Everyone has a philosophical filter

[bandit4god]

Was the outcome/phenomenon a result of intent-driven action or non-intent-driven action?

When speaking of life, there is no reason to suspect that it was a result of an intent-driven action. When speaking of my car, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Say more on this, because it's an intriguing parallel.  Are you saying that life existing is obviously non-intent-driven and your car existing is obviously intent-driven?

[xSilverPhinx]

Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

[Asmodean]

Say more on this, because it's an intriguing parallel.  Are you saying that life existing is obviously non-intent-driven and your car existing is obviously intent-driven?

All known cars are a product of human engineering with the intent of getting from A to B in shorter time and for less effort than using one's own two feet. There is no reason to suspect that my car is any different.

Intent succeeds forms of life life blindly floating about in the evolutionary chain (I would say the first life forms displaying it were also the first ones to purposefully move in the direction of food). Therefor, there is no reason to assume that life is a product of intent.

[bandit4god]

Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

This is precisely my question for the group!  As we set out to explain the existence of life, shall we not consider causes driven by intent alongside causes that are not?  To bias toward the latter is applying a philosophical filter on passable types of explanation.

[Attila]

Bandit4god, how do you know that life is not a result rather than the goal?

This is precisely my question for the group!  As we set out to explain the existence of life, shall we not consider causes driven by intent alongside causes that are not?  To bias toward the latter is applying a philosophical filter on passable types of explanation.

But B4G are you even able to trace out a scenario of what a possible explanation (your term) for the existence of life as an intentional act might be? It seems to lead to a dead end. I'm all for positing far fetched hypotheses but only that offer some hope of empirical consequences in the form of testable claims. I don't see any but I'm quite happy to be enlightened.
ciao,
Attila

[bandit4god]

But B4G are you even able to trace out a scenario of what a possible explanation (your term) for the existence of life as an intentional act might be? It seems to lead to a dead end. I'm all for positing far fetched hypotheses but only that offer some hope of empirical consequences in the form of testable claims. I don't see any but I'm quite happy to be enlightened.
ciao,
Attila

Again, a modest goal: just trying to get the first consideration of explanations (or "brainstorming session") to include intent-driven explanations.

Let's think back to the hero we referred to a few posts back who writes at the top of his paper, ""How is it that life on earth exists?"

An unfiltered list might look something like this.

Non-intent-driven explanations:
Abiogenesis resulting from chemical reactions on earth
Extraterrestrial life arriving by comet/meteor
Life has always existed on a piece of matter that eventually merged with earth

Intent-driven explanations:
Extra-earth actor(s) choosing to seed the planet with life from outside
Extra-earth actor(s) facilitating formation of life by aiding natural processes on earth

Testability and empiricism has come up a few times, but it's worth noting that this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.  In this first step, why filter out possible explanations as impossible a priori just because they aren't testable?

[Asmodean]

this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.

Those usually tend to serve a purpose. Inventing an intent-driven explanation for origins of life on Earth is unnecessary since it adds to the list of assumptions without adding anything of explanatory value. (Still does not answer how and possibly why life did emerge)

Aliens choosing to bring life to Earth assumes that by the point it emerged, there was at least one race of aliens capable of interstellar travel AND interested for some reason in populating uninhabited rocks. Life being a result of chemical processes and possibly a good dose of luck makes no such assumption.

[Attila]

Testability and empiricism has come up a few times, but it's worth noting that this concern hasn't stopped the development of string theory or a raft of other "scientific" explanations that cannot be observed.  In this first step, why filter out possible explanations as impossible a priori just because they aren't testable?

Being unobservable is not the same thing has not having any empirical consequences that are observable. The discovery of Pluto before it could be observed is an obvious example. It was positied due to gravitational effects acting on nearby objects. I take your answer to mean that you have no scenario. Untestable hypotheses have no interest. They are equivalent (but less honest) to saying  "I don't know", that's why I rule them out a priori. If you want untestable then my Secret Bunny who sits on my shoulder and guides my life will answer all your questions. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You're taking the piss aren't you? Like Recusant I chased the red cape didn't I. Well done!   Ok, we're done here.
ciao,
Attila

[bandit4god]

You're taking the piss aren't you?

