Religion and Language

[100th Monkey]

first post ever on MA.

joined and read through at the request of a friend. not LDS, mind you.

I have to say, after witnessing all the squabble (the back and forth on the word "courage", in particular), in my summation, the last poster captured it best with

his picture.

That is: who CARES whether or a not a word has a physical representational value! Who cares whether or not I am my BODY (which is chicken scratch!) "Courage" meant more

to those soldiers than it EVER could for a person who has to analyze where words derive their meaning from (this coming from a Linguist by academic study)

...it meant more to the photographer who captured it with his camera...

and getting back to his "ocean" picture analogy...I DO half suspect that in looking at that picture, seeing that scene, ...that something VERY real...a feeling of indescribable origins

overwhelms us (or at least some of us)...the picture is not just MERELY representative...it's not like a John Pollock! It's not to be discussed, even...the purpose of that picture

is to evoke!...those feelings are what are important, not where those feelings have their true roots...to philosophize on that is just a practice in futility (the debate rages on) and

misses the point entirely.

Obviously, MP has NO concept of what the word "mean" means in the above photo and strikes me as a person who wouldn't "get the damn job done".

I suppose MP would have to sit and ponder whether or not "mean" (ahem, that would be mean (1)) had any inherent and absolute value) actually meant (2) anything to him at all before

taking decisive action in a moment that called for true courage (2). Silly!

...how do we know that the compulsion to rescue that child from the burning building wasn't just the burrito he

had for lunch?

SCENARIO:

spicy burrito>indigestion>upset stomach (tangent: did you know that in Japanese, when you're angry, your stomach "stands up" ?) >misinterpreted physical prompting and abandonment

of all other bodily sensations (akin to brief psychotic disorder)

...in other words: ate a bad one, went a little crazy, leaped into burning flames, not out of courage from predisposed character, but out

of some physical response...hey, it could happen in his world, I guess. Trivializing, yes..but trivializing the trivial, if you ask me.

A conversation on "meaning" merits VOLUMES of more rhetoric than on what the word "courage" entails, in a pure philosophical sense.

I agree with mfbukowski: courage is courage! and as circular as MP may see that and need to define his terms, if consulting a Merriam Webster's doesn't do it for him and he feels the need

to split hairs or consult his 5 physical senses (no third eye OR common sense for you, buddy!) , it appears this thread is going to go the way of the little kid asking "why...why...but why...?" to the parent that

has the answers to life's big questions that he's just not ready for yet.

MP>don't mean to be harsh, but really...just demanding over and over that people define their terms or by splitting hairs over such things, you DO come off as quite arrogant for 19 year old (?). It's OK. A LOT of us have been there. Just

need to take a more humble approach (not saying it's reflected in your tone...you can have the nicest tone and the sincerest disrespect...and conversely, you can have the worst tone but have the sincerest respect for a person).

Usually, I am a person of very few words, but something has elicited an enamored and boisterous response out of me...and now, I must profess, I feel a bit embarrassed...hmph, must of been the burrito I ate for lunch...never mind.

[mfbukowski]

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the view that non-truth apt utterances are meaningless. Certainly "Ahhhhhh!" or "Help!" or "Open the window, please" have meaning, despite the fact that those utterances are not truth-apt. I'm simply saying that utterances that predicate a truth-value to a object (something represented by a noun-phrase) either (1) fail to do what the utterer thinks they do, or (2) mean something other than the meaning of the bits of language being used. Additionally, I'm saying that if (2) is the case, just knowing the circumstances of the utterance won't help get at the precise meaning.

OK I re-read it and I get you now. Yes I agree that there is a lot of sloppy thinking in the church. And yes, I agree that attributing truth to a noun is ridiculous.

The point we are discussing though, is that Montgomery is making the point, I believe, if I understand him correctly, that concepts like "courage" are in principle reducible to mental states and therefore any discussion of spiritual matters is somehow less rational than science, and that the point of view of science is I guess morally superior. Or something I cannot quite understand I suppose.

