Intent exists. We cannot define the boundary of the domain of intent, save by means of metaphysical speculation. Therefore, all theist versus atheist debates regarding gods, designs, purpose, creations and/or the lacks thereof are but mere religious diversions from this core reality.

I have good news for those wearied by the red herring debates of atheists and theists alike. Rest assured, the arguments entailed by both camps neither involve mutual exclusion nor bifurcation, nor do they present a false dilemma. Such deliberations firmly reside within the realm of irrelevance, exemplifying a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi, which essentially entails ‘answering the wrong question’.

Don’t get me wrong: both theists and atheists are free to lead lives enriched by the meaning they derive from their respective metaphysical choices. I appreciate sincere arguments from both sides of the debate and see each camp’s pursuit of truth as valid and significant. I can comfortably mingle at gatherings hosted by both theists and atheists, fully recognizing the relative strengths of each group’s arguments. This is the ethical privilege of ignosticism, distinct from agnosticism.

After all, it has never been about God, gods, creation, intelligent design, naturalism, or purpose to begin with. All such teleological deliberations are ignoratio elenchi and constitute mere metaphysical selection. No one ‘represents science’ inside such debates.

However, when we enter the broader context of intent, the discussion starts to gain coherence.

The Domain of Intent vs Nonagentur Ontology

The (placeholder) hypothesis of intent straightforwardly asserts, “Intendit” (Latin: intent is/does) — nothing more, nothing less. It is neither an ontology, nor is it a metaphysical selection – rather, it is an observation.

The hypothesis of intent stands in mutual exclusivity to a metaphysical null hypothesis (‘construct’ in actuality) known as the nonagentur ontology. This alternative serves as the necessary complement to intent as a hypothesis domain or placeholder. It posits that the entirety of existence, the observable order of existence, and the apparent reality of individual self – all exist independently of any form of intent. (Please note as well, that intent is not posed here as being congruent with ‘free will’)

These two alternatives are outlined below. It’s important to note that neither constitutes a true scientific hypothesis. Therefore, using the argument of ‘following the science’ in such a debate is more a matter of rhetoric than substance.

Null Hypothesis H₀ (Nonagentur Construct) – The full set of existence, the observable order of existence, and apparent reality of individual self – all exist independent of any form of intent

Corollary A (Naturalism) – all deliberations of the scientific method must operate from a nonagentur basis until forced to depart from this basis by the evidence (Ockham’s Razor – note that this is not a selection heuristic)

Corollary B (Conservancy) – veneration of a working null hypothesis is not tantamount to a ‘belief’ – and cannot be forced upon others as truth (The least scientific action one can undertake is to ‘believe’ the null hypothesis)

Hypothesis Placeholder H_n (Intendit) – The context of the phrase intendit (Latin: ‘intent is/does’) can be re-framed by two means of the expression ‘Intent manifests itself’ or in the Latin intendit se manifestare, analogous to the reflexive ‘I am that I am’; specifically:

‘Intent is (does exist)’ – This is an existential claim. It asserts the existence of intent as a fundamental phenomenon or concept. The ‘no such thing as free will’ and ‘fully sentient AI’ movements seek to rhetorically (without the due rigor of science) eliminate such a concept and its ontological ramifications outlined in this article.

‘Intent does (intend)’ – This is a reflexive statement. It suggests that intent itself possesses a reality of manifest expression. This implies that intent can be self-referential or observable/measurable. Intent may only appear reflexive because of derivation from outside our frame of reference – not being fully describable by the tools therein.

Corollary A – We are unable to measure the bound and reach of intent as a domain – therefore, the (nonagentur) null hypothesis is only a metaphysical (i.e. speculative not ‘naturalist’) working hypothesis

Corollary B – mankind is wholly unqualified to adjudicate the presence or absence of ontological purpose, design, or creation; therefore, such ‘hypotheses’ are Wittgenstein sinnlos (apparent in meaning, but in reality, meaningless)

Corollary C – if intent is detected (in terms of either state or influence) aside from the domain of mankind, then naturalist methods must include intent as the necessary alternative, to avoid the null hypothesis becoming a belief system, or even worse, an omega hypothesis

The latter, placeholder hypothesis, makes no divine ontological claim to truncation – therefore it is not a metaphysical selection. It is the necessary hypothesis. It simply cites a root condition of existence (intent) and furthermore, supposes no limit in terms of bound (state of being) or reach (influence of being) of that root condition thereafter.

