@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.