My point is that science and religion are separate language games which have nothing to do with each other and to discuss them as a single language game is to conflate the purposes of scientific and religious discourse.

Of course Montgomery is free to correct me.

The "where is courage" question was to illustrate that in principle the noun "courage" was not in itself a mental state but a linguistic concept concept which is based on linguistic context for meaning.

Yet Montgomery persists in the belief that "courage" is a (in principle) observable mental state.

[mfbukowski]

And, similarly, where in the body of the text below does MP see courage:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As usual, nailed it!

[Montgomery Price]

Wade,

I don't expect to find the contexts, words, images, mental states, or physical states we associate with courage in that body of text.

Why should I expect to.

[mfbukowski]

first post ever on MA.

Welcome!

I agree with you that internal states are important.

I also think that the key to understanding religious discourse is understanding statements about internal states.

I think that the statement "I am hungry" (thought you'd like that one) is akin to the statement "I know the church is true". "I love you" is another one in this category.

Both are statements about internal states and are not verifiable to anyone else, yet both have truth value.

Both are "first person" grammatically, whereas scientific statements (or statements about a shared reality) are second or third person grammatically.

[Mordecai]

IT DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING BY ITSELF.

I would say it doesn't exist out of context.

[Mordecai]

Wade,

I don't expect to find the contexts, words, images, mental states, or physical states we associate with courage in that body of text.

Why should I expect to.

I hope you got his point, though. As I was trying to explain to you, our brains have no courage in them. You won't find courage in our brains. What you will find is information that represents courage... sort of... not exactly. It has no location, just like potential energy has no location. But it exists... in context, like the picture.

[mfbukowski]

Finding courage in the brain is precisely like finding it in Wade's picture.

As you noted, you can't do it.

You are looking for a chemical code for a picture of courage-- at best-- precisely what Wade showed.

Sorry Wade. I waited for you but I couldn't stand it any longer.

[mfbukowski]

I would say it doesn't exist out of context.

Well I thought that might be a little strong, but really I think you are right about that.

[Mordecai]

I think what we learn from this is that human beings are more than what is found in a body. When we talk about ourselves, we talk about many things that exist in reality but can't be located in the human body. Courage, in my view, is spiritual. It's not in the brain or in the heart and can't be located, weighed, touched or extracted in a vile. But it's real, just like potential energy is real in a stretched rubber-band or a ball at the top of a slide.

[Mordecai]

Well I thought that might be a little strong, but really I think you are right about that.

It's a little like needing an opposition. Without hot, there is no cold. Without matter, there is no space. Without space, there is no matter. Without wickedness, there is no righteousness. Without a person, without society, without things to be afraid of, etc., courage doesn't exist.

[Montgomery Price]

We don't expect to find courage in the brain. We expect to find the unconscious physical processes that create our conscious perception of an abstract and non-physical idea of courage. Like in the video, if I ask myself a question, and then retrieve the answer... What I perceive to be a conscious retrieval of information, may be a small part of what is a larger and much more complicate unconscious retrieval process.

We don't expect to find an idea, a non-physical concept, in physical form. It can have no physical form. What can have a physical form, is the neural activity and chemicals that lead us to perceive the non-physical courage.

When you point out that you can't find a non-physical idea in physical form, you are stating the obvious.

The point is, just because we can't find something in physical form, does not mean that it's "spiritual" or metaphysical or what have you. We don't expect to find it in physical form, so there is no conflict with science.

The scientific concept of a mental state does not make the prediction that you will find that "thought" in physical form. Your thoughts are your conscious representations of the physical. To say that your thoughts should be what you perceive them as is as pointless as claiming water should be stored in the camera to take pictures of the ocean. The way we describe courage is the way we perceive it.

The way we describe a mental state is not how it is physically brought about by our brains when in context. To say our description of courage is not found in our brains is missing the entire point. We don't expect to find this abstract description, we expect to find what unconsciously and physically creates this in our minds.

