Jump to content

hope_for_things

Contributor
  • Content count

    5,057
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,593 Excellent

About hope_for_things

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,339 profile views
  1. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Mark, I just wanted to let you know that I read both parts one and two of your response. They are very detailed and interesting but I haven't had much time the last couple days to articulate a response. I will do so, and I need to give it the appropriate amount of thought before I respond. Thanks much, just wanted to let you know that its on my radar.
  2. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Ok, thanks for this. I think I'm getting closer and this was helpful. I'm pretty sure I follow you, but I need to ask a couple questions. I agree with this idea that everything I know comes from my perceptions. We're all perceiving things through our senses, and we're putting those perceptions into "symbols" or language to describe them. I also agree with the earlier point that you seem to agree with as well, that there clearly is a difference between a mental state (someone imagining or dreaming about something) and an event that happens in the universe in time and space. I have a challenge understanding how these two concepts intersect. If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. Isn't that what I'm doing right now, I'm describing how something a person imagines in their mind is different than something they experience when interacting in the world? I used the word correspondence because the standard dictionary definition for that word seems to fit, but I also recognize that word has a whole history of philosophical debate, and I'm not familiar with all that history, so perhaps another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates. Maybe correlate would be a better word? Something that shows a connection between someone's mental state experience and causes that can also be measured and experienced by other humans at the same time and therefore are more than just something uniquely subjective to the one person but we have some group evidence that these causes exist in the world. What do you think of how I'm describing things up to this point? It seems to me that you acknowledge a difference between mental states and events in the world. But that you are trying to say that difference doesn't matter, or is immaterial. Is that what you're saying, or are you making a different point. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
  3. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Guilty as charged, I broke my rule about not commenting if I just have negative things to say. Sorry
  4. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Suspions confirmed. I was worried it would be groan worthy and it was.
  5. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    I doubt you’ll find these kinds of arguments from the Mormon Transhumanists. It’s probably not their style. These kinds of arguments are extremely niche.
  6. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Ok, I read through most of the essay, had to skim parts because it was just too annoying. Can't say I'm surprised or very disappointed because my expectations were really low and I was pretty much right about it being a boundary maintenance apologetic piece. I don't get some of these Interpreter essays trying to police Mormon doctrine and scriptural interpretations. Mormonism is so much broader and more diverse than they realize or are willing to accept. Unfortunately, my original worry that the author would try to discredit such a small group that isn't even a threat or trying to recruit people out of Mormonism or anything of that sort, was confirmed. I didn't think his section on dualism and physicalism really got into the things we've been discussing very well, so it didn't prompt any further thoughts from me. Two thumbs down from me on this essay...
  7. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    I'm not sure anyone knows much about consciousness. Mormonism seems to have some differing ideas about it, but no cogent well articulated definition.
  8. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    I couldn't find any definition of consciousness for Mormon Transhumanism, or Transhumanism in general.
  9. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Not just two different explanations, but two different experiences that have a measurable and distinct difference.
  10. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Not an excuse at all, just wanted to be honest about my perspective. What I said about them feeling threatened is just speculation on my part and may not be accurate. I explained why I thought this was possible as well. Not sure what else you want from me to clarify.
  11. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Trying to steer back towards Mormon Transhumanism, since you asked. Why can't Mormon Transhumanism touch the spiritual? Are you suggesting a human with prosthetic limbs or bionic eyes has changed so much that they no longer experience things spiritually and describe these spiritual experiences? I didn't find anything in that essay by Lincoln that would cause me to think your criticisms are correct. I also didn't read anything that attempted to describe God scientifically.
  12. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    It seems like Mormon Transhumanism is a unique blending of the secular and the religious. The summary opening paragraph from Lincoln's article seems to clarify this fairly well.
  13. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    Firstly, I have read all the links, and I still don't fully understand them, philosophy is admittedly hard for me to wrap my arms around. I can't defend exactly why I believe what I believe and how it relates to these theories in a logical way. I can tell you that I can see how believe that everything has to correspond to something is too simplistic. I'm not saying that. I am saying there is a difference between imagination and what exists in the universe. Rorty seems to say that as well, and you've told me you agree, so I'm not sure what bone you're picking here with me. Hallucinations, dreams, imagination while a person is asleep. There is a distinction and difference between these things and someone's waking interactions with the universe. I know Clark has had some back and forth with you on this same topic, and he has education and understanding on philosophy way above my level of understanding. I see him disagreeing with you on various points along this line of thinking as well. And while I don't always understand the nuances of the points you both are making, it does tell me that this isn't a slam dunk issue that everyone clearly agrees about. This is helpful, thanks for the clarification of terms. I agree that a perfect description of blue would be impossible, and I also think descriptions will have subjective variations influenced by language and culture. I don't think this necessarily means that science will never be able to inform this world of describing colors. When science invents the first artificial eye ball, it will be able to help a person experience blue and describe it. I read Lincoln's "What is Mormon Transhumanism" and didn't see this component about consciousness discussed. However, I did see where the wikipedia page on Transhumanism mentions it as one line of thought within the movement. I also don't see a problem with thinking that we might be able to upload the consciousness of a human to a machine at some point in the future. Nobody knows for sure, this is just one speculative theory, so I don't understand how this is a criticism of some flaw within Transhumanism.
  14. Obedience is important but only in a functional way. It's a means to the end rather than the end in itself. Thanks Clark. Yes, I agree with that, makes a lot of sense.
  15. hope_for_things

    Mormon Transhumanism- New Interpreter Article

    The English language can be so hard. I'm really trying to understand your point, but I'm still confused. The words explanation and description are so similar. I looked up multiple dictionary definitions just to refresh myself. Explanation seems to emphasize more of how something works, and description seems to be more about telling a story of the attributes of something. That said, I don't understand how someone's imagination of an event and an actual event could be the same. Wouldn't an explanation tell us the how around the event, how something happened, the mechanics around it, and that would contrast with how someone imagined something in their head. The two explanations would be different wouldn't they?
×