On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;135919 wrote:
You asked (rhetorically) how could evolution be the effect of a non-intentional cause? (Suggesting that it could not be). I replied by asking why it could not be? I did not say we knew it could be, or that we knew it could not be? I asked only why you suggested it could not be. How we know whether the cause is intentional or non-intentional is a different issue.


Well, for it to be intentional or non-intentional, would mean that there was something which could intend or not intend. And I'm not sure what thing could have intended or not intended evolution to occur. That seems to me to be asking, "Did God intend or not intend for evolution to occur"? And if it is, then that's presupposing God exists in the first place, which was my point.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:56 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135925 wrote:
Well, for it to be intentional or non-intentional, would mean that there was something which could intend or not intend. And I'm not sure what thing could have intended or not intended evolution to occur. That seems to me to be asking, "Did God intend or not intend for evolution to occur"? And if it is, then that's presupposing God exists in the first place, which was my point.



O.K. If that was your point. But what was the rhetorical question, how could there be a non-intentional cause of evolution about?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:52 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135925 wrote:
Well, for it to be intentional or non-intentional, would mean that there was something which could intend or not intend. And I'm not sure what thing could have intended or not intended evolution to occur. That seems to me to be asking, "Did God intend or not intend for evolution to occur"? And if it is, then that's presupposing God exists in the first place, which was my point.


Should you not apply the same rules to this supposed Creator ?

I will accept such an answer when I see the same set of rules applied to both situations...otherwise you just end up with infinite regressions...

As I see it Final Cause is intrinsic to Reality...

If there is such thing as a God, that entity must be one with creation...
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 11:51 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;135536 wrote:
It was Pythagorean's question:



Now the question is whether evolutionary science, or even science generally, does imply that human intelligence is somehow accidental or fortuitous. Most scientifically-oriented thinkers seem to answer the question in the affirmative. And this is where there is a collision between natural science and Western philosophy, in my view. Scientists seem to think that any idea of the pre-destination or inevitability of the emergence of human intelligence is a religious idea. Well - is it?


If we can establish the fact that evolutionary science implies that human intelligence is indeed fortuitous or accidental (which I believe that jeeprs can and has done) then, we may ask whether or not the opposing view will always carry with it a theological implication. This is the question that jeeprs is asking.

Surely, it seems to me, that theologians can and have used the opposing view to support their claims that God exists.

One further question that I would pose: Is the view that evolutionary science proposes - that the emergence of human intelligence is accidental - is this view a reasonable view? Unless they can establish a cause which has no other cause before it, then it seems, their position is an unsound one, unreasonable.

-
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 11:57 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

One further question that I would pose: Is the view that evolutionary science proposes - that the emergence of human intelligence is accidental - is this view a reasonable view? Unless they can establish a cause which has no other cause before it, then it seems, their position is an unsound one, unreasonable.


How can we claim that the emergence of human intelligence was accidental, if there is nothing which could have created human intelligence that is capable of bearing intention of lacking intention? Again, I think by saying that human intelligence is accidental or deliberate, we are presupposing there is something with volition (God), which is capable of bearing intention.

My car did not intend to start today, since it cannot bear intention. I intended to start my car. What could have possibly intended to begin evolution?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:44 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135993 wrote:
How can we claim that the emergence of human intelligence was accidental, if there is nothing which could have created human intelligence that is capable of bearing intention of lacking intention?


What is there that can be known that is both capable of bearing intention and capable of lacking intention at the same time? The question of the cause of human intelligence should remain open to reasonable analysis.


Zetherin;135993 wrote:
Again, I think by saying that human intelligence is accidental or deliberate, we are presupposing there is something with volition (God), which is capable of bearing intention.

My car did not intend to start today, since it cannot bear intention. I intended to start my car. What could have possibly intended to begin evolution?


Your car was designed to drive. If a cause cannot bear intention it could be accidental since there is no necessary connection between the cause (evolution) and the effect (human minds).

In which case human evolution is not necessarily the cause of human minds. This I believe to be untrue.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:54 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135993 wrote:
How can we claim that the emergence of human intelligence was accidental, if there is nothing which could have created human intelligence that is capable of bearing intention of lacking intention? Again, I think by saying that human intelligence is accidental or deliberate, we are presupposing there is something with volition (God), which is capable of bearing intention.



Implying there is, or implying there could be? Isn't it the latter?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 01:39 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
What is there that can be known that is both capable of bearing intention and capable of lacking intention at the same time?

A human. I can intend to do something, and I can accidentily (which is what is meant by lacking intention) do something.

Quote:

If a cause cannot bear intention it could be accidental since there is no necessary connection between the cause (evolution) and the effect (human minds).


