Creativum Experiment Results


The aim is to explain the material as plainly as possible for the laymen and scientist alike. That all may partake in understanding the complexity of the mind as the simplicity of gravity laid out by Newton. The argument is not for, or against Evolution, Creationism, or Psychology, but rather a law that complements, or disavows discovery in regard to such. Ultimately the individual must attempt the Creativum Experiment to fully understand the reality of the capability of your mind. I discuss topics here that generate a vast amount of animosity and with any new discovery there is bound to be naysayers and suppression of data that prove theory obsolete.

Nevertheless, disclosure of this information is public, sans financial gain, or recognition.


Zawada Axioms of Cogitare

by Daniel Joseph Zawada

The Axiom of Cogitare expound upon the capability of the human mind and limitation as universal law. The law is made up of four (4) intrinsic statements. Philosophy propose various methodology of the term human mind. In the context of this law the term human mind invariably refers to ‘thought,’ or the process of thinking. Definition of words within the law included in this document.

  1. The human mind can only create substance based on existing material.

  2. The human mind can only name, or describe that which existed, comprising the substance, or analysis thereof.

  3. That which exists and creates substance has purpose.

  4. The human mind is incapable of creating any entity apart from what existed, has been named, and has purpose through language and culture.

The Creativum Experiment provides validation of Zawada axioms and readily available to any individual capable of thought to examine.
The axioms, as Newtons Law of Motion, govern all branches of science; moreover, any theory or calculation conceived regarding philosophy, ontology, psychology, neurology, and physics apart from this law is ineffective.

For anyone who believes they can refute any of the axiom please submit your arguments in the form at the bottom of the page. Of course, any slanderous, or unprofessional jibberish will go direct to the trash bin. The argument must contain a valid statement disproving the axiom, whether by measurement or written proof. Arguing against my explanation, or assumptions of the axiom does not refute the axiom in itself.

I can provide many clever arguments against the description and explanation of Newton’s third Law of Motion,

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

But can you refute or disprove it?

I will post a separate article on ANY submitted documentation that refutes Zawada Axioms without prejudice. Moreover, will debate any valid argument openly in the article posted.


The Creativum Experiment demonstrate the inability of the human mind to create any entity such as, Rain,’ ‘God,’ or ‘Gold.’ These are merely words describing what is extant. We as humans can only name the things that surround us. More importantly, as a specie, humans provide names to things that exist based on what the language and culture say about those things.

The Law of Cogitare aids in discovering not only the capability of the mind as measured, but why the mind is limited in capacity. The law establishes a logical understanding of the boundaries of mental cognizance as Newton’s law of motion described boundaries within motion. Now you may want to argue that Newton’s law is a principle, rather than a law, based on proton velocity; regardless, that will be for history to decide.

The human mind, that which ‘thinks,’ or has thought, must invent based on an entity that already exist. The current parameters the human mind possess determine that the mind is incapable of creating anything unless based on what has already exist, or is extant.

Imagination and invention are wonderful; however, creation as a primary capability is something entirely different. The primary definition of creation is ‘bringing something into existence.’ The secondary definition is ‘invention’ or producing something.

Similar to the double-slit experiment, at first glance, it may be difficult for the mind to grasp what is said here. It is not my intention to embarrass any theory, past or present, but merely present the facts as we now understand them based on Cogitare axioms.

Discerning Fiction and Non-Fiction through Language & Culture

According to the fourth axiom of Cogitare,

“The human mind is incapable of creating any entity apart from what existed, has been named, and has purpose through language and culture.”

In general this refers to entity of which your mind is unable to create, as the entity already possess existence. The human mind can only create based off entity that is known and exist past/present.

In this context what exist past and present is described as an original blueprint. Blueprint meaning purpose. A canine is a blueprint of which humans did not create; we know that it is. Many believe that canine and human alike, were bacteria from the start. Meaning bacteria to Evolution, in a crude format, would be the blueprint, or purpose of ending up with a canine.

The point here is not to prove or disprove any theory, but rather how the capability of the human mind functions according to the axioms.

Regardless of debate of life in it’s infancy, what we have today are canine species, sharks, tigers, salmon, etc,. Each and every one of the species extant has purpose, a description, and act accordingly as their functionality. Humans can fly aided with invention; birds fly due to the wings and body structure they were born with.

