1 a thing intended; an aim or plan:
And in the end, all our living activities have at some point been made possible by a plan where intelligence was involved. As it would seem was necessarily intended. But by what, the unliving that preceded us?
But wait, this begins to seem a bit too silly. I’m essentially arguing that nothing is unintended when I should at least concede that unintended has a practical meaning, which is to distinguish the planned from the unplanned, even though in theory, something happening is always a preplanned action.
But if an "aim" as well, if it was not the goal that the particular plan was aimed at, then we can have something intended that was also unintended. Can't we?
Aha! Context, context. But what, intended context? And are there intended or unintended purposes? Or is there any such thing. Unintended must apply to results, no? Otherwise we’re only talking of unintended intentions.
Which I suppose are theoretically possible, but meaning becomes lost when we’re simply playing with words for no other purpose than to play with meanings.
Well let's find a serious example, and one with a universal application! Such as this one:
What do I mean exactly when referring to intentional construction as "intelligent" construction? Well, that the construction was accomplished through some entity that had “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” And that this constructive something could have, in and of itself, been intelligently constructed to accomplish any intended or intentional purposes.
But nowhere down the line will we be able to find, logically, that this process had an absolutely accidental beginning. Knowledge is not acquired by an entity that has no ability to use or process it.
And the having of skills is just another way of saying that a thing has the knowledge to be skillful. Trial and error learning of a skill may occur through a series of obtaining accidental results. But not by accidental trials with no ability to acquire a purpose in the process.
So what then is the ability to acquire purpose? It may come down to the fact that there’s nothing in existence that doesn’t have some measure of that quality. The quality of using at the least, the simplest of strategies. The quality that allows the application of a known skill. If only to follow the simplest of instructions or commands. If only to consistently react.
AND If only to know to obey a natural law. Or to have the ability to disobey it. To have, in other words, the ability to choose the extent of our otherwise necessary reactions to a force!!
SO now we get to the very essence of the deterministic arguments, which make a difference between intelligent determination or the non-intelligence of a predetermined world and universe. A universe where all things indeterminate will need to have retained an element of reactive choice!
Intended in the absence of the unintended. What a crooked road to hell did I intend to pave with that one?