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.

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.

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

That is not true. The cause of the two H molecules coming in contact is not 'neutral', it is positive; since we know that it was positively caused by the two asteroids.

Wait, where does positive come into the mix? I just meant nuetral causes as a third option to intentional causes and non-intentional causes. You can call it whatever you wish!

Either the asteroids caused the two molecules to come together or they didn't.

What makes the coming together of the two molecules 'neutral'?

I interpret intention as being connected to a volitive being capable of bearing intentionality. I would not say my car intended to break down, if it did. It just broke down. The cause has nothing to do with intention.



It is a point worth discussing. If you believe that single-celled organisms have consciousness, then you can call my premise false. And then please provide me evidence for why you believe they do. No need to become disgruntled and start with the quotation marks.

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.

Cars cannot intend because they are not conscious.

The asteroids did not intend to collide. Asteroids cannot bear intentionality.

Do you agree or disagree?



Call it whatever you will. You don't have to call it "neutral", but we do need a third option. A third option which has nothing to do with volition and intentionality. For instance, my asteroids example.

Your asteroid example was flawed as I pointed out. The cause of the two molecules colliding has been positively identified as being the result of the two asteroids. Therefore the cause of the two molecules colliding is not 'neutral'. Your example has failed.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the collision of the two asteroids was 'neutral'. Simply because we do not know the cause of your hypothetical 'two asteroids' does not mean that we cannot, in priniciple, provide the real cause.

I would say the collision was an accident. Which is to say that if we knew only the path of one of the asteroids, we would not have been able to predict that they would collide. Sometimes, to say that an occurrence is an accident is merely to say that it could not have been predicted with the available information. "Accident" then is just a confession of ignorance. I imagine that was what Freud meant when he said that there were no accidents (in the Psychopathology of Everyday Life). It is certainly what Spinoza meant by "accident" and by "chance". There are a number of uses of the notion of accident.

Cars cannot intend because they are not conscious.

Do you disagree that nothing can be the result of no intention at all? Even something that was "unintended" was the result of an inadvertent intention and not no intention at all.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my quotations as disgruntledness, I was merely trying to make the point that science isn't something that exists as objects exist. It isn't an absolute concept, so we can't just make the claim that, "Science says this" or "Science says that." I live a very disgruntle free life.

I believe consciousness is something not reduced only to biology. I believe that when moss grows on only one side of a tree, that it is intending to do that, however, at a very primitive level.

You have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about. I think you've demonstrated that, especially after you blatantly misquoted me on the last page. Sigh. Once again, I never said the cause wasn't identified.

I said I know the real cause! The real cause is the asteroids colliding!

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.

The problem is, you aren't reading what I'm typing. Or, perhaps you're reading but not comprehending. If the discover it's the latter, try to spend a little more time thinking before you respond to me. It is obvious you just have it out for me, despite what I have to say. Of course, you probably call this philosophy, so why bother hitting you with some sense?

Are we morally responsible for the unintended consequences as well?

Abso-bloody-lutely! Why do you think life is so interesting and so difficult? 'The best laid plans o' mice and men' wrote Robbie Burns 'gang aft awry' (i.e., often have unintended consequences.)

Why did Alfred Nobel endow the Nobel Prize? Because he realised what dreadful unintended consequences his invention of dynamite would have, and wanted to strike a blow for peace.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 08:42 AM ----------

I may look like I am digressing here, but actually, I am pressing the case for 'the law of karma' which I understand as a 'moral law'. If evolution is to occur as the 'accidental collocation of atoms', then there can be no basis in reality for a moral law. I believe that there is a moral law in reality.

So, if though no fault of my own, my gun is stolen, and then used in a murder, then I am responsible ?

How are you responsible for your gun being stolen? I believe the law in most places is that it must be stored in a locked cabinet. If it were, and the cabinet had been jemmied open, then I imagine your culpability would be minimal. If you left it loaded and in plain sight, and some kid wandered in and took it and killed someone by mistake - then you should go to jail.

There is no use 'playing dumb' about this principle. Either we are morally responsible agents, or we are not. Personally, I cannot conceive of how freedom is possible if we are not morally responsible agents. If we are the puppets of some external force, then life is indeed a cruel joke.

I simply asserted that it is wrong to say that the cause of the two H molecules coming in contact is 'neutral'. I said that the cause of the two H molecules coming together is the direct result of the two asteroids. This is a positive, material, well-founded cause and not a 'neutral' cause.

Thus, when you now ask, "Zetherin, do you think that the cause of natural evolution is accidental?", I can safely respond, "Yes". "Accidental", here, is just a confession of ignorance. But the last 20 pages was me trying to clarify just what it is you meant by "accidental"!!

The question is, given that the cause of the evolution that leads up to human minds is unknown, do you think it reasonable to construct arguments which state that the causes of the process of evolution are in some sense related to mind or idea? What would be your counter-argument to such assertions?