Now in this regard and understanding of what is extant, can we change the original blueprint (purpose) of a shark, zebra, or anything that exist? No, but we can manipulate the code of the blueprint, invent the purpose of a fictional character, or invent from existing material.

Of course it can be argued that shark DNA can be altered to make the creature perform other than what was originally programmed, or evolved as instinct. This is simply manipulation of the original blueprint, which has no bearing on creating the blueprint. The concern is what we know of the shark through language and culture, whether it be fictional or non-fictional as described.

A prime example is the word ‘God,’ of which can be argued an invention of mankind. Just as with hydrogen, our mind is unable to invent the word God, humans can only name entity and render description.

Language describes the purpose of the creation, final form, or evolving form, thereby creating it’s meaning. When an entity was created or formed, everything of the entities essence is duplication or invention from the source.

What determines existence?

Any entity that has existed, extant, possesses a name, a purpose, and is known in language and culture.

Examples of known entity that exist in language and culture:

  • dog, copper, molecule, God, ghost, sulfur, chair, house, food, laser

From the earliest days of mankind there is language and description.

Egyptian hieroglyph:



The description of what exist is based on what language, culture, and populations say about it’s existence. As the experiment states, ‘it must have purpose.’ Furthermore, when you add language or meaning into the mix, in any language, it renders a complete failure of the Creativum Experiment.

Our own language determines the validity and meaning of the existence.

Below is invented non-fiction material.

  • Plane – based off a bird, made out of metal.
  • Engine – made out of metal, based off motion, to produce energy,  not create energy.

One can emphatically state Superman is fictional; in contrast, why would the word ‘God’ not be fictional?

In culture, Superman is known as a fictional character who wears a cape and can fly. The description in culture, movies, comic books, cartoons, tell us Superman is fiction. What about three hundred years from now? Superman could be considered a deity.

The mind can invent a story about human character, as pertains to our species (humans), however, our mind is not capable of creating a species, unless we copy images from what exist. The mind must create from copying an existing species, or entity that has purpose and meaning in culture.

In other words, what the cultures and language say ‘right now,’ determine the entity that exist. In the future, Superman will still be a character based off the human entity – not a God entity. Human entity and God entity are two different meanings in culture, language, and description.

It makes no difference if a human character is fiction or non-fiction, as we know we are human and real.

Humans are an entity, just as God, or a whale is an entity, with their own descriptions of what they are; none of the above can be created or ‘thought up’ within the confines of your mind.

If you yourself cannot create a new creature or entity, then you certainly cannot create ‘whale,’ or ‘God.’

You can invent a talking whale that future generations may believe existed. However, you are still basing the concept from the entity ‘whale.’

You can invent a deity, Zeus, or Krishna, based off the entity ‘God,’ yet your mind cannot invent the actual entity known in culture and language as an existing being.

Likewise, whether a person believes humans evolved, or were created by God, does not change the fact that we are an entity and our mind is incapable of creating an entity.

This is precisely what the experiment proves – the mind is incapable of creating a being with purpose, ‘out of nothing.’ The mind will only create based on memory and imagination utilizing existing material.

You are incapable of creating a ghost, you can only name the entity ‘ghost,’ whether you physically see the ghost or not. Ghost is a non-fiction entity. Why?

A culture has named and described what exist rendering the entity valid. Your mind is incapable of creating an entity that does not already exist. The human mind is unable to create, or imagine ‘ghost.’ You can only name the entity that exist past and present.

How do we know that the word ghost does not describe a fictional character from five hundred years ago? Again, the culture and language determine the validity. Ghost, or spirit, are words known the world over in thousands of dialect describing a soul, or other worldly entity that is generally no longer human, or of another dimension than physical reality.

Your mind can invent other human forms, creatures you have seen, and what you envision from memory. Your mind can put a horse head on a human body. You can warp, replicate, and portray visual material as indexed within your mind as a rolling motion picture. Yet, the mind is incapable of creating a ghostly form, or ethereal form, we can only describe what we see and name accordingly via a description.

Further iteration, God is a description in many cultures, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, Islam, that coincide with one another, that the entity is an eternal spirit, a living being. There are also many fictional accounts based off this eternal being, further proving credence.

All fictional invention based off an entity known through language or culture determines the entity to be valid.

