The following article is an explication of the ‘faculty of intention’, and that “true agency” equates to ‘having an intention’. But the idea of intention is often difficult to explicate in itself, especially in light of materialism and the greater context of causality – for by definition, how can an “intention” be caused?? The article goes on to explain how our “intentions” are actually a product of the mind’s ability to create objectives for itself, in contrast to a spiritual/ metaphysical form of agency that has no causality what so ever.
Disclosure: Though it is obviously open to scrutiny, I truly believe that the following contribution may very well serve as the catalyst for real Artificial Intelligence in terms of not only defining what is true “Agency” (hence the length which I apologise for in advance), but this article may actually lay out the groundwork for the creation of true “Agency” itself – which has boggled the minds of philosophers and cognitive theorists alike for years. The fallacy that arises in suggesting that one can actually “create” agency is due to the “determination” in relation to the agent’s actions (hence nullifying the intrinsic agency by becoming determined instead). This is often the case with most (if not all) forms of Artificial Intelligence, in that they are merely “programmed” (Greek programma: pro- [before] graphia [written]) forms of agency, that is to say, they are simply determined by the programme that has been pre-written for them to perform certain (or a range of) actions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/#NatActAge
Re: #Intentions & the Auto/ Hetero Dialectic.
The word “intention” is derived from the Latin word #intendere which means ‘to intend, extend, direct’, from in-‘towards’ + tendere ‘stretch, tend’.
Now in viewing “intention” from its linguistic perspective, that is, the things which we stretch towards – in other words ‘Our Objectives’, we can see (from a completely materialist understanding) that our intentions may not be as #autonomous as initially thought, such that my intentions are a direct product of some spiritual form of agency…
Rather, the implications which follow from this premise suggest that an #intention is little more than ‘the ability to create an objective.’
In other words, it is not that I “intend” as a result of a purely intrinsic autonomy or command from my spiritual self (my spiritual agency) but rather, the fact that “I intend” may actually be the result which follows the very creation of an objective(s).
For how can I intend something in the absence of an objective!?
In other words, to intend is actually equivalent to thinking that you have an objective, albeit from a greater teleology, purpose, religion, or even desire – for what is desire BUT an objective to satisfy one’s desires, all of which fall under the scope of “objectives”.
This is telling, for if we maintain the premise that the faculty of #imagination is what distinguishes mankind [haywanu-l naatiq] from normal animals/ life forms [haywan], then this notion only increases with momentum by virtue of consistency for it suggests that the faculty of “imagination” may actually serve as the mechanism responsible for the very creation of objectives.
By imagining, we are able to #create_objectives for ourselves, and by creating objectives at the macro level (constituting religion) we see likewise that by creating objectives at the micro level, this would constitute our everyday “intentions”.
In respect to Artificial Intelligence and “creating true agency” (as I initially stated), I am proposing that there is another faculty/ system/ or modular process that has the capacity to “create objectives” and thereby bring about Our “intentions”.
The implications for A.I. is that if we can create a programme that “creates objectives” then this would effectively constitute pure agency/ autonomy for the reason that the agent now has the ability “to intend” for itself.
In respect to humans, I would further argue that our ‘faculty responsible for creating objectives’ can be influenced and perhaps even determined by the alternative systems and modular processes, ranging from the senses, to spacial perception, all the way to Language of Thought (LOT) and the faculty of self-preservation, hence in light of our experiences in reality – especially in light of the faculty of “imagination” that we create objectives for ourselves perpetually.
Why? Is open to scrutiny, but I would propose that the “exist” in the absence of a greater teleology would itself lead to self-destruction of the agent – for one would well & truly be existing WITHOUT A PURPOSE, hence all faculties would find no “reason” / “purpose” / “objective” / nor intention to live.
Hence, the phenomena of religion in that we MUST create some kind of overarching teleology to substantiate our existence and likewise avoid “Ideological Stagnancy” which may have actually sent Nietzsche insane.
Just a thought…
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intention
Jonathon L.A. Kelly
Bachelor of Philosophy
Follow Jonathon on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009788708931&fref=ts
Logiocracy 