# True Intentions



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

WARNING:* Philosophy and not for thread skimmers*

Is a person's intention the most effective way to describe someone?

I think a person's inner intention is fundamental in the terms that it is clearly defined. If we figure out the true intention behind the person's action, we can analyze each action by projecting them with a moral system. 

Of course there are flaws in this thinking model that I can already point out, namely the moral system since it is culturally, socially, and but not limited to religiously defined (which is really another group/person's moral system).

There is also another difficulty with figuring out another person's true intention because the true intention is masked by layers of excuses. For example, "I want to help homeless people." The intention behind this statement is to help people but here is the twist. If the person that wants to help homeless people finds out that he/she will not be compensated, the person looks for another job that helps homeless people but with a salary involved. Isn't this person a hypocrite since the primary benefactor from this person's intention is really the person itself, not the homeless?

Here is the analysis of that person's inner world.

First layer: I want to help homeless people.
Second layer: I want to be compensated.
Third layer: To be revealed.
...
True layer:

So at this point, we can see that this person wants to help themselves, not the homeless. If that is indeed, the true intention (the last layer). Then this person's intention can be analyzed. A conclusion is that this person is selfish (using a moral system), if indeed the person's true intention is at the second layer. What if there was a third layer by this person commenting that they just need the bare minimum (air, food, and water) to survive in order to help the homeless.

First layer: I want to help homeless people.
Second layer: I want to be compensated.
Third layer: I just need enough compensation (food, air, water) so that I may help the homeless.

Then we can say this person is really selfless (using a moral system) because they are devoting their time and energy to aid the homeless. Of course, I can really go on and add a fourth layer that can contradict the whole first three layers (I want to help the homeless at no compensation so that I may get fame and run for office). The key point is that the last layer is the true intention. Is that agreeable?

Again, let me restate the question, *"Is a person's intention the most effective way to describe someone?"*

One thing I never mentioned and avoid mentioning was the analysis of the intention as if it was "good" or "bad" because I would need to project a moral system. However, since we can use any moral system. I'll leave that up to the reader to assign their moral system.

Please bear with me with one last caveat. This method seems to work for me, greatly and I want to improve it. If we use this to analyze politicians, corporations, and institutions on a case-by-case basis, perhaps they can be demolished or fortified in the sense of an moral system (good vs. bad).

Lastly, here is the mucky twist. What is my true intention behind this thread? :crazy:


----------



## sonicdrink (Aug 11, 2010)

Post: True Intention theory

First Layer: I want to explore/confirm my theory on true intentions
Second Layer: I want people to recognize my theoretical / thinking ability
Third Layer: I actually want this to get rejected and then debate on the issue

Correct?


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

The trick is, it is hard to be explained logically because intention is also linked with feelings and humans have various layers of feelings as well. For example;

First layer: I want to help homeless people.
Second layer: I want to be compensated.
Third layer: I just need enough compensation (food, air, water) so that I may help the homeless. 

Third layer could also be ''I just need enough compensation* plus *I feel that this is the right thing to do for other people.''



Yes, the idea of intention is often used for religions, moral systems, philosophies, but at the same time it is still hard to break down ''intention'' itself into more general categories. That would require more subjective work.

Thus, the answer is, depending on how this discussion will go, I'm not sure how to answer your question haha :tongue:

However, I will say this. Based on experience, a person's true intentions often have a way of showing/appearing to the surface through time even when he/she has kept them long hidden.


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

izzie said:


> The trick is, it is hard to be explained logically because intention is also linked with feelings and humans have various layers of feelings as well. For example;
> 
> First layer: I want to help homeless people.
> Second layer: I want to be compensated.
> ...


There is no right answer. I agree with your last sentence. Intentions may be revealed through body language, word choice, and basically any other interaction that requires communication. 

As for the third layer, I was giving an example of someone who has true intentions of helping people through a "good" heart. For people who do have that true intention, my moral ruler tells me this person is "good" and selfless who can attribute to great things (subjective) from an observer's perspective.



sonicdrink said:


> Post: True Intention theory
> 
> First Layer: I want to explore/confirm my theory on true intentions
> Second Layer: I want people to recognize my theoretical / thinking ability
> ...


Not bad, though layers one and three are part of my intentions. As for the second, not at all. My true intention is actually written in the original post. Can you find it? But can you also confirm that this is my true intention or am I lying by polishing another layer?


----------



## sonicdrink (Aug 11, 2010)

to get the reader to assign their moral system perhaps? Or maybe find out just what_ is_ the best way to describe someone?

I can neither confirm nor negate your true intention, however, your theory lacks the mystery of the subconscious. Also, the word "truth" in your dictionary is most likely subjunctive and relative, leaving the act of "lying", and deceit questionable in itself because the truth is not stable.


----------



## sonicdrink (Aug 11, 2010)

another thing, although let's say those were the true intentions of a "good" person example you used, how would you know that's really their true intention. This is all very hard to prove.