All fictional or invented material will come from things that exist. The fiction or non-fiction aspect is determined by the language, culture, and description of the entity.

At first investigation, this is difficult for the mind to understand, until you realize you are incapable of fulfilling the Creativum Experiment. If you are unable to create an entity with your mind, then you are unable to create the word God, or tree; you are merely describing what is.

This is the limitation of the human mind, our inability to create something that does not exist and thus the validation of Cogitare axioms.

One hundred years ago, nuclear fission was fiction, awaiting discovery and description of atoms that could not be seen. The neutron was discovered in 1932 by James Chadwick and thereby led to fission by 1939.

Up until this time this was the ideals of science fiction, and yet this is a discovery, not a creation. Although alpha and beta particles could not be seen, nor atoms – they exist, were measured, and defined.

Ex: Contrast Descriptions

  • Iron is a metal discovered and used for making tools and weapons the world over.
  • God is a universally known description of an eternal being who has created all things.

Above we see two contrasting entity. Iron is something we can hold and view physically. Like atoms, how many people have seen God? Deities, or swords are also duplication of extant material, whether by fiction or non-fiction, as described by the culture and language.

Atoms, and molecules are also contrast from iron and gold. Humans are incapable of viewing atoms without an electron microscope. Yet, a child can be taught atoms exist, have a purpose, and understand the universally known description. No one can ‘think’ them up, only describe what is discovered or seen based on language, which validate the description.

Moreover, the mind can only duplicate, or copy from the original source, as the mind is void for creation into being. Once you understand your mind cannot bring entity into being, you realize neutrons, molecules, God, DNA, are named and described by the fortunate explorers of history. Humans have created nothing, although we are genius inventors.

Make a new character and name it, ‘Mind Bender Jocko.’ You have now failed the Creativum experiment; superheroes are just imagination and fiction, which is invention, not creation.

How about a pile of green goo with huge tree arms? The word green, tree, goo, and arm already exist, is a description of the entity and culturally known – so again, a failure.

What about a new space alien? The word ‘alien’ exists, based on indexing memories from movies and stories.

Does this mean aliens are fiction or non-fiction?

There are hieroglyph of assumed aliens dating back thousands of years, yet the description is of a humanoid form, which suggest duplication. However, if the earliest known cultural language depicted, such as arriving from outer space as is culturally known today, then it is impossible for the mind to create or fabricate the blueprint.

With more examination according to Cogitare axioms, aliens can be proven to be non-fiction, however, this is an opinion by the author. Opinions have no bearing on what Cogitare law prove as similar to Newton’s law with inertial reference. One must endure the process of science, gather the required data, theorize, before determining the outcome of whether a specie is a fictional character. Again, aliens are based off humanoid form, which suggest a copy or invention.

Confusion abounds when attempting to cross examine fictional characters of separate specie in history as proof of entity. One can hardly put fictional human characters in the same category as molecules, or dinosaurs. Theses are two different subjects, spoken of differently in culture and language. On the one hand we know for certain humans exist, therefore a fictional invention is discernible through what we have as data today. President Obama is a real person; Batman is fictional, based on current data.

Dinosaurs, on the other hand, can be assumed fictional based on the limited amount of data as compared to humans. Dinosaurs can also be invented by the human mind based on creatures that already exist. It’s very easy to put an elongated head and tail on an elephant and call the invention a Brontosaurus.

Is this as easy to do with molecules? Did you know the first time we could actually see a molecule was in the 80’s? IBM invented a new AFM (Atomic Force Microscope) to view an image of a molecule. Imagine that, up until the 1980’s you had to believe in molecules without ever seeing them. The human mind could not imagine them or think them up, but we did invent a way to eventually see the blueprint.

On a final note, all data can be forensically analyzed based on Cogitare axioms to verify if an entity is non-fiction or fiction. The human mind is incapable of creating an entity. The mind can only name what exist and provide a description for the culture to understand the entities meaning, purpose, or ability. Furthermore, the human mind can only invent from what has existed, or is extant, and any or all ‘creation’ from mankind will be an extension of what was already created or developed into being.

Experiment Conclusion

Axiom 1:

“The human mind can only name, or describe that which existed, comprising the substance, or analysis thereof.”