How's that in American English?

You guys keep attacking the intent-driven hypotheses as though they are the terminus of an argument about the existence of life.  This thread argues no such thing!  If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!  My beef is with a philosophical filter that denies intent-driven explanations from being considered at all.

[Asmodean]

If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!

...And yet there is no real reason to consider such an explanation so why would one do that?

Is it possible..? Yes, it probably is. Is it plausible? Not really, no. Is it necessary? Again, not really.

[Attila]

You're taking the piss aren't you?

How's that in American English?

You guys keep attacking the intent-driven hypotheses as though they are the terminus of an argument about the existence of life.  This thread argues no such thing!  If one says that they have considered these explanations and thereafter ruled them out through inductive reasoning, I have no beef with that perspective!  My beef is with a philosophical filter that denies intent-driven explanations from being considered at all.

I don't think it's about intent vs. non-intent. It's about silly, boring, irrelevant vs. interesting. Consider a theory to explain the Permian–Triassic extinction event. God farted. Since god is great this was a very big fart full of noxious gasses that wiped out a hug portion of the extant organisms. God didn't mean to fart  (sometime he does but not in this case) and was quite sorry about it so it was not an intent-driven event it was an accident. Nevertheless my bullshit filter would zap it all the same. I hope this reassures you.
ciao,
Attila 

[Too Few Lions]

Imagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

Reasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations? 

This is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Those three categories are self-created by you b4g. If I were to compare the messy room to the universe, it seems to me you're saying  I have two possible explanations;

1) a natural explanation - eg  I've been burgled, there's been an earthquake etc. I can try and ascertain the most likely explanation by examing the evidence in my messy room.

2) a supernatural explanation - fairies did it.

I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

[BullyforBronto]

Imagine you walk into your house and find a messy living room (moreso than usual!).  Papers strewn everywhere, furniture smashed, glass broken.  What types of explanation are available to account for what happened?
- Natural:  wind, flooding, animals, earthquake, etc.
- Personal:  someone stormed into your house and acted with specific intent
- Conceptual/positivistic:  You create reality from your own consciousness, and so caused this also

Reasoning inductively, would you have any reason to narrow the aperture to consider only natural explanations? 

This is my point about explanation in other cases as well, especially those on the fringes of retrospective observability.  The universe, like the messy living room, exists.  Life, like the messy living room, exists.  Should we not widen the aperature to reason inductively through the explanatory power of all three types of explanation for this?

Those three categories are self-created by you b4g. If I were to compare the messy room to the universe, it seems to me you're saying  I have two possible explanations;

1) a natural explanation - eg  I've been burgled, there's been an earthquake etc. I can try and ascertain the most likely explanation by examing the evidence in my messy room.

2) a supernatural explanation - fairies did it.

I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

This is what I was trying to get at with my earlier post(s). OK, there is the possibility that faries did it. But, if I rest on this assumption, that's all I can do. That is, rest on it. Well, unless faries are not supernatural. Then, I suppose the next step would be to perform a longitudinal study of farie behavior and the underlying impetus that creates their urge to mess up one's room.

Supernatural explanations, as I mentioned before, are a stopping point and are, in my opinion, a cop out.

[Too Few Lions]

plus maybe I have a Rupert the Bear book in my messed-up room, which has stories with mischievous little fairies in it. Now, if I based my understanding of the universe on said Rupert the Bear book, and assigned some level of truth and historical accuracy to the stories contained therein, maybe I then might have to make that first deductive step between a) natural causes and b) fairies...

[bandit4god]

I don't feel I'm applying a philosophical filter by not considering the possibility that fairies messed up my room!

Regardless of how you feel, that's exactly what you are doing.  By not considering the possibility that fairies messed up your room, you're applying the philosophical filter that limits the set of acceptable explanations.  I'll keep saying it, hoping that somehow it will break through:

The object of this thread is not to convince you that intent-driven explanations are correct.  Rather, it's to convince you to include them on the introductory list of possible explanations at the start of your inductive reasoning process.  To do otherwise would be to arbitrarily restrict the solution space based on, well, faith!