Let's just give an example of the subconscious and whatever under layers there are, and say that although this is their initial train of thought, they simply do this out of habit; such as there parents were always volunteering, so they automatically think in this fashion, yet they wonder some days what the point is beyond or behind their current actions and want to explore what would happen if they neglected the habit of these thoughts and had a complete character change as the result? So in turn are there true intentions to be like their parents? To be a good person? To keep the facade learned over earlier thought because of fear of change? Or do they just have those aforementioned and stop at that?

Then you have the question of what drives every action of their behavior, which actions go through the wringer of this ambition or driving question or moral disposition and which ones don't. So then are some actions just superfluous? Or does every single one get based off that deepest layer?

And over time, how does intention change, and to what level does it change at?

Are there only 3 layers to the intention process, or does it go on infinitely til it reaches the deepest layer of cognition itself?


----------



## ENTrePenuer (Jun 12, 2010)

I just saw this movie and I think this clip answers it appropriately.

Buddy Israel has just betrayed Ivy.






Sir Ivy: What'd you say to Mecklen? 
Buddy 'Aces' Israel: What I've always been sayin', let's make the fuckin' deal. 
Sir Ivy: You see... this is one of the rare moments, where your ass gets to be completely honest... and if i'm asking you what you said to Mecklen, assume the shit is rhetorical, assume I already know. 
Buddy 'Aces' Israel: What do you see right now? You see exactly, and only what I choose to show you. That is illusion Ivy, that is the lie that I tell your eyes, makin' the magic happen, in the moment, in that split second... but seeing behind this motherfucker and knowing... that it's all bullshit. 
Sir Ivy: Yeah, you on some bullshit. 
Buddy 'Aces' Israel: But I can shape it, I can shift it, I can make it as real as this room. That's why i'm valuable here Ivy and that is why you are not. 
Sir Ivy: I ain't valuable? 
Buddy 'Aces' Israel: I am sorry, I love you, I never wanted it to be like this, you know that. 
Sir Ivy: It don't matter what you wanted it's what you did.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

I agree with st0831 on analyzing the true intentions of a person to judge his/her acts. In fact, when I was reading this topic, I thought Gosh! He stole my thought!:laughing: You were just speaking my mind!

Though, when it comes to layers and stuff, I'd say it is more complicated than it seems to be. I agree with what Sonicdrink commented on changing and superfluous intentions in this respect. Actually, people's true intention does not depend on any single factor...nor does it stay constant all the time. There are many other reasons which simply strengthens his primary objective....which again might change over time. So one's true intention is not just a single one, but a mixture of many intentions put together. Out of which, one is the primary motivator to induce the actual act. To really make out one's intention, one should notice the pattern of such acts as to whether it is fostering the said intention or going against it. That will prove whether his intention was a true one or has changed over time or not. A single event/act should not be considered as the deciding factor of one's intentions.

And I personally think that the best way to actually judge the goodness or badness of the 'true intention' would be to judge it against the 'proposed intention'. If the true intention is totally opposite, extremely different or doesn't serve the purpose of the proposed intention, then the true intention cannot be labeled good (even if it qualifies in the moral quotient by all good standards). 

So if he says that he wants to help homeless people (i.e. proposed intention) but that is primarily driven by his thoughts of personal gains motivated by some extra tid bits (which is the true intention), then the act should be judged bad as the true intention is not equal to the proposed intention (technically speaking :tongue. The point is, why have a different intention behind something all together if you have proposed to do something else? If the proposed and true intentions are different, then definitely there is something not clean happening in the background... even if the true intentions qualifies to be clean on all moral grounds. I mean, if it is morally good, then why hide it? When a true intention is hidden, it definitely means that the true intention might not be good for some one or class of people/interests, which is why it is being hidden by a proposed intention.

Then again some of you might argue, that as long as the 'real act' serves the purpose of the proposed intention on the surface, then why bother with the true intention? Then I'd say, in the long run, if the proposed intention wasn't the true intention, then the true intention might use the proposed one to hide something 'not-so-good' or give a false impression on something more sinister going on behind the scenes. That is the main utility to look for the true/real intention behind every proposed intention.:happy:


----------



## Archangel (Sep 11, 2010)

I'm actually more interested how can you know about the person's true intentions. To illustrate an example, I'll use unknowns here. Assuming that A does action A, and through it, illustrates his projected intention, X onto the observer. The observer observes A's action, and through it derive X. Now what is important is how the observer interpret X. As you said already, moral, society, majority power plays a role in determining the correct from the incorrect. You also said that morality is subjective to an individual, but it's exactly because of that that causes interpretation of A's true intention to be ridiculously subjective. X is of course subjectively interpreted due to many different observers with their respective views and perceptions. This causes a problem where what is "true". No doubt Observer B could observe B phenomenon, and give B interpretation and declare that it is true, but it is also true that Observer C could observe B phenomenon and give C interpretation and declare that it is true. And it is also true that both Observer B and C's opinion is valid. Think special relativity. But there's no doubt this can be used as a form of measure for the psychology behind someone's action, it's simply that this method is not black or white. I also think that this is more psychological than philosophical, since you're touching about the reasoning process ( intention ). Just my opinion.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

Exactly, that is the reason why I said that using the social norms or any other form of morals cannot be useful here as the projected intention has to be judged based on the true intention. The goodness and badness of the true intention is only applicable if it matches with the projected intention. One cannot label it black or white as per the general standards. And it's more based on person than philosophy in general.