The human mind can only invent based out of existing materials: wood from trees, electricity from generators, diesel fuel from oil – all examples of invention, not creation.

The human mind is unable to create hydrogen. Our mind can name, categorize, and give description to this ‘gas’ and yet, not ‘think it up.’ Humans can only speculate, theorize, when hydrogen came to be, quod initium. This is true for all material that has ever existed or will exist. The human mind can only name and describe that which, is, or has been. That which will be, is invented out of what is. New strains of bacteria, new virus, all of which are based from that which already was or is extant.

Elaborating further, is a superhero creation of a new specie, or invention?

The author of such merely gave description to something that exist, people in tights, or a guy with an ‘S’ on his chest.

What about vampires, or werewolves? Imaginative fiction.

Vampire = a person with pointy teeth that turns into a bat.

Werewolf = the description of a man and a wolf molded together.

Keep in mind these are not creations, these are inventions. You must create something that does not possess current or previous meaning or known to exist. What we find as humans, we are mentally incapable of performing this feat.

This is a revolutionary reality. For this reality updates the field of psychological thought, ontology, and all of philosophy.

Hence, no chain of thought, philosophy, theory, is relevant sans the Axioms of Cogitare Law.

This is simple deducible logic that any intelligent person must accept, albeit the poor explanation here. The experiment speaks for itself and the results conclusive, of which will be left to those to ponder, elaborate, or berate therewith.

The newest edition to make the list is man-made bacteria, or DNA constructed synthetically. Conclusion: FAIL. The bacteria is said to be a new creation, where in fact, this is not the case.

The bacteria is made from rewritten DNA of Escherichia Coli. Thus, an invention, not a creation. We did not create DNA, we named DNA. The bacteria was manufactured based on the structure of Ecoli, just as unleaded gas is manufactured from petroleum.

Again, it comes down to whether or not you can create the wordrain’ without ever having the knowledge of clouds pouring down rain. Cultures and language name and describe what exist.

So unless YOU personally can create something that does not exist, name your creation, and give it purpose, then likewise it’s impossible to create an ‘elephant’ – you can only name the creature elephant.

Your fluffy cat is real, your mind did not create the cat, you can only name the cat.”

Cultures can only name what is, and then invent, or duplicate from the original copy of what we as humans have given meaning to. Original copy meaning, what we know to exist in the past and present based on what our language and cultures say about the entity.

Describing bacteria as the blueprint of a cat, does not define a cat. The theory is only defining bacteria, which is a separate entity. Cogitare axioms prove the human mind is incapable of creating a cat, or bacteria – humans can merely describe either entity.

There exist no ability to view formation of bacteria to the complexity of a cat, or canine structure. The theory states this occurred over millions of years based on the human mind describing what exist; Darwin’s observation and theory. The above is macroevolution, more specifically homologous, when concerning bone structure of a cat.

These shared features suggest that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, and that this ancestor had DNA as its genetic material, used the genetic code, and expressed its genes by transcription and translation. Present-day organisms all share these features because they were “inherited” from the ancestor (and because any big changes in this basic machinery would have broken the basic functionality of cells).”Khan Academy

What this ‘common ancestor’ is can only be imagined, speculated upon, and invented. Cogitare axiom can conclude,

If the mind imagines the formation of an entity, without ever observing the process, it’s either fiction, or modified from the original reality.”

In fact, microevolution is based on observing insects, or how mosquito adapt to pesticide; whereas all observation is based on fossil (past entity), or observation that is less than two hundred years.

Evolution is called invention, speculation, and theory with minute observation. This is part of the scientific process. Without a doubt evolution plays a part in the modeling of specie as marsupial in Australia validate. What is shared here will prove what is real and what is false based on law as dynamic as Newtons law of motion.

In this context, the basis of bacteria forming into a cat over millions of years (macroevolution), or however much time it takes to accomplish this result, is used as an example of invention, whether true or false.

I want you the reader, right now, to envision bacteria forming into a creature in fast time, within your mind. Picture this occurring as a motion picture in quick time lapse. I want you to picture in your mind as this gooey, plasma, turns into a blob, where legs sprout from it’s body. The creature now swims in water and over time crawls out of the water and nestles in the jungle brush.

Imagine now, the creature growing fur in fast time, eons of time are going by – the creature now has whiskers, claws and a tail. The creature is now – jungle cat.