The former, nonagentur hypothesis (construct), functions as a logical tool within the framework of deductive reasoning, specifically as the Null Hypothesis. It embodies the metaphysical assumption that our realm exists devoid of intent (with the ironic exception of Earth-DNA based life or perhaps some distant galactic microbes). As a form of nihilism, which limits both the bound and reach of intent through a claim to a priori divine knowledge, nonagentur ontology represents a metaphysical selection when adopted as a belief system.

However, it’s crucial for the metaphysical atheist to recognize that, while nonagentur ontology serves as the working null hypothesis, this null hypothesis is not

– the default explanation
– the ‘rational hypothesis’
– the hypothesis ‘closer to the truth’
– the hypothesis which is ‘true until proven otherwise’
– the ‘simplest explanation’
– the natural or secular explanation
– the parsimonious explanation
– even a scientific hypothesis at all (actually should philosophically be called the ‘Null Construct’)

The least scientific action one can undertake is to believe the null hypothesis. If a single instance of outdomain intent can be found, then the null hypothesis is false. The purpose of social skepticism (useful idiocy) is to ensure that no such instance is ever found – i.e. to enforce the null hypothesis as ‘truth’. In as much as the null hypothesis gets stronger and stronger as less and less information is held – such circumstance is the quintessence of religion.

A lie never needs to look any further, as it always has everything it needs in the here and now.

Corollary C – The Forbidden Zone – Outdomain Intent and The Standard Code of DNA

The astute reader will note a section in the chart above marked as the “Forbidden Zone”. Whenever you encounter a false dilemma (theist-agnostic-atheist) or orthogonal argument (God-Devil), it is always helpful to remember that such a rhetorical artifice is most often used as a diversion to keep you from deliberating or discovering a well-concealed truth.

Corollary C – if intent is detected (in terms of either state or influence) aside from the domain of mankind, then naturalist methods must include intent as the necessary alternative, to avoid the null hypothesis becoming a belief system, or even worse, an omega hypothesis.

I assert that we have, without doubt, encountered intendit phenomena that extend beyond mankind’s domain of intent, both in terms of bound (physical reality), if not reach (spiritual reality) as well. One example observation of such an exception in intent is outlined in The Peculiar Schema of DNA Codon’s Second Letter, from which Exhibit A below is extracted. The chart frames the relationship between the 64 DNA codon ‘words’, arranged in a repetitive C-T-G-A order along the x-axis, as compared to the complexity, or increasing nucleon count (y-axis), of the amino acid molecule for which that codon logical slot codes. Ideally there should be no symmetrical relationship at all between these two disassociated factors – yet one exists nonetheless, and exists in spades.

With apologies to both theist and atheist alike, both Watson and Crick’s standard codex shown below, along with the distributed ledger warfare strategy entailed in DNA-based life, signify outdomain intent – and not necessarily abiogenesis, nonagentur constructs, purpose, intelligent design, nor creation. Therefore, intent as a philosophical construct, is robust to being exploited by either camp as a religious football.

One should note as well that the standard code outlined below did not ‘evolve’, because this standard code (Exhibit A below) must be solidly and functionally in place first, before any evolution can ever take place at all.¹ Such constitutes the ‘egg’ in the proverbial chicken and egg argument, the final turtle in ‘it’s turtles all the way down’. It is at the level of this final turtle, where we falsify the null hypothesis (along with abiogenesis).

The abstract below frames most clearly an expression of intent; however, it takes a spiritually mature mind to be able to accept it as an observation. One cannot conduct true science inside a state of spiritual atrophy, as the heart will not venture where it forbids the mind to tread. The fundamental aim of ethical skepticism revolves around dispelling this present darkness inside the heart of man.

We have long held that the standard code features a degenerative symmetry. However, once we discover that what we have misinterpreted as degeneracy is actually a highly sophisticated symmetry, elegantly and impossibly aligned with amino acid nucleon count—merely part of an advanced and concatenated symmetry that existed prior to evolution itself—the playing field changes monumentally and irrevocably. This is no longer an accident.

This described standard codex embodies a form of warfare, a struggle against both the limitations imposed by the physical universe, as well as any competing entities that might challenge the dominance of this specific DNA-based life form. Once established, this codex and its DNA-archaea become a formidable stronghold upon their targeted domain, nearly impervious to removal or replacement. It represents an aggressive method of domination of all that it comes in contact with – signifying a profound appreciation for spatial control, a diminished regard for temporal concerns – and is itself a clear demonstration of a form of will. This is because warfare, in its essence, is the ultimate manifestation of intent.

The idea that the first codon base carries the degeneracy while the second and third bases show extensive and mutually exclusive symmetries is intriguing because it may suggest a level of pre-organization or ‘intent’ in the establishment of the genetic standard code. Such a perspective could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of early life and the mechanisms by which life originates.

While intent suggests deliberateness, it is distinct from non-scientific concepts such as irreducible complexity, intelligent design, or creation. Moreover, these notions are typically associated with the context of evolutionary systems rather than abiogenesis.

The abstract notion of intent might introduce questions about the origins of the genetic code itself, but it does not directly contradict the processes of evolution that occur once life has begun. Instead, it merely stipulates that there was some form of underlying directionality in the standard code’s formation. This does not negate the process of evolution; rather, it raises questions about the preconditions for life that evolution does not address.

~ ChatGPT-4

Intent in this context, is the handiwork of a higher-order agency; however, not that of a God – not only because intent is real, while in contrast the concept of God is incoherent – but also because whatever developed this standard codex, that agency was subservient to and bound by the natural laws of the universe, just like us. Nonetheless, intent is proof of the existence of a compelling agency aside from life on Earth, one which is a completely natural aspect of our broader realm of existence – as we should have anticipated it to be all along. The reader should note that this does not serve to imply action on the part of gods or space aliens; but rather, very possibly something we are not even close to comprehending as a species – a placeholder, analogous to the origination of ‘spooky action’ quantum entanglement observations.

Before a species can intellectually and socially embrace a truth, it must first be liberated from any undue external influences as well as possess the necessary spiritual capacity.

In order to hold a more powerful party captive, a less powerful party must resort to mind tricks (amnesia, ignorance, guilt, isolation, social coercion, fear, false dilemma, orthogonality, and distraction).

The encouraging news is this: as someone who both upholds ethical skepticism and reveres science, epistemology, and the importance of the null hypothesis, you have the liberty to investigate any hypotheses, including those involving the concept of intent or the existence of higher-order beings. You have the freedom to pursue both faith and scientific inquiry, exploring even those realms traditionally deemed off-limits. No, such activity does not serve to make you a ‘woo’ believer, as we know who the actual true believers indeed are.

It is one thing to speak of embracing the new, the fresh, the strange. It is another to feel that one is an insect, crawling across a page of the Encyclopedia Britannica, knowing only that something vast is passing by beneath, all without your sensing more than a yawning vacancy.

~ Gregory Benford, science fiction author and astrophysicist

Intent, as a placeholder hypothesis, is now the necessary alternative inside true scientific deliberation.

LLL

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Problem of Intent”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 3 Feb 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=80620

1. The complexity of the evolutionary model required to ‘evolve’ the standard code, reaches into robust parallel evolution models and a level of domain interplay which is impossible in our physical reality. As well, this prohibitive evolutionary model would take longer to execute than there is available time in the age of our universe, or conversely would require 2.6 x 10²⁰ worlds evolving in parallel for 13 billion years, all of which can quickly (instantly, not over eons) exchange their genetic material continually across that time. Genetic exchanges such that the serendipity of synonymous standard code differences would serve to combine into a more symmetrical outcome progressively across that time. Such a circumstance does not exist in our reality. One should also note that the ‘doublet’ and start-stop nucleon-adjustment departures in slot assignment from the base ‘degeneracy-synonymy’ framework in Exhibit A below, all serve to increase symmetry and organization, not decrease it. Therefore ‘degeneracy’ at the first codon was part of the original intent and not something which arrived later.