates down syndrome was not such a good mutation, and does not help human animals survive.. i never said i thought "nature" was perfect, or that "nature" does not make "mistakes". Just that it keeps trying things different, keeps trying to survive, and to do it's best to preserve itself... even if the preservation is something... "not perfect".

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

you said you believed in evolution, which explains what we see. adding unnecessary and dubious moving parts is bad practice.

if i fall off a ladder and my watch breaks and stops working, should i also posit that there is some evil gremlin who pushed me off the ladder?

and i can prove that the collective exists, too.

Click to expand...

twostrokenut said:

Bad practice by whom?

Are you a victim of gremlins?

I agree you can prove the collective exists, but you can only prove it to yourself. Still does not make it less imaginary.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

you must be intent on proving your own stupidity and stubbornness now.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

but you said "nature...does whatever it can...[to be] more successful at existing". trisomy 21 seems to contradict that line of thought.

are you saying mutations are intentional rather than random?

Click to expand...

Zaehet Strife said:

I am saying that "nature" is chaotic and random, that sometimes it can come together to make "beautiful" things that work well, as well as "ugly" things that don't work well. When you look at the evolution of the universe, and of life in general... it seems to me, that the intention of nature (if there is one, i have no idea) would be to exist, and take whatever measures it can in order to insure it's own existence, to preserve it and make it more complex if it can in order to continue to preserve it, and in order to become more complex evolution tries many different things... some that work well and some that don't. And just because "nature" tries something that doesn't work well... doesn't mean that it isn't going to continue to try to exist.

Click to expand...

Dr.J20 said:

for those trying to cobble together an argument FOR nature having intentionality: when two potentially reactive elements are in proximity, the fact that they react is not evidence of an intention. it is evidence of reaction. It is not one element's intent to react with another element, it is a physical, chemical reality of the potential interactivity of substances. as with random mutation, we cannot posit an intent simply because something happens.

side note, on trisomy 21-- let's not presume that this is wholly negative: as conscious beings we do learn something from the existence of trisomy 21 AND our socially constructed definitions of normativity force us to value/adjudicate the social worth of someone with trisomy 21 in ways that are not NECESSARILY accurate. To be more clear, what I mean by this second part is: it is theoretically possible to argue that someone with trisomy 21 may provide different and potentially progressive insight to the world through his or her unique and technically "abnormal" experience of reality. Thus, the fact of a non-average existence cannot be wholesale categorized as "nature undermining herself."

In other words, it could be construed that the knowledge humanity garners from investigating trisomy 21, among other phenomena, help one particular species of nature--a species with a great potential to interact with natural processes, hopefully to shape them towards their best expressions--to understand the natural forces within which said species is bound.
But, of course, this would take us far afield from the discussion as to whether nature itself possesses intentionality. rather, this line of argumentation brings forth the paradoxical problem of classifying man as both part of, and in conflict with nature/the natural. Man certainly has intention. man is part of nature. man, though, is not Nature en toto. man can affect nature (e.g, place sodium in water to cause a reaction).
perhaps the proper line of questioning begins with the question of intentionality: what is it, where does it come from?

Click to expand...

Dr.J20 said:

for those trying to cobble together an argument FOR nature having intentionality: when two potentially reactive elements are in proximity, the fact that they react is not evidence of an intention. it is evidence of reaction. It is not one element's intent to react with another element, it is a physical, chemical reality of the potential interactivity of substances. as with random mutation, we cannot posit an intent simply because something happens.

side note, on trisomy 21-- let's not presume that this is wholly negative: as conscious beings we do learn something from the existence of trisomy 21 AND our socially constructed definitions of normativity force us to value/adjudicate the social worth of someone with trisomy 21 in ways that are not NECESSARILY accurate. To be more clear, what I mean by this second part is: it is theoretically possible to argue that someone with trisomy 21 may provide different and potentially progressive insight to the world through his or her unique and technically "abnormal" experience of reality. Thus, the fact of a non-average existence cannot be wholesale categorized as "nature undermining herself."

In other words, it could be construed that the knowledge humanity garners from investigating trisomy 21, among other phenomena, help one particular species of nature--a species with a great potential to interact with natural processes, hopefully to shape them towards their best expressions--to understand the natural forces within which said species is bound.
But, of course, this would take us far afield from the discussion as to whether nature itself possesses intentionality. rather, this line of argumentation brings forth the paradoxical problem of classifying man as both part of, and in conflict with nature/the natural. Man certainly has intention. man is part of nature. man, though, is not Nature en toto. man can affect nature (e.g, place sodium in water to cause a reaction).
perhaps the proper line of questioning begins with the question of intentionality: what is it, where does it come from?

Click to expand...