Here you are using "accident" seemingly to mean "random". Is this right? But that is not what I mean. I mean lacking intention.

kennethamy wrote:

Implying there is, or implying there could be? Isn't it the latter?


If we're saying the cause of evolution is accidental, we are implying there is something which is capable of lacking intention. In other words, I disagree with you that causes are either intentional or non-intentional. I think intentional and non-intentional are contraries, and there is a third option which is causes that are neutral. It only makes sense since there are trillions of events occuring right now that have causes which have nothing to do with intention or lack of intention - that is, they have no direct connection to a volitive being.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136023 wrote:
A human. I can intend to do something, and I can accidentily (which is what is meant by lacking intention) do something.



Here you are using "accident" seemingly to mean "random". Is this right? But that is not what I mean. I mean lacking intention.



If we're saying the cause of evolution is accidental, we are implying there is something which is capable of lacking intention. In other words, I disagree with you that causes are either intentional or non-intentional. I think intentional and non-intentional are contraries, and there is a third option which is causes that are neutral. It only makes sense since there are trillions of events occuring right now that have causes which have nothing to do with intention or lack of intention - that is, they have no direct connection to a volitive being.


You seem to be taking the word "intention" a bit out of context. Even something done "on accident" was the result of something being intended.

Just because a person didn't intend a specific outcome doesn't mean that person was lacking intention. I find it quite apparent that consciousness must alway intend something; therefore, if something is lacking intention then it would be unconscious.

Even evolution is the result of consciousness, so I would say that even evolution has an intention or purpose.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:32 pm
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
Just because a person didn't intend a specific outcome doesn't mean that person was lacking intention.


When we say "accident" we mean something which someone did not intend to happen.

Quote:

Even evolution is the result of consciousness, so I would say that even evolution has an intention or purpose.


How could consciousness be the cause of evolution, when we evolved to have consciousness? You mean to say consciousness is an entity which existed even before any lifeforms were conscious?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136023 wrote:
A human. I can intend to do something, and I can accidentily (which is what is meant by lacking intention) do something.


First: We are stating that human intelligence positively exists. As Kenneth stated: human minds definitely exist.

Second: We are stating the the evolutionary process is responsible for the existence of human minds.

Third: We asked: Is the evollutionary process "Purely Accidental", was it "Completely Random" in nature? To this Kenneth says: "No".

You say the process of evolution is both intended and not-intended at the same time.

I ask you: What makes evolution possible?


You say: Human evolution is both intentional and non-intentional at the same time.

I asked you: What do we know that is both intentional and non-intentional at the same time?

You answered: Humans. We can act both intentionally and we can act non-intentionally.

However, can human beings cause things to happen in both an intentional and non-intentional manner at the same time?

The answer to this last question is, No. Because there must be a sufficient significance within the nature of the cause which makes its status as a cause a plausible one. There cannot exist a cause which is both intentional and non-intentional at the same time.


Zetherin;136023 wrote:
Here you are using "accident" seemingly to mean "random". Is this right? But that is not what I mean. I mean lacking intention.


I will rephrase the question.

If a cause cannot bear intention it could be non-intentional since there is no necessary connection between the cause (evolution) and the effect (human minds).

If it is non-intentional it continues to lack the proper signification in order for us to classify it as a genuine cause. In which case there is no reason for us to accept that it is, in fact, a cause. And, in the case of the evolutionary hyposthesis, this is untrue.



Zetherin;136023 wrote:
If we're saying the cause of evolution is accidental, we are implying there is something which is capable of lacking intention. In other words, I disagree with you that causes are either intentional or non-intentional. I think intentional and non-intentional are contraries, and there is a third option which is causes that are neutral. It only makes sense since there are trillions of events occuring right now that have causes which have nothing to do with intention or lack of intention - that is, they have no direct connection to a volitive being.


A 'neutral' cause would remain insufficient How would it be possible for us to posit a 'neutral' cause as an actual cause? It cannot be both a cause and a non-cause at the same time. Either we know that it is a cause or else we are incapable of knowing that it is a cause.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:39 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136053 wrote:
When we say "accident" we mean something which someone did not intend to happen.



How could consciousness be the cause of evolution, when we evolved to have consciousness? You mean to say consciousness is an entity which existed even before any lifeforms were conscious?


Just because something was on accident, doesn't mean it was the result of lacking any intention. It just lacked that specific intention that was the result.

We always intend to do something, however, there are times when our intentions are necessarily realized, but that does not mean that the result was a complete unconnected accident per se.

Evolution happens because of natural selection. Selection requires consciousness. I'm not saying its as easy as, "consciousness causes evolution", but there is a mutual dependency between the two that is a more circular connection than linear.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:40 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

You say: Human evolution is both intentional and non-intentional at the same time.


