Introduction to the Theory of Systems of Intentional Living

No Previous Article

Back to The Theory of Systems of Intentional Living Index

Purposes of a Theory of Systems of Intentional Living

Young undergraduates often take a course in Comparative Religion only to be presented with a mere catalog of religions and are left wondering "Where's the comparison?". We ourselves wondered why, in addition, the supposed comparison was restricted to religions. After all, a number of philosophical systems also purport to provide a guide to living a meaningful life. Examples include Epicureanism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, Marxism and Humanism.

We will use the term "System of Intentional Living" to denote any system providing a guide to living a meaningful life. A theory must include all Systems of Intentional Living, religions or not.

As Naturalists, we require a theory which:

spans all systems which purport to result in a life of meaning, whether they are religions or non-religions
allows direct and sensible comparison of arbitrary pairs of such systems
allows isolation of areas of agreement and disagreement between groups of sytems
allows a sensible account of how adherents to various systems might be expected to intereact with each other.

To satisfy these requirements, we propose a Theory of Systems of Intentional Living which serves multiple purposes:

It uses the concepts and resources of General Systems Theory to study Systems of Intentional Living as informational and sensory-motor systems
It distinguishes and characterizes systems used by individuals and systems used by groups of individuals
It describes relationships between individual systems, between group systems and between individual and group systems using the Set Theoretic concepts of membership and inclusion and its other resources to establish these relationships
It allows a representation of specific systems, two types of which are of primary concern for this website:
- Scientific Naturalism as an individual System of Intentional Living
- Science as a group System of Intentional Living
It allows representations of naturalistic system, and religious (supernaturalistic) systems, which in turn allows direct comparison of the systems.
Finally, it allows a characterization of the relationship between Scientific Naturalism as an individual System of Intentional Living and Science as a group System of Intentional Living.

Preliminary Concepts

We begin this Introduction with an exploration of a number of concepts preliminary to the Theory of Systems of Intentional Living:

Actions and Courses of Action
Reactive versus Intentional Living
Meaningful Living
Systems of Living
Intentional Living
Systems of Intentional Living

Actions and Courses of Action

There are entire philosophical theories of action. We will not attempt to produce and defend another. Instead, we will try to indicate how we intend to use the terms "action" and "course of action".

Some (behaviorist) psychologists and philosophers take an action to be an externally observable behavior and only that. At the other extreme, some philosphers define action in a way which makes the having of an intention a necessary conditon of being an action.

We use "(simple) action" to mean a voluntary motor activity initiated by a transition between internal states of the nervous system, specifically including transitions in internal brain states and a transition in motor control states and possibly a transition in states of perception as well. We also use "(continuous) action" to mean a continuous causal sequence of simple actions in which the completion of one action triggers the next.

We use "course of action" to mean a sequence of causally connected actions in which sensory input and processing is required to select the next action in the sequence or to terminate the sequence altogether. These selections are under the control a higher order brain process which may select alternative sequences or repetitons of actions depending on the processing of the sensory input.

Reactive versus Intentional Living

An action is reactive when it is triggered wholly in response to an external event. An action is intentional when it is triggered, at least in part, by an intention to bring about a specifiable outcome.

Every life contains a mix of reactive and intentional actions. The distinction between reactive and intentional living is a matter of degree rather than of kind. The more coherent the specification of outcomes, the more intentional the life. When outcomes are unspecified or underspecified or incoherent with each other, the life is more reactive.

Meaningful Living

Are Intentional Living and Meaningful Living the same thing? We argue elsewhere (the section on Evolutionary Epistemology) that the meaning of any thing or any event is the the total value actually conferred on the thing or event by all sentient beings. In the case of a life, its meaning includes not only the value assigned by the one living the life but also the value assigned to it by other sentient beings.

Normally, the outcomes one intends are outcomes to which one would assign value. But it is possible for someone to seek outcomes destructive of value. Such a life is intentional but not meaningful (or negatively meaningful).

On the other hand, it is possible to produce valuable outcomes without intending to do so. Such a life is meaningful but not intentional.

The answer to the question "Are Intentional Living and Meaningful Living the same thing?" is "No". Is it possible to live a life which is both intentional and meaning? The answer is "Yes".

