Date: November 11th, 2026 2:06 PM Author: Metaphysics is solved
Not sure if I conflated this in the prior conversation but there are 2 things:
(1) You can be a realist about biological functions or "purposes" of the regulatory sort TP described previously. I.e., you can think the purpose of the kidneys is to filter blood (and not just deterministically respond to gradients); AND
(2) You can think intentions only exist in, and therefore action requires, conscious minds (the "normal" view basically everyone holds).
The independent reality of biological functions are separate from intentions necessary for action. But holding (1) does not mean you get non-conscious intentions for free. I for one think (1) is stupid and I do not adhere to it. But again you can't use (1) to argue against (2).
Date: November 11th, 2026 2:36 PM Author: The Penis
I agree that realism about biological functions does not by itself establish that nonconscious systems perform actions. I never argued otherwise. I introduced biological purposiveness because you claimed that purposes can’t exist without intentions