I'll attempt to explain things so that one is at least able to differentiate a proposed intention from the true intention.

*Detection of true intention*- Can be done by observing the patterns of actions taken (and not just single action). If the person observes the pattern of actions taken with respect to the projected intention over a phase of time, one can find out whether the person is true or not. Like if one wants to help the homeless genuinely, then this primary objective will stamp all his actions even when he is not actively promoting it. For example, if this person finds some extra blankets or clothes or food, he will store them for the homeless or give them out whenever possible. In little details of his life, his truer intention will reveal in every day actions or words. His motive, if genuine, will stamp his everyday action and thoughts and not just one day duty of serving the homeless.

*Perception of the true intention*- Every person will have their reference frame which will be used to judge the intention. So the identification of the true intention is relative from person to person as Archangel said. But even then, though the perceptions could be different for all, some majority will find that their perceptions are matching (not because they are like minded but based on their logical inference). That might give some idea as to what the true intention can be...

So the point is, one has to see whether the 'true intention' = 'projected intention' instead of judging it by any other moral standards/reference frames. If it is, then it is an honest one (if not always morally good:tongue and if not, then there is something hidden behind the scenes.


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

Can intentions be observed?

I know we can comprehend certain layers of intentions and we can ''feel'' them, but can we really objectively explain *all layers *of human intentions?

I'm not sure if we can, intentions are still very much linked to the abstract and feelings.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

The primary intention can be detected easily at least.... if not comprehend the whole of it. Depends mainly on what we want to do by knowing the true intention. Knowing the person's nature/character or knowing him personally is an additional tool to achieve accurate results in detecting intentions.:laughing:

Agatha Christie used to solve murder mysteries using human psychology which was not always accurate logically speaking, but gave some insights about the murderer's nature. On the opposite end, Arthur Conan Doyle derived clues mainly from objective reasoning and detecting clues, which again had it's fair share of flaws as it sometimes ignored observation of human behavior and idiosyncrasies. But it explained well how the murder happened.


----------



## disappointed chiliast (Oct 27, 2010)

All inclinations that a person feels are equally true, although some might be stronger or more influential than others. It's simply not the case that someone who gets a job helping the homeless _really_ did it for a unique reason x, rather, she got the job because she wants to help the homeless _and_ she wants to get paid _and_ she wants people to admire her _and_ the fellow who recruited her was cute, and so on and such forth. At some moments she'll feel this inclination more strongly and at other moments another inclination, but at no moment are her preferences any _truer_ to her "real self" than any other. Wherever you go, there you are; you are always your real self, whatever that is. "Intentions" are folk psychology, and can be useful in explaining behavior, but they aren't absolutely existing things any more than MBTI types are.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

disappointed chiliast said:


> All inclinations that a person feels are equally true, although some might be stronger or more influential than others. It's simply not the case that someone who gets a job helping the homeless _really_ did it for a unique reason x, rather, she got the job because she wants to help the homeless _and_ she wants to get paid _and_ she wants people to admire her _and_ the fellow who recruited her was cute, and so on and such forth.


The concept of finding out the true intentions doesn't apply everywhere, but only in some cases where the proposed intention appears devious. In your example, there is no question of any proposed intention and true intention differing because here she is not pretending to serve the homeless *without a salary*. So the salary itself defines that that is the true intention, and it is so obvious that nobody will think of a different proposed intention other than that. The other tid bits like "she wants to help the homeless", "she wants people to admire her" and "the fellow who recruited her was cute" simply strengthens hers primary motive which is "to get paid".

If she did help the homeless *without a salary*, then the question of a true and proposed intentions would have aroused to justify the trueness of her good nature (i.e. whether she is really doing the work out of her benevolent nature or does she have some other intention beneath the surface like saving her taxes through donations, running a scam using the homeless people, etc). This is where we need to start scratching the surface to dig her true intention :laughing:



disappointed chiliast said:


> "Intentions" are folk psychology, and can be useful in explaining behavior, but they aren't absolutely existing things any more than MBTI types are


I've used too much of abstraction in my last posts I guess which is why it might have sounded unreal. :sad: 
Intention exists, but we never associate ourselves with it empirically. It's just a part of us, we don't even realize that it is there and motivating us to do 'things'. I can illustrate with a simple example taken from our daily life.

