Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, because "the intent" precedes the act, which then becomes the "outward manifestation" of the intent.
Why should it be altogther different from that of a computer? The computer -- which itself is neutral -- is just a means of expressing that which is "transferred" through the medium or software.
Whereas how did the brain get there, if it hadn't evolved, through "conscious intent," to become a brain? (in the capacity we now experience currently).
I just don’t buy it. In the case of the computer analogy you make it sound as if the software created the hardware, but that isn’t really accurate.
What I see is base matter; rocks, lava, water, etc. I simply see no reason to associate anything approaching a level of consciousness with these things, and yet it is quite easy to believe that these things existed long before living organisms, and their conscious awareness, came into being. Therefore I see matter as primary and not secondary. I also find it quite easy to believe that, despite the way in which we may marvel over ourselves, that if my head were to be flattened by a steam-roller, my marveling will come to an abrupt end. Everything that I’ve ever experienced indicates that consciousness is bound to matter, and nothing have I experienced leads me to believe that matter arose from consciousness, or that it can survive independantly without a physical counterpart. In other words;
“Though consciousness is secondary, it is a feature of highly organised matter - the brain - and therefore exists in reality. Far from being alien to nature, consciousness is as normal a product of the natural world as those material objects which it reflects.”
In keeping with the ‘will of consciousness’ thing;
“Consciousness really exists. It is an active element in man's transformation of the world, since we use our scientific knowledge to manipulate nature to achieve planned aims.
'Man's consciousness,' wrote Lenin,
' not only reflects the objective world, but creates it.'”
But that is not to say that consciousness exists independently of matter, which would be the view of an idealist, and I believe your view.
[edit]
I would edit to say that the use of the word 'creates' in that quote from lenin means only to me 'reshape', not 'something from nothing'.
), and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I suggest reading the whole thing).