The scientific model predicts that there are physical causes for this non-physical perception we create in our minds.

And, this is what we can search for.

Each of you are making the fallacy. Each of you are making the category error. Each of you are making a moot point when you say "there is no courage in the physical brain". In how many ways do I need to spell this out so you understand?

I have one question that none of you have answered:

Why should I expect to find courage in my brain?

[Mordecai]

The scientific model predicts that there are physical causes for this non-physical perception we create in our minds.

It's not a perception. It's as real as potential energy.

Why should I expect to find courage in my brain?

I thought your whole argument was against my initial suggestion that when we describe ourselves, we are not just describing our bodies, and that those non-bodily things that we are describing are real. Your initial assertion was that that is wrong, that things like courage can be found in the body. These are all real things that are not part of my body, so when I refer to myself, I am not just referring to my body. You keep talking as if courage is not real, but it is. It is directly comparable to potential energy, which in physics, is as real as anything in the universe. Is your assertion that courage isn't real?

Like energy is a form of matter, information may be thought of as a form of energy. I might call courage, "Complex, specified potential-energy." That's not a perfect definition, but it represents how it can be thought of as a reality, like matter, energy or information. I use the word spiritual, because it is analogous to spiritual things discussed in the scriptures, e.g. it's real but can't be touched.

[Montgomery Price]

How is courage real? Do you mean physical?

Does it have physical properties?

[Montgomery Price]

When you say it's real, it could be misleading.

The idea of science is real, but we don't believe our concept of science is actually something physical we can find somewhere.

We can't see science. It's a process, or a way of seeing physical things. It's not a physical object itself.

[mfbukowski]

Emphasis added

We don't expect to find courage in the brain. We expect to find the unconscious physical processes that create our conscious perception of an abstract and non-physical idea of courage. Like in the video, if I ask myself a question, and then retrieve the answer... What I perceive to be a conscious retrieval of information, may be a small part of what is a larger and much more complicate unconscious retrieval process.....

May be a small part? What does that mean?

Why should I expect to find courage in my brain?

Oh gosh I don't know. I never have.

You take a picture of the ocean. Then you view the picture. Do you expect water to pour out of the camera? Is there really a non-physical entity inside the camera showing you this representation of water?

No. We know there's no "spiritual" component to a regular camera. You accept that the picture is a representation of the physical processes going to work in the camera. You wouldn't expect a representation to manifest physically as the what it is representing.

If it wasn't a representation, it would be a physical duplication.

"Courage" is a representation of the physical components of your brain. So, when you ask "where is courage?"... The neural processes and chemical reactions that create what you perceive and represent as "courage" are located in your brain.

The hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine can create chemical reactions that you would undoubtedly perceive as courage. Do you admit that, at least, the "courage" produced by adrenaline is rooted in part by a physical processes?

2. Are you denying that what you perceive as "courage" has any physical root in your brain?

3. Can you prove that courage is non-physical? Or, can you prove that courage cannot be a representation of a physical process?

4. Your question "Where is freedom?" assumes that freedom exists. Define freedom, and prove that it exists.

Also, while we are at it. I would lean towards the idea that freedom is a representation of a physical process, so... If it really is a representation or perception of a physical process. Then would we expect to find what is representation, as a duplication in our brains?

Hint again: No. If freedom is not physical itself, but a representation of physical processes, then we would not expect to find physical "freedom" in our brains. We would expect to find the physicals neural process that creates our non-physical concept, perception, or representation of freedom.

If you want to go on about how we don't know exactly what physical process creates this perception of "freedom", or if we even have an freedom. This only points out ignorance on the subject (which I'm going to college to attempt to replace with knowledge), and does not prove either of us wrong.

If the physical roots of what we perceive as freedom are unknown. This does not mean that it is known that freedom is spiritual and supernatural or what have you. The unknown is unknown.

