It wasn't an expected bit of information, because toes can't see as well as eyes, and require a more immediate kind of connection with rocks, in order to convey their existence, Expectation is an interesting subject.
So if we use the toe in a metaphor where there are 'encounters with stubborn incomprehension on Sciforums' what is the toe helping us learn by these unexpected impacts.
In a deterministic universe it would be very hard to localize causes or attribute them to monads at given points in time. Intentionality and results could be localized more easily.
I see no need to go back to Methusalah to find he cause. In the example I gave Vk of a man climbing a ladder with the intention of cleaning his windows it seems clear that if he falls off the ladder the immediate cause can be ascertained, A rung broke or was slippery and so on, Vk would have us believe that falling was intentional.
It seems clear that if he falls off the ladder the immediate cause "could be" due to the intentional act of climbing the ladder. At the instant the fall begins, some cause, such as a rung breaking, or a slippery patch "could well be" discerned--which is dependent on (i.e. not independent of) the intentional ladder climbing act. If a rung broke, this "could be" because the man intentionally stepped on it. Or similarly if it was a wet, slippery rung that was intentionally stepped on. Or it "could be" that it was a random quantum fluctuation in the zero-point field of the universe, and completely beyond the man's control...:shrug: I'd say that a lack of knowledge (of a dodgy or slippery rung), "could be" the cause too; however, if the man intentionally steps on a loose or weak rung and it breaks, that "could be" independent of the knowledge he had of the sturdiness or stability of the ladder.
I think you present this too narrowly; I think more circumstances need to be taken into consideration: If the man intentionally steps on a loose or weak rung and it breaks, that's independent of the knowledge he had of the sturdiness or stability of the ladder, and is indicative that he lacked the knowledge of what it takes to safely climb a weak ladder rung (e.g. provisionally fasten it). - And here there can be many other options, depending on the specific person and their circumstances: The man in the above example could also: - lack the knowledge of the seriousness of the consequences of stepping on a weak rung; - not care about what would happen to him if he fell off the ladder (and lacked the knowledge of the seriousness of not caring); - in the moment of climbing the ladder, he was overcome by anger that he has to climb the darn ladder, and the anger made him ignore the danger of stepping on a weak rung. This might seem pedantic or even absurd and very personal/emotional, but from my observation, it is more precise; it's a more accurate observation of what goes on in a person's mind and what they do, when they do it.
Sure, you could perhaps define a chain of possible events, thought processes and actions that led to the man climbing the ladder, and stepping on a weak rung and breaking it. Ultimately, the man steps on the rung intentionally, regardless of what he thinks about it. or what he knows about ladders or a particular ladder, or even is looking where he puts his foot. An accident that isn't because of an event beyond any control, is an event that is within control, and intention. An accident which is because of intentional action is "unintended" after the fact. The fact being that, in the case of falling from a ladder, the man was connected to the act by the connection his foot made with the rung which broke. He didn't connect with the rung unintentionally.
In which case, he breaks the rung intentionally? If so, the rest of your post is therefore only incidental to that intention. If he knew it was weak, then stood on it, and broke it, it was with this knowledge. If he didn't know it was weak, then stood on it and broke it, it was without the knowledge. Either way, he stands on the rung deliberately - intentionally. There is no distinction, if he falls, it's because the rung broke - the rung broke because he stood on it. Whether he stands on the rung knowing it's weak or not knowing it, is incidental to actually standing on it, breaking it and falling off the ladder.
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, trying to get a lame dickhead like you to see past their narrow little self-assured attitude, is obviously an enormous waste of time. But clearly, you have no idea what intention means, what an act by an agent is, and you simply refuse to see the obvious, because you choose to be willfully blind. Are you really not going to post any more of your deluded thinking in this thread, or is that way too much to hope for?
You were running when you sprained your ankle, so yes, spraining your ankle was intentional (although you of course claim it was unintended, it was nonetheless an act, performed by an intentional agent, namely you). If you eat something intentionally, yes, the above argument holds. If you were aware, and an autonomous agent before birth, and you consciously intended to get to the outside world, then yes, you intended to be born. But you weren't an aware, autonomous agent, you were born helpless, blind, and unable to move around much. So you didn't consciously or intentionally birth yourself (you were born passively, and didn't do much about the event, your mother did though). But by all means, dismiss the idea out of hand. Refuse to believe that there is even a possibility that everything you do is intentional. Accept that when you "make a mistake", it "just happened", and had nothing to do with you or your actions (it's actually remarkably easy to delude yourself, as you probably are aware). Lots of philosophers who don't seem to be able to look past their own noses are quite capable of this, so why the hell not? Just look at Myles, for instance - he's convinced he doesn't do a thing.
In that case, I am evil. Only an evil being would intentionally cause harm to themselves with the intention to cause harm. What do you think are the consequences if a person believes themselves to be evil? Look more carefully at what it is I am saying. I am not arguing that "things just happen". I am arguing that we sometimes lack knowledge of how to act so that the results of our actions would be as we desired.
Myles, do you wish to be seen as a good, truthul and trustworthy person? Do you want to be believed? If Vkothii believed what you are saying above -that is, if he believed he "is hopeless"-, where do you think this would get him? Would it be good for him?
You still aren't seeing it. You sprained your ankle. You didn't "mean" to hurt yourself - that's bad for survival - an animal that can't keep up with the herd gets left behind. You could say that spraining your ankle is an evil thing to "happen". But it "happened" for the blindingly obvious reason that YOU made it so. Yes you, not some act by capricious gods, or a random cosmic chance event, but you, your body that you were moving the muscles of, and of course that hole you didn't see. Maybe the hole is evil? When does running become evil?
Okay. The difference between you and me seems to be here that you seem to believe in an agent, an acting entity that autonomously produces intentions. I, on the other hand, do not postulate such an entity. I use the words "I" for the sake of convenience, to delineate the location where particular chains of causes and effects occur. I hold that intentions, too, are subject to the law of cause and effect (as I sketched it out earlier in the fourfold formula).
