Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 04:34 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 08:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Holy shit.

"Cosmic accident" as you've been told means the universe arose out of long odds. You've been told this multiple times now. Do you not read posts?

I’m looking for how you reconcile the claim that non-conscious matter or energy can’t have accidents, while the same time implying that an arrangement of non-conscious matter that arose out of long odds, can be referred to as an “accident”?

I can guess at what you’re trying to imply, though it’s not very clear. Perhaps something along the lines that the “accident” is not a property of matter itself, but the “arising out of long odds” part?

Quote:And no, non-conscious things or energy can't have intent. Things like a watch are made by humans with a specific purpose that the user could intend to use in a certain way.

That specific purpose is not extrinsic to the watch, it’s intrinsic to the watch. In fact it's a part of what it means to be a watch. Someone could buy a watch and use it for something other than telling time, perhaps as a paper weight, assigning an extrinsic purpose to it, while it’s intrinsic purpose remains. It’s the difference between a mere paper weight, and a watch being used as a paper weight.

Holy. Fuck. How many times do you need these questions answered? I've told you repeatedly what the word accident means with respect to the universe. You either fail to understand, or you intentionally misunderstand because you're a dishonest fucker. I'll assume the latter.

And no, watches (a non-living thing) can't have intent nor can it have a purpose itself. It can be used for a purpose in the same way a rock can be used to bash someone's skull in. The rock has no intent or unintent in the murder nor a purpose in the murder itself. Only the actor can have intent or do things unintentionally. Only the actor can assign purpose to a thing or energy or design a product with a specific function to be used by other actors who intend to use it for a purpose.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:23 PM)pablo Wrote:  The point you either fail to grasp or intentionally avoid is that the dice or a rock cannot throw themselves.
If they cannot throw themselves at an intened target, they certainly can't throw themselves at an unintended target.
Can you at least agree with this?

I agree with you when we are using the term "unintentional" in the conventional sense. If someone where to say a man was hit by a rock unintentionally and died. We would read that to mean that some one threw a rock and and it unintentionally hit a man and he died.

Now if I said a man was killed in a fluke accident by a falling a rock, we wouldn't be inclined to assume someone unintentionally dropped a rock on him.

There's a great deal of overlap between the meaning of the terms. Such as when I say I did something unintentionally, I can say that I did it accidentally.

Rather than dealing with multiple sort of terms, involving similar implications, changing the word, in every different scenario, I created the term unintentionality, to encompass situations that involve conscious agents and those that don't, using it in the synonymous found in any given thesaurus, where it's synonymous with terms like accident, and fluke, with the definitions that don't particularly require conscious agents, even though the conventional meaning does. I've stated this on numerous occasions already.

If find the use of term too problematic for you, that's fine. I'll try and work around this, by using whatever term, fluke, accident vs unintentional according to the situation.

In earlier threads, folks took issue with word accident, and fluke being used. Now, everyone takes issue with word unintentional being used, but are fine with flukes, and accidents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:59 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:23 PM)pablo Wrote:  The point you either fail to grasp or intentionally avoid is that the dice or a rock cannot throw themselves.
If they cannot throw themselves at an intened target, they certainly can't throw themselves at an unintended target.
Can you at least agree with this?

I agree with you when we are using the term "unintentional" in the conventional sense. If someone where to say a man was hit by a rock unintentionally and died. We would read that to mean that some one threw a rock and and it unintentionally hit a man and he died.

Now if I said a man was killed in a fluke accident by a falling a rock, we wouldn't be inclined to assume someone unintentionally dropped a rock on him.

There's a great deal of overlap between the meaning of the terms. Such as when I say I did something unintentionally, I can say that I did it accidentally.

Rather than dealing with multiple sort of terms, involving similar implications, changing the word, in every different scenario, I created the term unintentionality, to encompass situations that involve conscious agents and those that don't, using it in the synonymous found in any given thesaurus, where it's synonymous with terms like accident, and fluke, with the definitions that don't particularly require conscious agents, even though the conventional meaning does. I've stated this on numerous occasions already.

If find the use of term too problematic for you, that's fine. I'll try and work around this, by using whatever term, fluke, accident vs unintentional according to the situation.

In earlier threads, folks took issue with word accident, and fluke being used. Now, everyone takes issue with word unintentional being used, but are fine with flukes, and accidents.

The man did not intend to be hit by the rock. The unintention was his.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:01 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
[Image: 5465a5ea41b34194ea37f9faa1374538.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 04:34 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And no, watches (a non-living thing) can't have intent nor can it have a purpose itself.

No, you're wrong. Any created, or designed non-living thing can have an intrinsic purpose (telos).

In designing a watch for the purpose of telling time, that purpose is not just a feature of the design process, but is endowed in the watch itself. It was designed to tell time. Telling time is it's intrinsic purpose. It's the very meaning of what it means to be watch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:09 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:34 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And no, watches (a non-living thing) can't have intent nor can it have a purpose itself.

No, you're wrong. Any created, or designed non-living thing can have an intrinsic purpose (telos).

In designing a watch for the purpose of telling time, that purpose is not just a feature of the design process, but is endowed in the watch itself. It was designed to tell time. Telling time is it's intrinsic purpose. It's the very meaning of what it means to be watch.

A person can have intent and design it for a purpose. The object has no intent. You're a fucking idiot.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:12 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A person can have intent and design it for a purpose. The object has no intent. You're a fucking idiot.

If you think a watch doesn't have an intrinsic purpose, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're the idiot.

If you design something to serve a purpose, that purpose becomes intrinsic to the designed object.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A person can have intent and design it for a purpose. The object has no intent. You're a fucking idiot.

If you think a watch doesn't have an intrinsic purpose, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're the idiot.

Facepalm

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
13-08-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:34 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And no, watches (a non-living thing) can't have intent nor can it have a purpose itself.

No, you're wrong. Any created, or designed non-living thing can have an intrinsic purpose (telos).

In designing a watch for the purpose of telling time, that purpose is not just a feature of the design process, but is endowed in the watch itself. It was designed to tell time. Telling time is it's intrinsic purpose. It's the very meaning of what it means to be watch.

So you're doubling down on all or nothing; I figured as much.

I wasn't really kidding about the cosmic narcissism; let the rest of us now gawp at yet another religiously tinged overdiagnosis of agenticity. And yet if I told you I was forced to conclude that flesh-eating Reptiloid aliens controlled all human affairs because that was the only way I could see for the big picture to make sense, would you be inclined to listen? After all, we've already established that unlikely events can't possibly happen on their own - their must be an underlying, intrinsic purpose suffusing them...
(incidentally, has anyone made clear to you that the specific sequence of dice rolls 20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20 has precisely the same odds of occurring as the specific sequence 4-3-1-19-14-8-6-18-3?)

But the thing is, your non-answer doesn't explain anything regardless. Whatever phantasmal purpose you might well imbue the universe with, if it cannot be coherently substantiated with reference to external observations, it's worth precisely the same as every other contradicting flavour of magical self-appointed divine revelation.
(hint: that would be worthless)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-08-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:13 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you think a watch doesn't have an intrinsic purpose, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're the idiot.

Facepalm

No, no; hear him out!

1. Some objects are deliberately created by humans.
2. Therefore, conclude assert all objects to be deliberately created.
2a. The universe exists.
2b. The universe was not deliberately created by humans.
3. Therefore, conclude assert that the universe was deliberately created by some non-human agent.
5. Therefore, that agent was unknowable my incredibly specific imaginary friend.
6. ???
7. Profit!!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: