The purpose Life has

[Vkothii]

I use the words "I" for the sake of convenience, to delineate the location where particular chains of causes and effects occur

Delineate? As in define?
Do you perceive these causes and effects from a location, or from within something? Or "along the surface" of something? Or both?

 

[greenberg]

Perception is. It is not necessary to postulate a perceiver.

 

[Vkothii]

The telephone is. There is no need to postulate a phone call.

 

[greenberg]

I do not think your analogy is correct.

 

[Vkothii]

Then why are you perceiving a call?
Is there nobody home at the moment?

 

[greenberg]

There is perception because there are functional senses.


Other than that, I don't think this last tangent is necessary.

My point from before -that mistakes happen because of lack of knowledge- still stands.
You haven't really objected to that; you are objecting to the notions of randomness or influence of god - which I have never argued for anyway.

What is it that you are really trying to get at with your claim that everything we do is intentional? -
Are you seeking to defend the notions of responsibility or free will?
Are you perhaps trying to show that humans are perfect, yet evil, or that at least they don't care much what they do?


If it is the notion of responsibility that you seek to defend - What I said about the lack of knowledge still stands. There are things that are not our fault, but that are our problem, our responsibility nonetheless. Just because something is not my fault does not mean that I will do as if it is not my responsibility.

E.g. Say I get a tapeworm infestation, ham infested with tapeworm eggs being the most obvious culprit.
My infestation would only be my fault if I knew full well that the ham I was about to eat was infested with tapeworm eggs, but said that I don't care if I get the tapeworm.
In the case that I did not know about the tapeworm eggs in the ham, my subsequent infestion would not be my fault, but it would be my problem, my responsibility to seek treatment if I wished to preserve my health.

 

[Enmos]

OK but how did this "unintentional" act occur?
The connection, was your toe, surely.

How ? My toe was on a collision course with the rock. Nothing interrupted it's course, so the two collided.

But you did stub your toe, when your toe connected with the rock.

Yes, and ?

When the connection occured, you received the information about the rock you didn't see (with your eyes). You got to "see" it with your toe instead.

I got to feel it with my toe after the stubbing occurred, not before.

 

[Enmos]

You are basically arguing that whatever an observed result of an action,
it was precisely this result that was intended to be brought about.


So according to you, it holds that:

- If I sprain my ankle while running,
this means I have intended to sprain my ankle.

- If I get food poisoning,
this means I have intended to get food poisoning.

- If I was born,
this means I have intended to be born.


Hello?!

Yes, that's what he is saying.. a bit too :crazy: to be taken seriously actually.

Btw. he chose not to react to these posts of mine either:

Vk do you understand the implications of your 'theory' ?

For example:
If a girl gets raped, she intended to get raped according to you.

No, it's the same thing.
The rape victim intended to take that shortcut through the alley where the rapist was hiding. Just as I intended to not pay attention to the road.

 

[Vkothii]

There is perception because there are functional senses.

There is a telephone because there are functional devices (and connections).

Say I get a tapeworm infestation, ham infested with tapeworm eggs being the most obvious culprit.

If you get a parasite infestation, because you eat something, who gets infested?
See how you already identify the "evil cause": the "obvious culprit".

My infestation would only be my fault if I knew full well that the ham I was about to eat was infested with tapeworm eggs

This has already been shown as a false inference: if you break a rung, it's because you stepped on it, not because you did or didn't know about ladders.

, but said that I don't care if I get the tapeworm.
In the case that I did not know about the tapeworm eggs in the ham, my subsequent infestion would not be my fault, but it would be my problem, my responsibility to seek treatment if I wished to preserve my health.

You're confusing two agencies that have different intentions. If you intentionally walk through a jungle and get killed and eaten by a tiger, is the tiger evil?

 

[Vkothii]

The rape victim intended to take that shortcut through the alley where the rapist was hiding. Just as I intended to not pay attention to the road.

See above.

 

[Vkothii]

The connection, was your toe, surely.

How ? My toe was on a collision course with the rock. Nothing interrupted it's course, so the two collided.

So then, your toe connected with the rock. Did your toe receive information about this rock or not? That explains how?

 

[Vkothii]

I got to feel it with my toe after the stubbing occurred, not before.

Of course, because there was no "moment", when this collision occured.
Before the connection your eyes and your toe were unaware of this rock.
So "after" you had connected to this rock (with your toe), what bearing did any "feeling" have on your intentional act?

 

[Enmos]

See above.

I can't find any answer there.

 

[Enmos]

So then, your toe connected with the rock. Did your toe receive information about this rock or not? That explains how?

The brain deducted information about the rock.
The information was:
-1. the object is hard i.e. it hurts to stub your toe against it.
-2. the object was in the way of my toe.

All the toe did was pass on sensory information.

 

[Enmos]

Of course, because there was no "moment", when this collision occured.

Really ? :bugeye:

Before the connection your eyes and your toe were unaware of this rock.

Correct, and after the collision the toe and eyes are still unaware of anything.

So "after" you had connected to this rock (with your toe), what bearing did any "feeling" have on your intentional act?

No bearing at all.. :shrug:

 

[Vkothii]

I can't find any answer there.

Right. But you don't seem to be after any "answer", as such.
You just seem to want to keep insisting that you can't see anyone else's POV, but yours.

So I'll ask: are you trying to understand what "intentional action" means, or are you trying to find a way around understanding what it means? Or are you convinced you know what it means? I certainly don't prescribe to that view, but that's maybe just me.

 

[Vkothii]

For example I can almost guarantee that your brain will simply refuse to see anything relevant, in the following discourse, (I predict a high probability that you will respond in the usual fashion, or not respond, except with something like: "you're nuts"):

The brain deducted information about the rock.
The information was:
-1. the object is hard i.e. it hurts to stub your toe against it.
-2. the object was in the way of my toe.

All the toe did was pass on sensory information.

So your toe "saw" this rock then? Your toe did connect with it, and this is how, regarding a previous post.

Before the connection your eyes and your toe were unaware of this rock.

Correct, and after the collision the toe and eyes are still unaware of anything.

You mean, the pain in your toe is really in your brain? And same with the image of the rock you can now "see"? You mean, your senses can't be aware, because awareness is "in" your brain?

So "after" you had connected to this rock (with your toe), what bearing did any "feeling" have on your intentional act?

No bearing at all..

So the pain in your "toe", which is actually in your brain, isn't connected to this rock that you hit with your toe?..??

 

[greenberg]

There is a telephone because there are functional devices (and connections).
If you get a parasite infestation, because you eat something, who gets infested?
See how you already identify the "evil cause": the "obvious culprit".
This has already been shown as a false inference: if you break a rung, it's because you stepped on it, not because you did or didn't know about ladders.
You're confusing two agencies that have different intentions. If you intentionally walk through a jungle and get killed and eaten by a tiger, is the tiger evil?

Wow. You are arguing that humans are basically evil. You don't seem to see that you are doing this, though.

Your argument goes along the same lines as that of the Christians who blame it all on the person, and seek to completely unburden and exonerate God and themselves.
Or along the same lines as that of the free-willers who will postulate impossible things just so that they can justify the notion of free will. So that they then feel justified to point fingers.

 

[Vkothii]

You are arguing that humans are basically evil. You don't seem to see that you are doing this, though.

Absolutely I must be arguing this (at least there is one person who can see this, namely you, even if I can't). All animals must be evil (the ones that kill other animals are absolutely incorrigible, and plainly don't care about the suffering they cause; the ones that eat plants are evil because the poor innocent plants didn't even do anything),

Your argument goes along the same lines as that of the Christians who blame it all on the person, and seek to completely unburden and exonerate God and themselves.

That's strange, I was born into a Christian culture, but I find a lot of Christian beliefs to be a bit unfathomable, from a personal viewpoint. But if you say so, you obviously can clearly see all this.

Or along the same lines as that of the free-willers who will postulate impossible things just so that they can justify the notion of free will. So that they then feel justified to point fingers.

Well, everything is probably impossible. I don't know why we bother even thinking. I mean, that's impossible too, right?

 

[Enmos]

Right. But you don't seem to be after any "answer", as such.
You just seem to want to keep insisting that you can't see anyone else's POV, but yours.

So I'll ask: are you trying to understand what "intentional action" means, or are you trying to find a way around understanding what it means? Or are you convinced you know what it means? I certainly don't prescribe to that view, but that's maybe just me.

Uh !? Are you reflecting ? Do you know what that means ?