For example, Emily is a simple person who loves chocolates. But her grandma says that too much chocolate is not good for her teeth. So whenever she asks for chocolates, her grandma denies it. One day, Emily is visited by her cousin brother Victor. It suddenly occurs to her that if she asks chocolates from her Grandma on the pretext of gifting it to Victor, her Grandma won't deny it. So here her true intention is to have some chocolates (she may or may not give them to Victor, that is a different story and no point digressing to that:tongue, but her proposed intention is to gift chocolates to Victor (which is definitely different from her true intentions). We can see that she is projecting a proposed intention to hide her true one.


By saying that we are looking for a true intention, it doesn't mean that the other feelings are false or not a part of her. Her intentions ARE a part of her real self, the true ones deciding her true nature and the fake proposed ones also detailing her true nature of duping people.

So intentions does exist in real life....it's just that we aren't aware of it specifically. Intentions are nothing but purpose, which drives us to do anything. We drink water to quench our thirst, so drinking the water is intended to support our life (I hope nobody will ask about proposed and true intentions applying here as well) and so on and so forth. Intentions are just a part of us and change often depending on our mood or situation, working silently behind the scenes.:happy:


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

There's nothing like a moment of crisis to bring out true character and intention.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Hmmm. Your example is a textbook example of those who try to state that "no one is good or altruistic". Not saying that is your intention here, but they use these kinds of arguments.

I, as well as MANY, many philosophically inclined persons have pondered this question. Long ago I realized that If I were to adopt such a cynical view the world would be a bleaker place. Not only that, but I would also risk adopting a negative, egoistic behavior that would spread negative emotion instead of good ones. (New research show that we spread emotions in several layers of people around us).

We are but animals, with the same basic needs as animals have. But these animal needs can differ depending on species: An ant easily sacrifices themselves for the common good. I believe that this lies in us as well (particularly males who have a protect the pack-programming, and mothers who do anything for their kids).

Also, new research has shown that altruism, indeed, probably is a key factor to the success of our species. If we were to boil everything down to the VERY core, it would be genetics, environment, neurochemical balances and electrical impulses. But we have a LOT of layers on top of this. Some conscious, some not.

If someone acts GENUINELY good, even though they might have had a poor childhood that made them like this, or they have lousy self esteem and better it that way, it still is GOOD from a philosophical perspective, right? (GOOD can be referred to as "best for as many as possible" or "beneficial" for as many as possible....or adhering to - or SURPASS - the common principles of human endeavor and civilization.... If you have a completely different notion of good then this might not feel correct to you). I for one dont think a shark is evil even if it were to eat me. It is purely following its instincts. But a person who intentionally wishes to inflict pain can be said to be evil... or at least be performing an evil act.

I believe the relevant question about INTENT is: What is their CONSCIOUS intent... Particularly if they try to hide it, which in itself is an act where the intent is particularly important. We may have lousy childhoods and the odds against us, but in the end we can always make some kind of conscious choice. THAT is what matters.

(Of course I wouldnt want to hang out with a person who is egoistic/selfish/energy leech/negative even if they are not self-aware of this. They can also be made aware of it and get a new chance. An explanation is not necessarily a sufficient excuse.)


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Hmmm. Your example is a textbook example of those who try to state that "no one is good or altruistic". Not saying that is your intention here, but they use these kinds of arguments.
> 
> I, as well as MANY, many philosophically inclined persons have pondered this question. Long ago I realized that If I were to adopt such a cynical view the world would be a bleaker place. Not only that, but I would also risk adopting a negative, egoistic behavior that would spread negative emotion instead of good ones. (New research show that we spread emotions in several layers of people around us).
> 
> ...


LOL I got carried away with the theory I guess :tongue: The point was to explain how intention works. Doesn't mean that I was saying everyone has a negative intention behind all work, etc. Just showing how intention is instrumental behind our behaviors...don't take me wrong just coz I cited a negative example. I can cite dozens of other examples where people ended up doing something really good with positive intentions. 

My objective was to demonstrate, that intention does give a direction to the person's character traits (if not the whole personality generally speaking).

Intentions, instincts, feelings are what drives us...be it positive or negative. Goodness and badness are relative terms, coz it depends mainly on the situation where it is applied. Even people who think they are doing GOOD for a greater good end up harming others (the typical Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" villain). So can a person who thinks he is simply useless and can never do anything useful in life might end up to being a Hero someday, saving lives. 

We can always control what we want to become...as well as our intentions. Most of the time, we aren't conscious of our intentions, we think that our instincts are driving us. Character is more important in defining these intentions, coz a good man will do good in a situation whereas a bad man will do bad in that same situation. Even in adverse situations, man has demonstrated to rise to the greatest heights of humanity. It takes great will power and an honest intent to do good that makes great people stand out from the rest of us.:happy:


----------



## Anahata (Aug 11, 2010)

What a fascinating thread, and how many different directions it has gone... I feel as though you're all circling the same idea like vultures, but the birds are in various states of polite disagreement about what carcass is lying there on the ground. I feel like galvanizing you into action so I'm actually going to try to land on the kill.

