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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

What is there that can be known that is both capable of bearing intention and capable of lacking intention at the same time?

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).

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

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.

Just because a person didn't intend a specific outcome doesn't mean that person was lacking intention.

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

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.

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?

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

'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.

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.

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.

...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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.