I just can't figure out where I got the idea you thought courage was physical or has physical roots or whatever you believe.

I have spent about enough time here, thank you.

[Mordecai]

When you say it's real, it could be misleading.

The idea of science is real, but we don't believe our concept of science is actually something physical we can find somewhere.

We can't see science. It's a process, or a way of seeing physical things. It's not a physical object itself.

It's real in that its not merely a perception. Do you believe energy is real? If so, potential energy is real. Remember that energy and matter are the same "stuff." So when you have a stretched rubber band, there is potential energy within that rubber band that has been transferred to it by whatever entity stretched it. Is the potential energy part of the rubber band? Not any more than courage is part of my body. I eat food, my body transforms it into kinetic energy. I stretch a rubber band, and the stretched state of the rubber band somehow contains the food I ate in a different form... sort of. Regardless, the potential energy in a stretched rubber band is as real as the food I ate from which my kinetic energy was transferred to the rubber band and created the potential energy that results in the rubber band, when given the right circumstances, to revert back to its original state. Potential energy is simple and easier to define than courage, but it is directly comparable. If you claim courage isn't real and is only a perception, then how does it influence behavior so profoundly? Like the potential energy in a rubber band, you can't deny its existence, but you can't say it's part of the body either.

[Montgomery Price]

Ok.

I assert the courage is not physical, but an abstract/non-physical/conceptual idea that we use to describe or represent something we physically observe.

The idea of courage is a real non-physical idea. The idea of courage exists, and we use it. But, we do not use it as an object. Nor can we. The proposition that courage is physical, is false.

What is physical, is the neural activity/brain chemicals/the physical roots of observable human behavior that we perceive/formulate/represent as courage.

The unconscious physical (in context) is represented by the conscious mental (in context). We don't expect to find what we consciously perceive in our unconscious physical brain activity. The idea of courage, is analogous to the idea of science. It is not physical, but just an idea.

If I describe to you a God that I just created in my mind, and then you went searching for the cause of this in my physical brain. You don't find the God as I just described it. You obviously find something else. The same with courage.

[Montgomery Price]

It's real in that its not merely a perception. Do you believe energy is real? If so, potential energy is real. Remember that energy and matter are the same "stuff." So when you have a stretched rubber band, there is potential energy within that rubber band that has been transferred to it by whatever entity stretched it. Is the potential energy part of the rubber band? Not any more than courage is part of my body. I eat food, my body transforms it into kinetic energy. I stretch a rubber band, and the stretched state of the rubber band somehow contains the food I ate in a different form... sort of. Regardless, the potential energy in a stretched rubber band is as real as the food I ate from which my kinetic energy was transferred to the rubber band and created the potential energy that results in the rubber band, when given the right circumstances, to revert back to its original state. Potential energy is simple and easier to define than courage, but it is directly comparable. If you claim courage isn't real and is only a perception, then how does it influence behavior so profoundly? Like the potential energy in a rubber band, you can't deny its existence, but you can't say it's part of the body either.

You keep describing potential energy and not courage. Just describe courage instead of asserting that it's not part of your body.

Courage is real, but only as an idea. Perception can obviously influence behavior profoundly. I can't deny that the idea of courage exists, but you can't deny that this idea of courage is something we use to represent what is physically observable, but the idea of courage is not physical itself.

The same way we use the idea of science to consider physical observations.

The mental state of courage, under certain context, is most likely what happens to our minds when our brains are physically stimulated, under that same context.

This way, courage doesn't have to be physical, but it still can be utilized and it can still affect our behavior.

[Mordecai]

I assert the courage is not physical, but an abstract/non-physical/conceptual idea that we use to describe or represent something we physically observe.

This is nonsense. You say that all it is is an idea that we use to describe or represent something real. As I said, if it's not real, how does it profoundly effect obviously real behavior? It therefore must be real, if it has a profound effect on behavior.

You keep describing potential energy and not courage. Just describe courage instead of asserting that it's not part of your body.