To ascertain someone's intentions you are observing their behaviors as this is the only information available to you to actually detect what might be beneath apparent looks, words spoken or ideas discussed. Behaviors are all done in the satisfaction of our needs. The OP of this thread asks about his intentions: His intentions were to see who had similar/dissimilar thoughts to his on this subject, to improve and expand upon something he is fascinated with, and to while away some time in a discussion he wanted to be involved with rather than some other chore/obligation that was awaiting him.

His behavior in posting this, however is all directed towards his needs for fun and possibly freedom as well since he is "escaping" something else in his life by posting this thread.

When we ascertain a person's intentions we do so by observing patterns in them. The first time a drummer friend of mine reneged on an obligation I was disconcerted and, yet, I was happy to forgive him and not hold any ill will against him because he "claimed" he was sick. The second time it happened I had a much worse time with the "forgetting" part, and as for forgiveness if it is defined by moving on with no damage to the relationship then that didn't happen either. The THIRD time it happened I was livid with this person, and angry with myself for not following my instincts never to have further dealings with him... And now, this week end, I got the shaft from him again, but it was because he reneged on another colleague of mine, and I feel obligated to take up the slack for the sake of my students who are also this man's students.. 

His intentions in accepting responsibility after responsibility are now clear to me, but it was only because I observed a pattern of behaviors set up over time:

His intentions in accepting drumming gigs with the school are as follows:
1) To drum with people because he loves to play his instrument
2) To be around other people in an atmosphere in which he is an expert and can be seen as this
3) To be the recipient of both admiration for his talents and requests for his expertise

His behaviors of consistently reneging on his obligations in drumming all stem, however, from a complete need for freedom FROM such responsibilities, while-- in contrast-- his acceptance of such responsibilities confides a strong profile in needs for power. A person with high needs for power AND high needs for freedom is constantly at war with themselves because in the satisfaction of one is ultimately the neglect of the other implicit, and this, then, forces the person into masochistic tendencies and self-destructive patterns that harm their social, emotional and spiritual life. This man may be shafting his colleagues, but he is ultimately harming himself because he is doing irreparable harm to his reputation with his co-workers, students, parents of the students, AND any future people to whom he might've been recommended by consistency demonstrating that he cannot be trusted to fulfill his obligations.

So you see: needs = observable behavior
intentions = the conscious and subconscious processes we go through before CHOOSING a behavior in order to satisfy our needs in one or more areas.

The needs profiles of a person tell me significantly more about a person than their intentions being as they will always _act_ to satisfy those needs, and that choice to satisfy one or the other needs IS subconscious, and (to a certain extent) uncontrollable. When it is a person with warring needs in their profile I can observe their behaviors over time to see which need they will consistently satisfy over the other. This man courts power, but always favors his freedom. He craves one and cannot live without the other. If I can figure out their needs I can possibly intervene with a person who is self-destructive by giving them a method of fulfillment for the repressed/neglected needs that is not destructive to them. People in such spirals are rarely honest with themselves or clear sighted enough in their own behaviors to see that there are usually better options available to them.

All of life is a constant balance between the forces of creation and destruction. We are sentient beings entrusted with the ultimate powers on Earth: the ability to observe, wait, meditate and CHOOSE between those options. Both creation and destruction are necessary forces to have a fulfilling life, but when the scale slips out of balance then we will pay the price elsewhere, and never fear! The debt collector is always waiting.

The carcass was a dead ox. Enjoy your feast!


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

sonicdrink said:


> another thing, although let's say those were the true intentions of a "good" person example you used, how would you know that's really their true intention. This is all very hard to prove.


You're right. This is why I made this thread. My first thread was to naively explain the intention process. To reveal part (or whole, you can play the guessing game) of my intention, here is a quote from my original post, "Please bear with me with one last caveat. This method seems to work for me, greatly and I want to improve it. If we use this to analyze politicians, corporations, and institutions on a case-by-case basis, perhaps they can be demolished or fortified in the sense of an moral system (good vs. bad)." You're usage of the intention model on layer 1 (to explore this theory or "BS") is a possible explanation of my intentions however, it isn't the final layer which is my true intention.



sonicdrink said:


> Then you have the question of what drives every action of their behavior, which actions go through the wringer of this ambition or driving question or moral disposition and which ones don't.


I think it is exhaustive to discover where people's drives come from because there is always a life-long story associated with them. Some people have had a tough life others don't. There are also some people who set dreams to save or destroy the world. Figuring out why would just be exhaustive compared to say, figuring out an intention (scenario based).

You did, however, made me draw a new line between intentions and dreams. I guess I should share some of my opinions in another post.



sonicdrink said:


> Are there only 3 layers to the intention process, or does it go on infinitely til it reaches the deepest layer of cognition itself?


Infinite. It's the realm of the NTP.