Systems of Living

Studying living as a system allows us to employ the resources of General Systems Theory in understanding living. A system is characterized by the inputs it accepts and the outputs it produces. A simple system always responds to a given input with a given output. A more complex system stores its previous inputs and/or outputs and responds to given input based both on the input itself and the inputs and outputs it has previously stored. The mechanism to store and retrieve previous inputs and outputs is called "system memory" and the contents stored are called "data".

Living is not always systematic. Inputs do not always determine outputs. Previous inputs and outputs are not always stored or retrieved faithfully. Living is also not always intentional. It is subject to accident and reaction. But, so far as living is intentional, it is systematic.

In information sytems, the inputs and outputs are all information. In a system of living, the inputs and the outputs can include material manipulations of our bodies and the material world as well as manipulation of information.

The systems view of living is only valid within certain operating conditions. We do not regard a systems view as an absolute truth but only as a useful and fruitful tool under suitable circumstances.

Intentional Living

Intentional Living is living that produces actions intended to bring about specified outcomes. Intentional Living requires the possession of two types of representations:

a specification of desired outcomes
a specification of actions which can bring about the desired outcomes.

In a study of Intentional Living, one central topic is the adequacy of such specifications. Specifically, in examining the set of specifications, we may ask:

Is it complete?
Is it consistent?
Is it coherent?
Is it consilient?
Is it achievable?
Is it valuable?

A second central topic is the mechanisms provided for establishing, changing and abandoning the specifications.

A third central topic is the stability and adaptabillity of the specifications.

Systems of Intentional Living

Systems of Intentional Living are systems of related and interacting processes that produce actions intended to bring about specified outcomes.

All of the topics of interest in Intentional Living are likewise topics of interest for when Intentional Living is considered a System of Intentional Living. Using systems concepts however provides us with greater resources with which to address these topics. Note that the questions posed in the previous section do not arise because we are dealing with systems but because we are dealing with specifications. When considered as a system, new questions arise about the fitness of the system to the realization of the outcomes. We will find it useful to separate the two sorts of questions.

Individual and Group Systems of Intentional Living

We distinquish between Systems of Intentional Living used by individuals and Systems of Intentional Living used by groups of individuals. An individual can participate in at most one Individual System of Intentional Living at a time but may participate in more than one Group System of Intentional Living at a time or none at all. Moreover, groups can participate in other groups, whether or not the groups share individuals.

Our theory treats the overall structure of individual and group systems as the same. There are, of course, significant differences between the content of the two types of systems. Knowledge in individual systems is dominated by sensory input with a significant linguistic component. Knowledge in group systems is completely linguistic but includes linguistic reports of sensory inputs (observation reports). Action in individual systems is more linear; action in groups more parallel. Action in individual systems is performed by the individual. Action in group systems is performed by individuals who belong to the group or who belong to groups which are members of the performing group. Decision follows a parallel structure to action.

These types of systems interact with each other. Individual systems contain rules for what groups to join, what roles to play, what resources to commit and when to leave. It may also have rules for dealing with groups one in which one participates involuntarily and groups which are outright hostile.

The Necessity of a Framework for Characterizing Systems of Intentional Living

Our theory employs a Framework to describe Systems of Intentional Living. We claim this Framework can be used to describe any System of Intentional Living, be it individual or group. Of course, this claim is empirical. One counterexample would show it to be false. Moreover, it may be more or less illuminating or explanatory. We currently believe it fruitful to pursue and we will continue to pursue it until we are presented with a better alternative.

The existence of a Framework is necessary for comparing systems. Otherwise, one will be comparing apples to oranges. Whether our Framework is the right one remains to be seen. But some framework is required.

The Necessity of Comparative Principles for Comparing Systems of Intentional Living

Our Comparative Principles are based on the structure of the Framework. Each base Comparative Principle provides a set of at least two alternatives for a component or subcomponent of the Framework. As an example, an Enumeration of Types of Worlds Comparative Principle would enumerate the types of worlds available and then compareSystems of Intentional Living based on the types of worlds to which they are committed. This would constitute one dimension of comparison. The full comparison would be multidimensional with choices in one dimension constraining choices in others.

Our set of Comparative Principles may not be complete. Time will tell. Our expectation is that, if the set is to be replaced. it will be replaced by a set with similar structure.