Hi.

> > It would be best to spell out the behavior which we can attribute
> > to intention.  Implementation details will get better over time as
> > more intention is discovered.
> Good reply! But, would it not be better to discover the (rational)
> behavior behind intention first? Might it not save us a lot wasted
> detail?

I was thinking that, eventually, we will get to a point where we will
ask the question "what's the intention of an electron?"... or, if
gravity is the effect of an intention, what's that intention in the
first place?  There are certain things we will never know.

However, as you say, yes.  The idea behind Message Oriented Genetics or
Message Oriented Quantum Mechanics would be to come up with a
(¡¡¡SIMPLE!!!) set of intentions that explains the behavior of genes,
quarks, or whatever.

As a result, we would "nthropomorphisize" everything (give human
attributes to things).  While this is fine for object design, it's also
something that in some languages (eg Spanish) is described as incorrect.

Right now, it seems to me that we deal with the consequences of
intentions.  So, because of our previous discussion, the physical
objects don't talk to each other so it's inherently more difficult for
us to figure things out --- we put ourselves in the place of The Creator
writing the scriptures for the universe.  Maybe there's no other way,
anyway...

Andres.