The process of which you and I just went through in our mind – is invention. You just invented a cat. Here is where we run into a problem based on current result.

A cat is real, not an invention of your mind, and we now know it’s impossible for your mind to invent a cat.

To repeat the last statement:

A cat is real, not an invention of your mind, and we now know it’s impossible for your mind to invent a cat.

Why is it impossible to invent a cat in your mind?

According to the Creativum Experiment your human mind is incapable of creating anything – only performing invention from that which exist.

We as humans, can invent, but we cannot create. For those who do not believe in creation this may be a relief, however, this reality reflect the limitation and capacity of how the mind operates and in which the reality we live, or exist.

You can invent something, but your mind cannot create a cat; you can only observe the cat, describe it, name it, clone it, or manipulate what already exist.

This fact is indisputable as the experiment concludes.

Any human will come to the same conclusion, regardless of perception, intelligence, or abnormal cognizance. The brightest minds humanity has to offer are all in the same boat when it comes to creation; we are limited by what our mind can and cannot do, which establishes law/axoim of what the mind can and cannot do.

Moreover, any mind, even a small child, can invent, imagine or theorize (picture) bacteria developing into a cat, or invent a fiction.

The law of Cogitare proves the mind can create neither bacteria, or a cat; the entities are in fact separate. By inventing in your mind that bacteria forms into a cat – negates the entity as real and renders the process fiction.

In other words, saying that bacteria formed into a cat, is an invention of your mind, or anyone’s mind. Your mind is incapable of ‘thinking up’ a cat, therefore, seeing a cat form from bacteria in your mind is fiction and renders the theory absolutely false, or a modified reality according to axiom.

This is no different than manufacturing a werewolf. Your mind is merging wolf and man based on theory, not observation.

Same as bacteria forming into cat – you are merging bacteria and cat based on theory, not observation, therefore, fiction.

Does this determine evolutionary science to be false? Absolutely not, however, all theory concerning entity is governed by Cogitare axiom, just as all motion is governed by Newton’s law.

If you can invent in your mind what you believe to be creation – then you have invented; you have molded fiction, as you can only invent from what already exist.

As an Evolutionary Biologist, you may say you do not believe in creation; yet the theory of bacteria developing into an entity – is creation. Where there is water there is life. Water is a creation mechanism. What other name will you assign to H2O?

If algae did not exist without the water, then did the water create algae? Scientists, who oppose the word ‘creation’ are very careful when speaking about cyanobacteria, due to ‘creationism,’ and yet without water, the algae does not exist.

It makes no difference what name you assign to your theory. The theory is either relevant based on Cogitare axioms, or it is not.

It’s no different than creating Superman or Batman; both are fiction, just as bacteria forming into a cat is fiction. If you can invent ‘it’ in your mind then ‘it’ is an entity that already exist and your mind is incapable of imagining the entity into existence.

Think of a tree. You can picture the tree being cut up with a saw, turned into pulp, and made into plywood. You can physically view the process on, “How it’s Made.” How is this any different than the cat?

Simple, the above is duplication of material based on invention. You are taking what exist, the tree, and reshaping the tree into different structures of itself, which is reality.

Whereas, the cat, you are taking two separate entity, merging them together in your mind through invention and theory of how evolution happened over time; this is called fiction. This is the same as a werewolf – the merging of wolf and man, yet at an academic level.

We are not taking an extant cat, breaking the structure down and duplicating the structure from it’s extant material, like the tree, which is reality.

Evolution bases certain specie development from the invention of a mind, which makes the theory invention; the human mind is incapable of bringing an entity into existence.

Thus, the ability to picture, or see bacteria form into a cat within your mind, renders the theory invalid.

This can be debated over and over until you fail the Creativum Experiment, over and over – determining the result conclusive, which produces cognitive dissonance.

The human mind is incapable of creating a new entity. Any theory of evolution that states bacteria formed into a cat is false. Now there may be another method by which this occurred, but if you imagine this without observation, then it is false, or a modified reality.

What if you took a lucky guess, or imagined by chance correctly?

If you can see it in your mind, you merely invented what you see based on memory, recurring images, and imagination. If you can create what exists in your mind, without ever seeing the process, this is called fiction. As humans, we can only discover, describe and name what is or has been.