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

ENTrePenuer said:


> Sir Ivy: What'd you say to Mecklen?
> Buddy 'Aces' Israel: What I've always been sayin', let's make the fuckin' deal.
> Sir Ivy: You see... this is one of the rare moments, where your ass gets to be completely honest... and if i'm asking you what you said to Mecklen, assume the shit is rhetorical, assume I already know.
> Buddy 'Aces' Israel: What do you see right now? You see exactly, and only what I choose to show you. That is illusion Ivy, that is the lie that I tell your eyes, makin' the magic happen, in the moment, in that split second... but seeing behind this motherfucker and knowing... that it's all bullshit.
> ...


While I do love watching visual aids, adding a video of a piece of a movie video doesn't aid my understanding what is going on. I'd enjoy your contribution more if you can write up a interpretation but I guess you're going to be bored. Thanks for contributing. Prove me wrong!


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

day_dreamer said:


> I agree with st0831 on analyzing the true intentions of a person to judge his/her acts. In fact, when I was reading this topic, I thought Gosh! He stole my thought!:laughing: You were just speaking my mind!


I think its better to use this as a model rather than absolute standard. A judge is a subjective position and models are created to help the judge achieve is true neutral judgment. As for thoughts, there is no originality. Even if we speak of originality, we're definitely not the ones to have "created" this model. Human civilization has at least 4,000 years and going. If we're originators, what are our ancestors, gods?



day_dreamer said:


> Though, when it comes to layers and stuff, I'd say it is more complicated than it seems to be. I agree with what Sonicdrink commented on changing and superfluous intentions in this respect. Actually, people's true intention does not depend on any single factor...nor does it stay constant all the time. There are many other reasons which simply strengthens his primary objective....which again might change over time. So one's true intention is not just a single one, but a mixture of many intentions put together.


So you're saying the true intention is a dream and vision, I will need to think about it for a few more days. I like that and Sonicdrink did raise that point, providing the bridge to my thought.



day_dreamer said:


> To really make out one's intention, one should notice the pattern of such acts as to whether it is fostering the said intention or going against it. That will prove whether his intention was a true one or has changed over time or not. A single event/act should not be considered as the deciding factor of one's intentions.


Yes, there is a pattern to analyze. As Izzie mentioned before, they leak out. It just part of being human, not a robot. Also I like your sentence your usage of "fostering or going against it." I have thought that way before in terms of that everything can be reasoned as +1, 0, and -1. But that in itself is, another thread. So far, from responding a few threads, I can conclude that intentions, true intentions must also bring out another term, and it is dreams/vision, which I will get to in a more responses.



day_dreamer said:


> And I personally think that the best way to actually judge the goodness or badness of the 'true intention' would be to judge it against the 'proposed intention'. If the true intention is totally opposite, extremely different or doesn't serve the purpose of the proposed intention, then the true intention cannot be labeled good (even if it qualifies in the moral quotient by all good standards).


So you're projecting it in terms of progress? A +1 for contribution to an intention, 0 for indifferent, and -1 for inhibition. Not a bad way to put it but I am not going to put an absolute agreement on this because the "good" and "bad" terms (moral system) is really a flaw in this model as I have noted before.

The flaw arises because good and bad are subjective terms which can be weighed by (not in any particular order) the following. Please note that these terms may not necessarily be effective and practical in reality nor do they represent the only terms in existence. They are used as weights on a scale which we can swing which way we want by our dictated judgment/will.

Religious Observances
Philosophical Viewpoints
Consensual Attitudes
Intellectual Advise
Internal will/opinion





day_dreamer said:


> Then again some of you might argue, that as long as the 'real act' serves the purpose of the proposed intention on the surface, then why bother with the true intention? Then I'd say, in the long run, if the proposed intention wasn't the true intention, then the true intention might use the proposed one to hide something 'not-so-good' or give a false impression on something more sinister going on behind the scenes. That is the main utility to look for the true/real intention behind every proposed intention.:happy:


Let me add that every interpretation we conduct is entirely subjective. Only the person doing the act will truly know their intention. However, if we analyzed correctly, meaning my interpretation and the person's intention are identical, then I hit the jackpot. In other words, if my interpretation hits the jackpot, then I can truly understand this person's internal world. If it is a politician with my subjectively weighed bad intentions, I will oppose this politician with all my will. If it is a corporate CEO with "bad" intentions, I contribute to dissolving their madness.


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

Archangel said:


> I'm actually more interested how can you know about the person's true intentions. To illustrate an example, I'll use unknowns here. Assuming that A does action A, and through it, illustrates his projected intention, X onto the observer. The observer observes A's action, and through it derive X. Now what is important is how the observer interpret X. As you said already, moral, society, majority power plays a role in determining the correct from the incorrect. You also said that morality is subjective to an individual, but it's exactly because of that that causes interpretation of A's true intention to be ridiculously subjective. X is of course subjectively interpreted due to many different observers with their respective views and perceptions. This causes a problem where what is "true". No doubt Observer B could observe B phenomenon, and give B interpretation and declare that it is true, but it is also true that Observer C could observe B phenomenon and give C interpretation and declare that it is true. And it is also true that both Observer B and C's opinion is valid. Think special relativity. But there's no doubt this can be used as a form of measure for the psychology behind someone's action, it's simply that this method is not black or white. I also think that this is more psychological than philosophical, since you're touching about the reasoning process ( intention ). Just my opinion.


