The purpose Life has

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Vkothii, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Perception is. It is not necessary to postulate a perceiver.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    The telephone is. There is no need to postulate a phone call.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    I do not think your analogy is correct.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Then why are you perceiving a call?
    Is there nobody home at the moment?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2008
  9. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  10. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    How ? My toe was on a collision course with the rock. Nothing interrupted it's course, so the two collided.

    Yes, and ?

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

    Messages:
    43,184
    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:
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2008
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    See above.
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So then, your toe connected with the rock. Did your toe receive information about this rock or not? That explains how?
     
  15. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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?
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I can't find any answer there.
     
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    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.
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Really ? :bugeye:

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No bearing at all.. :shrug:
     
  19. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2008
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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"):
    So your toe "saw" this rock then? Your toe did connect with it, and this is how, regarding a previous post.
    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 the pain in your "toe", which is actually in your brain, isn't connected to this rock that you hit with your toe?..??
     
  21. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  22. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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),
    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.
    Well, everything is probably impossible. I don't know why we bother even thinking. I mean, that's impossible too, right?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2008
  23. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Uh !? Are you reflecting ? Do you know what that means ?
     

Share This Page