I never said this. So, I don't understand your first paragraph.

Quote:

'neutral' cause would remain insufficient How would it be possible for us to posit a 'neutral' cause as an actual cause? It cannot be both a cause and a non-cause at the same time. Either we know that it is a cause or else we are incapable of knowing that it is a cause.


You have some wild interpretations of my posts. When did I ever say it wouldn't be a cause? Every event that happens has a cause.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------

MMP2506 wrote:

Just because something was on accident, doesn't mean it was the result lacking any intention. It just lacked that specific intention that was the result.


...that's what it means. An accident is something which was not intended. You ought to look the word up.

Quote:

Evolution happens because of natural selection. Selection requires consciousness. I'm not saying its as easy as, "consciousness causes evolution", but there is a mutual dependency between the two that is a more circular connection than linear.


But things evolved way before anything was conscious. So?
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:47 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136058 wrote:


...that's what it means. An accident is something which was not intended. You ought to look the word up.



But things evolved way before anything was conscious. So?


So are you suggesting that an accidental occurrence has no cause at all? Nothing can exist without a cause. You are failing to distinguish between a specific intention and intention in general.

How on Earth do you know when evolution began, and whether or not consciousness developed simultaneously or even before evolution started?

I for one don't believe there was ever not evolution or not consciousness, therefore neither could have predated the other.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:55 pm
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
So are you suggesting that an accidental occurrence has no cause at all?

What? I am not saying that at all. I just said everything has a cause! That means, whether that something is accidental or deliberate or neither, it has a cause.

Quote:

How on Earth do you know when evolution began, and whether or not consciousness developed simultaneously or even before evolution started


Science does not consider single-celled organisms conscious. We know that many, if not most, lifeforms evolved from single-celled organisms. And so it's reasonable to assume that there was no consciousness involved in our evolution. Not until, of course, the organism(s) became conscious.

Quote:

I for one don't believe there was ever not evolution or not consciousness, therefore neither could have predated the other.


What?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:56 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;136062 wrote:
So are you suggesting that an accidental occurrence has no cause at all?


No, the suggestion is that an accident is not caused by something that was intended.

For instance, suppose I step on your toe, but the cause of my stepping on your toe is that I was pushed by another person. Then, my stepping on your toe was accidental. It doesn't matter whether or not my being pushed was accidental. What matters is that I did not intend to step on your toe.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:59 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136064 wrote:
No, the suggestion is that an accident is not caused by something that was intended.

For instance, suppose I step on your toe, but the cause of my stepping on your toe is that I was pushed by another person. Then, my stepping on your toe was accidental. It doesn't matter whether or not my being pushed was accidental. What matters is that I did not intend to step on your toe.


Yes, and I am arguing that there is a third option: neutral causes.

For instance, somewhere out in our galaxy, a H molecule just came in contact with another H molecule due to the collision of two asteroids. The asteroids do not bear intentionality, nor are they capable of lacking intention (having accidents). So, the cause of the two H molecules coming in contact is neutral.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:00 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136058 wrote:



You have some wild interpretations of my posts. When did I ever say it wouldn't be a cause? Every event that happens has a cause.



Zetherin, do you think that the cause of natural evolution is intentional or non-intentional?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:01 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

Zetherin, do you think that the cause of natural evolution is intentional or non-intentional?


Neither. Unless we presuppose there is a God, or something which could bear intentionality, or have accidents.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:01 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136063 wrote:
What? I am not saying that at all. I just said everything has a cause! That means, whether that something is accidental or deliberate or neither, it has a cause.



Science does not consider single-celled organisms conscious. We know that many lifeforms evolved from single-celled organisms. And so it's reasonable to assume that there was no consciousness involved in our evolution. Not until, of course, the organism(s) became conscious.



What?


If it has a cause then it was the result of some intention. The intention may not have been the result, but that doesn't mean it lacked intention, it just means the intention was inadvertent, but not disconnected, to the effect.

If you admit all effects necessarily have a cause, then I fail to see how you can accept that some things lack intention.

Arguing what "science" considers consciousness is another point completely. Whatever "science" may or mat not be.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 03:03 PM ----------

kennethamy;136064 wrote:
No, the suggestion is that an accident is not caused by something that was intended.

For instance, suppose I step on your toe, but the cause of my stepping on your toe is that I was pushed by another person. Then, my stepping on your toe was accidental. It doesn't matter whether or not my being pushed was accidental. What matters is that I did not intend to step on your toe.


You did not intend to step on my toe, but you intending to do something when you stepped on my toe. That doesn't mean that stepping on my toe was the result of no intention at all. It was still the result of an intention, just not an intention that was intending to step on my toe.

Accidents don't mean disconnected, simply unexpected.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:05:54