Courage is real, but only as an idea. Perception can obviously influence behavior profoundly. I can't deny that the idea of courage exists, but you can't deny that this idea of courage is something we use to represent what is physically observable, but the idea of courage is not physical itself.

I don't think I said it was physical. I said it was real and as real as matter. Do you deny this? I also already did describe courage. You have very poor reading comprehension. I described it as, "complex, specified potential-energy," which I admit isn't perfectly accurate, but I think it does the job for anyone willing to understand. At another point, I described it as the predisposition to behave in ways not controlled by fear. If I am making a false analogy, when I describe the potential energy in a rubber band and compare it to courage, what is the error? If there is no error, then that is one of the ways I have been defining courage. You have just failed to see it.

[Montgomery Price]

Emphasis added

May be a small part? What does that mean?

Your unconscious brain activity may bring about your conscious experience.

Oh gosh I don't know. I never have.

You keep asking the question. Emphasizing it. Reasserting it in different ways. And you can't even explain to me why I should expect to find it?

I just can't figure out where I got the idea you thought courage was physical or has physical roots or whatever you believe.

I have spent about enough time here, thank you.

Ha. Maybe you are the one with the reading problem.

I never once stated that courage is physical. I stated several times that it is an abstract idea, with no physical properties. If our physical brains create our experiences, then what we experience, is not what we expect to find in our brains. We expect to find the physical processes that created our experiences/idea/concepts/perceptions and how they are connected.

Courage is the idea we perceive consciously, when our unconscious brain is physically stimulated.

We don't expect the physical process to be identical to the experience in every way. If courage is not a representation, and it was "found" in our brains, it would be a duplication, not a representation of a physical process. But we have strong reason to believe that it is a representational experience that is triggered by our physical brains.

So according to you, why should we expect to find courage in our bodies?

[Montgomery Price]

This is nonsense. You say that all it is is an idea that we use to describe or represent something real. As I said, if it's not real, how does it profoundly effect obviously real behavior? It therefore must be real, if it has a profound effect on behavior.

Is the viewpoint of science a physical object?

No. It is an abstract idea. A way to view the physical, but not the physical itself.

Does it affect the way we behave?

Yes.

Just because something isn't physical, doesn't mean it can't affect our behavior. Is a philosophy an object? We can live by a philosophy, but it's not physical.

---

Here's a separate view. Let me try and take a stab.

If we assume that behavior is only affected by the physical processes of the brain, then the idea of courage does not affect our behavior. It's only what we experience when something acts physically in our brains to create this experience. So, under this view, you are right. Courage is just an experience that does not affect our behavior, but lets us consciously experience our behavior that is caused by unconscious physical process. Courage is not physical, and therefore can not affect our physical brains. Our physical brains act without the idea of courage... the idea of courage is only what we experience.

I don't think I said it was physical. I said it was real and as real as matter. Do you deny this? I also already did describe courage. You have very poor reading comprehension. I described it as, "complex, specified potential-energy," which I admit isn't perfectly accurate, but I think it does the job for anyone willing to understand. At another point, I described it as the predisposition to behave in ways not controlled by fear. If I am making a false analogy, when I describe the potential energy in a rubber band and compare it to courage, what is the error? If there is no error, then that is one of the ways I have been defining courage. You have just failed to see it.

Gah. This is really hard to understand. You're not claiming that it is physical, then is it physical or is it not? Matter is physical, and you say it's as real as matter. So... you are saying that courage is physical, but you don't think you said it was physical?

You're right. I can't comprehend this. I'm not going to deny or accept something that makes no sense.

So, the big question is:

Is courage physical?

Yes, or no.

[Mordecai]

Gah. This is really hard to understand. You're not claiming that it is physical, then is it physical or is it not? Matter is physical, and you say it's as real as matter. So... you are saying that courage is physical, but you don't think you said it was physical?

You're right. I can't comprehend this. I'm not going to deny or accept something that makes no sense.