Oooh an INTJ. You're welcome because, according to the MBTI model, you use totally different cognitive functions which open new perspectives. Aside from the "bullcrappy" introduction. Here is my response...

We never "know" the person intention unless an exchange of information is conducted, aka communication. We, however, can "guess" to the best of our ability using moral weights, models (like this one), and our will to predict what is this person intention. Once the prediction is made and there is enough information exchanged to subjectively place a honest judgment, can we make a final conclusion as to what their true intentions are. This process is entirely subjective but that doesn't means subjectivity cannot be accurate. We can guess whether a person is happy, sometime we are right and other times we are wrong. Our guesses may be entirely subjective but not wrong. 

My original post had a question that relates, does using the intention model allow us to understand a person?


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

izzie said:


> Can intentions be observed?
> 
> I know we can comprehend certain layers of intentions and we can ''feel'' them, but can we really objectively explain *all layers *of human intentions?
> 
> I'm not sure if we can, intentions are still very much linked to the abstract and feelings.


Objectivity is useless to explain for the internal human world. Objectivity of a person's internal world would require a perspective similar to a "God's Perspective," aka the know all perspective.

I guess up to this point, since I am trying to respond to all the posts in this thread at once, we can only use our subjective sense to grasp what is happening inside another person. Sometimes we may hit the jackpot and predict correctly and other times we miss. 

Overall, I am questioning the process of using the intention model whether it is an statistical (good probability) of guessing about the internal world of another person. So far with the up-to-date responses, I have gained a few opinions and gained a few internal thoughts. To me they are important "facts" but to others they are probably worthless opinions.


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

disappointed chiliast said:


> It's simply not the case that someone who gets a job helping the homeless _really_ did it for a unique reason x, rather, she got the job because she wants to help the homeless _and_ she wants to get paid _and_ she wants people to admire her _and_ the fellow who recruited her was cute, and so on and such forth.


On the other hand, I would interpret your statement this way.

If there is a person who wants to help the homeless, gets paid, gain admiration, and thought the guy was cute so she took the job. Then the intention is either disguised in really deep layer or it is not possible. As crappy as my statement is, it fits accurately with my interpretation (open to argument). If we have too many desires such as helping the poor, getting fame, getting paid, getting the attention of the cutie, then that is just starting to enter the realm of unicorns and fairies. The explanation that I can give is that the intention of a person is a internally reasoned process. Money, Cute guys, and fame are external factors which may not be part of the persons internal process in the first place.

If I want a cutie, it is my intention to go find one. I will go to many places to search for them.
If I want to help people, it is my intention to do my best to aid whoever I want.

At that moment in time, I personally don't believe we can reason out so many external factors such as money, fame, and cuties if they were not indeed part of the intention process in the first place.

If I want money, cuties, and fame, the intention is disguised. Why does this person want so many things? What does this person want to with all this material and "superficial" stuff? Is their intention to keep themselves lustfully and socially satisfied?


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

day_dreamer said:


> I've used too much of abstraction in my last posts I guess which is why it might have sounded unreal. :sad:
> Intention exists, but we never associate ourselves with it empirically. It's just a part of us, we don't even realize that it is there and motivating us to do 'things'. I can illustrate with a simple example taken from our daily life.
> 
> For example, Emily is a simple person who loves chocolates. But her grandma says that too much chocolate is not good for her teeth. So whenever she asks for chocolates, her grandma denies it. One day, Emily is visited by her cousin brother Victor. It suddenly occurs to her that if she asks chocolates from her Grandma on the pretext of gifting it to Victor, her Grandma won't deny it. So here her true intention is to have some chocolates (she may or may not give them to Victor, that is a different story and no point digressing to that:tongue, but her proposed intention is to gift chocolates to Victor (which is definitely different from her true intentions). We can see that she is projecting a proposed intention to hide her true one.
> ...


I like your explanation. Your examples of intentions are simple which I like because currently, I think intentions can be easily and simply explained. Of course, my opinions are subjected to change, which is really good. 

Though, I would like to raise a point. How can we not know about our intentions? We are conscious within our bodies, everything we do and every movement we make can be explained. We carry out our basic needs for survival (an intention). If we write a post on PerC, we have the intention of explaining something we read about or want feedback on. If I hate a politician due to certain issues, then I have an intention to turn that politician to dust. 

Before I mentioned layering of the true intention. I could purposely lie to mask my true intention. In this case, I intend to lie to hide my true intention. Both are contributing to what I am doing. I am probably not making anymore sense myself since I responded to so many posts at once (note to self: bad idea)...