All the current and historic descriptions of any substance, or material in culture are either the original material or copies (inventions) based off the original material, such as oxygen. Your mind can only invent another gas based on knowing what oxygen, and hydrogen is; knowing what the definition or description is. Yet, your mind is unable to create a new gas into being without capitalizing from the knowledge of oxygen, or hydrogen – thus, a copy of what is.

Likewise, assuming the original material of a mammal is bacteria, without observation, start to finish – is invention. If you can create the process in your mind without ever observing the process – it’s fiction and the Creativum Experiment validates this reality.

Discovery is by observation, not contemplation. Once we observe and measure, then we can contemplate, theorize, and conclude. You can only discover through observation. Observing how insects behave and concluding this is the formation of humanity is fiction.

Invention of the mind is based off what is extant, indexed memory, epistemicism; whereas, imagination is fiction, or an accounting of how your mind, the observer, would like to see things.

Based on Cogitare axioms we can conclude what is fiction from non-fiction, regardless of theory, imagination, or philosophy. Axioms level the playing field of reasoning and through understanding based in reality (without grandiose ideololgy) of which quantum physics prove out. All of science can conclude what is entity apart from imagination; fiction from non-fiction.

The delusions of philosophy are made void through Cogitare law.

Regardless of the philosophy of how the blueprint or entity came to be, the result is the same; your mind is incapable of creating an entity into existence without copying from that which exist.

Evolution, creationism, panpsychism, no matter the philosophy or theory, all adhere to Cogitare law:

  • The human mind is incapable of creating an original blueprint (hydrogen).
  • Human minds must utilize the original blueprint, of that which is known, to invent any substance or material.

Theory debate are a moot point without taking into account Axioms of Cogitare. It’s no different than debating gravity without ever examining Newton’s work. You can either fulfill the Creativum Experiment or you cannot. If you cannot then you are the same as the rest of the human specie, unable to create anything in your mind that existed or is extant.

Is cross breeding DNA creation?

No, we are mixing the original blueprints (blueprint being the analysis of what we know to be) to invent a specie that already exist.

If your mother is German, and your Father Irish, are you creating a new entity, or are you human? The structure may change, but the original elements do not. If canine DNA was mixed with monkey, the result is hybrid duplication, not creation.

Cognitive Dissonance

Although a newly discovered paradigm it will be interesting to note the cognitive dissonance that occur from the result of the experiment, notably within Atheism. Atheist do not believe in the existence of God or a deity. The Creativum Experiment validates that the word ‘God’ is indeed a reality the human mind cannot invent. How will the atheist respond to failure of the Creativum Experiment? An individual has two choices: take the test and fail, or refuse the test for fear of cognitive dissonance.

Similar to when prophecy fails it will be interesting to note how Atheists restore their psychological consonance. This is a subject of much anticipated study to see how alteration, if any, will affect society as a whole in the years to come.

Since the 1950’s psychological stress factor has included cognitive dissonance and theory to maintain consistency between attitudes and behaviors. There have been numerous studies on contradiction of belief, ideals, and values.

There are other factors such as research by Nobuo Masataka and Leonid Perlovsky, that music inhibit cognition that reduce cognitive dissonance.

Can we assume that acknowledgment of fiction or non-fiction view is indeed a lack of understanding, or is this based on cultural requirement? Based on the result of the Creativum Experiment, non-fiction and fiction are no longer subject to opinion, but rather measured precisely from language, culture, and Cogitare axiom. Perhaps, as with amygdala, human cognizance is nimis, or not enough.

What is certain, the Creativum Experiment and Zawada Axioms of Cogitare have forged an undeniable reality for science and psychology to observe and explore.

[Form id=”3″]

Definitions: Received from Merriam and Oxford Dictionary

human mind

  1. thought
  2. the process of thinking
  3. feels, perceives, wills, and reasons
  4. conscious


  1. bring into existence
  2. invent
  3. cause to be


  1. a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to
  2. give a name to


  1. to have real being whether material or spiritual
  2. to have life or the functions of vitality
  3. substance, entity


  1. particular kind of matter with uniform properties
  2. real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence


  1. detailed examination of the elements or structure of something
  2. the process of separating something into its constituent elements


  1. the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists
  2. intention, resolution, determination