This is what makes no sense. Saying that something is as real as matter is not saying that it is physical, unless you erroneously believe that physical necessarily is a synonym for real. You keep assuming that you're the smart one here. It's not that I don't make sense; it's that you are not comprehending what I'm saying.

So, the big question is:

Is courage physical?

Yes, or no.

That depends on how you define physical. That's why I have made no assertions about whether it is physical or not, because I'm not sure if it is productive in any way to even use the word. I think it's a moot point. You may be failing to understand how one would be hard pressed to describe potential energy as "physical." I suppose it could be described as such, because according to Einstein and every physicist living today, potential energy is the same "stuff" as matter. It's just in a different form. But it's nature is so different from matter, it might confuse people to say it is physical.

[Montgomery Price]

This is what makes no sense. Saying that something is as real as matter is not saying that it is physical, unless you erroneously believe that physical necessarily is a synonym for real. You keep assuming that you're the smart one here. It's not that I don't make sense; it's that you are not comprehending what I'm saying.

Oh dear. Can you not read what I've written? I obviously... I obviously do not believe that "physical" is synonymous with "real".

Let me quote:

"Courage is real, but only as an idea.... but the idea of courage is not physical itself."

"The ideaof courage is a real non-physical idea."

I'm trying to make clear what you mean by the word physical.

That depends on how you define physical. That's why I have made no assertions about whether it is physical or not, because I'm not sure if it is productive in any way to even use the word. I think it's a moot point. You may be failing to understand how one would be hard pressed to describe potential energy as "physical." I suppose it could be described as such, because according to Einstein and every physicist living today, potential energy is the same "stuff" as matter. It's just in a different form. But it's nature is so different from matter, it might confuse people to say it is physical.

I define the word "real" as in existing.

I, being an atheist, believe that the idea of God exists. The idea is a real idea.

But, being an atheist, I do not belief that God exists. I believe the existence of God is not real. God is not real = God does not exist.

So, there is my usage of "real".

Now, physical is defined as existing not as an idea, abstraction, conception of the mind, etc. Physical is of material.

An example of something that is non-physical would be a thought. A thought is not made up of materials, or physical matter. You cannot observe (in the scientific sense) an idea.

Courage is not made up of materials. It is a experience that is caused by physical processes that do not resemble that experience.

Now, how do you define these things... and if you'd please answer the question...

[Mordecai]

Oh dear. Can you not read what I've written? I obviously... I obviously do not believe that "physical" is synonymous with "real".

Let me quote:

"Courage is real, but only as an idea.... but the idea of courage is not physical itself."

"The ideaof courage is a real non-physical idea."

Let me quote:

So... you are saying that courage is physical, but you don't think you said it was physical?

Clearly, you assumed that I was speaking as if real was synonymous with physical. That's why you were confused and assumed I was not making sense.

I'm trying to make clear what you mean by the word physical.

It doesn't matter what I mean by the word. What matters is what I mean when I say that courage is as real as matter. I've already explained this, though. If you understood what was going on, you would realize that the real issue is whether courage is real or not. On a scientific level, as I said, potential energy is the same "stuff" as matter (as in E=mc^2). If I consider courage to be directly comparable to potential energy, I am asserting that scientifically speaking, courage is as real as energy, which is as real as matter, as they are all just different expressions of the same "stuff" (for lack of a better word).

If you ask me, this helps explain how God's spirit is everywhere. Courage exists between the information in the brain, the means of interpreting that information, the specialized transfer of that information into energy, the perception of the situation that calls for courage as well as the situation itself and the behavior that is exhibited and the perception of that behavior, etc, etc. Without all of those, courage would not exist, which is similar to how potential energy doesn't exist without the presence of the molecules within the rubber band and the way they are situated. Existence requires a context. God's spirit exists in the context of everything, apparently, so His spirit is everywhere, as opposed to courage (also being spiritual) which exists on a much smaller scale in the context of the above list of expressions of existence.