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

st0831 said:


> Though, I would like to raise a point. How can we not know about our intentions? We are conscious within our bodies, everything we do and every movement we make can be explained. We carry out our basic needs for survival (an intention). If we write a post on PerC, we have the intention of explaining something we read about or want feedback on. If I hate a politician due to certain issues, then I have an intention to turn that politician to dust.


Whoa, so many posts by you, I really got confused which one to respond first. Let me start with this one.

NTs are rationals, they know exactly what is going on in their minds. But the others types are not that driven by their deep thoughts about their own mind processes. Some are either busy doing the act, some are busy perceiving other's feelings from this act, while the others are busy judging their act or deriving the satisfaction of the judgment they deliver. So their focus is not on *why* they are doing this, but more on *what* they are doing. That is why, very few people are aware of their true intentions.

I remember pointing out some people's intentions by analyzing their behavior. You know what was the outcome? Stark surprise! Because they were not aware of it themselves. lol and if the intention was a negative one which I deducted from their words and actions in front of them, the result was blatant denial or absolute ignorance to their own thought processes. I got answered with defenses like "It is not my real me, I did it under the influence of some imaginary self" or "I didn't do it for this reason". When I asked then what was the actual reason behind it an probed more to reveal their true intentions, they got scared and escaped.:crazy:


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

> So you're projecting it in terms of progress? A +1 for contribution to an intention, 0 for indifferent, and -1 for inhibition. Not a bad way to put it but I am not going to put an absolute agreement on this because the "good" and "bad" terms (moral system) is really a flaw in this model as I have noted before.
> 
> The flaw arises because good and bad are subjective terms which can be weighed by (not in any particular order) the following. Please note that these terms may not necessarily be effective and practical in reality nor do they represent the only terms in existence. They are used as weights on a scale which we can swing which way we want by our dictated judgment/will.
> 
> ...


I don't know what you meant by progress, but like you pointed, there are so many scales of moral considerations to use from various aspects before actually judging a true intention. And the derivation using these moral standards which you mentioned, sometimes yields contradicting results which might confuse us or deviate us from finding out from the real stuff. We will get entangled in comparing the outcomes and justifications to each of it. So to focus on unearthing the true intention, I guess using this simple formula of *true intention=proposed intention* works for me. If both are equal, then no point digging, if not then going deep is necessary. That way, I don't have to go through the rigorous moral standards and confuse myself at the beginning. First I concentrate mainly on unearthing the true intention through this formula. Then when it is finally discovered, then I project it on the usual scales of standards (as well as my own principles).


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

Even when it comes to building an intention model with good probability measurements, it will still pose numerous challenges because it will be fluid. It will require high experience, lots of very personal based work and even the ability to assess subtle cues accurately.

For example, even expert sociopaths can convey seemingly good intentions through consistently good actions. However, it is comforting to know that even social actors who outwardly display popular values can commit horrible ''slips of the tongue'' which can be useful to be given attention to. That's why we have expert psychologists, sociologists and social workers in societies. Even teachers pick up on hidden cues from their students.

Usually, the truth of intentions is revealed through time. No matter how much a person tries to hide, after a certain amount of time, the person's intention will leak out one way or another. 

However, although at various points the test of time usually reveals the most core aspects of human nature, there is no particular frame reference to be used for an intention model as life is simply characterized by too many diverse experiences.


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

st0831 said:


> Though, I would like to raise a point. How can we not know about our intentions? We are conscious within our bodies, everything we do and every movement we make can be explained. We carry out our basic needs for survival (an intention). If we write a post on PerC, we have the intention of explaining something we read about or want feedback on. If I hate a politician due to certain issues, then I have an intention to turn that politician to dust.


From a psychoanalysis approach, there are also times when a person finds it hard to comprehend his/her own intentions. Why? Well when we look at examples of periods of confusion, denial or complete grief :tongue: They may do things out of character, without paying too much attention to intent.

People wouldn't have self esteem or identity issues if they understood their own intentions and feelings all the time. 

Unfortunately, feelings are subjective, fluid yet significant. Intentions are linked very much to these feelings. That is why (sorry if this will go off topic), getting self esteem is a journey, it just doesn't go,'' ah I analyzed everything about how I feel and how I'm supposed to feel thus self esteem *poof* is just there!!''


Sorry I can't shut up :tongue:


----------



## sonicdrink (Aug 11, 2010)

I appreciate your effort to respond to everybody, lol.



> I think it is exhaustive to discover where people's drives come from because there is always a life-long story associated with them. Some people have had a tough life others don't. There are also some people who set dreams to save or destroy the world. Figuring out why would just be exhaustive compared to say, figuring out an intention (scenario based).


Yeah, everyone's driving force is different, and it tends to manifest itself differently throughout the entirety of the psyche. And even if someone has had a tougher life than another, I don't believe this downplays the importance of this entity.


----------

