Religion and Language

[Montgomery Price]

Let me quote:

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.

"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?"

Oh. I must have assumed that it was synonymous, because I asked you twice whether or not it was physical. I asked explicitly once, and the second one is a bit harder to see, because I've added another sentence. It's obvious from my first bolded question, that I was asking this with the second: "Are you saying this? I don't understand is this really what you mean?"

So, I wasn't assuming. If I assumed anything, it was that matter is physical, and you said it was as real as matter. Matter exists physically. So, it follows that you believe courage is physical. I was just asking you.

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).

It doesn't matter? Of course it matters.

Something that is physical is very different from something that is non-physical. Obviously. So, it's a simple question. Is courage made up of physical materials? Yes, it is an issue whether or not courage exists. I accept this. I believe courage exists as a non-physical concept, and you seem to believe otherwise... but you won't clarify on the subject of non-physical/physical whatever reason.

I say it's non-physical, and you disagree.

I say, why would you disagree? Do you think that it is physical or not?

And you say that the non-physical/physical status of courage doesn't matter.

So, is it OK if I claim it to be non-physical or not?

Before I assume, again... You've said that "scientifically speaking, courage is as real as energy, which is as real as matter," which leads me to believe again, that you believe courage is made up of physical materials. Is this correct?

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.

You seem to be explaining the natural processes that create our experience of courage. The experience is not what we expect to find in the brain, we expect to find what caused the feeling of courage... not courage itself. Why is courage "between the information in the brain"? Why don't you just say that the information in the brain naturally brings about our experience of courage? And there is no need to call the natural process courage, but only the causes of our experience of courage.

You also haven't described courage, you've only explained how it is used, or where it can be found. It exists "between" x, y, z. That tells me where it is, doesn't tell me what it is. You said " Without all of those, courage would not exist," so you've told me what courage is dependent on. You've made it clear that courage is

[Mordecai]

"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?"

If I must have a definition of physical, I would say it is not physical anymore than energy or information is physical. That you thought it was relevant what my definition of physical is is flattering, since my definition of physical doesn't define anything in reality. Why the fascination with my particular way of defining physical?

It doesn't matter? Of course it matters.

It doesn't matter. I promise. It resolves nothing. My definition of physical doesn't clarify anything.

I believe courage exists as a non-physical concept...

This statement just confirms what mfbukowski had already figured out: you're hopeless. You don't understand the argument.

I say it's non-physical, and you disagree.

I never said it was physical. This is your delusion at work again.

Before I assume, again... You've said that "scientifically speaking, courage is as real as energy, which is as real as matter," which leads me to believe again, that you believe courage is made up of physical materials. Is this correct?

No. Real is not synonymous with physical. This just shows that your reading comprehension is as bad as I had claimed. But Einstein proved that energy is the same "stuff" as matter.

You seem to be explaining the natural processes that create our experience of courage.

No. Wrong. So very wrong. You're not understanding what I'm saying. I said it is BETWEEN them, like how potential energy is between the molecules of a stretched rubber band. The potential energy is not the molecules of the rubber band. It exists there due to the way the molecules are situated. I've explained this before. If you don't get it now, I give up.

Why don't you just say that the information in the brain naturally brings about our experience of courage? And there is no need to call the natural process courage, but only the causes of our experience of courage.

In itself, the information in the brain means nothing, as I have already explained. Because of this truism, it should be evidence that courage is not coming from the information in the brain. THe information in the brain merely represents courage in a very abstract and limited way. That is what is not real. Again, as I've explained, you have it backward. Information in the brain is what is not real. It's merely symbolic, until it is properly interpreted. It's like if I tell you to go save a kid in a burning building. Me telling you, in itself, is not the real act of courage, is it? You must process it and then draw on more symbolic interaction between your brain and body until the reality is expressed. Prior to that, it is mere information, which, as I have said, is nothing in itself. Again, if you don't understand this now, I give up.

You also haven't described courage, you've only explained how it is used, or where it can be found. It exists "between" x, y, z. That tells me where it is, doesn't tell me what it is. You said " Without all of those, courage would not exist," so you've told me what courage is dependent on. You've made it clear that courage is

I haev explained it multiple times and in multiple ways. Some of the ways I have told you involve what it depends on to help you understand it, so that is part of the way I have defined it. If you can't piece everything I have told you together to then understand what courage is in reality, I give up. You may want to go back and read this thread and pay more attention; maybe you'll get it. I think enough people have tried to explain it to you and then explained to you that you don't get it for you to believe that you do not get it. Stop talking like you get it, and like we are the ones not making sense. It is you not comprehending what sense we are making.

[Brade]

Montgomery, it looks to me like you've conflated courage with the concept of courage. For example, consider this response of yours:

I believe courage exists as a non-physical concept

Now, consider these disambiguations of courage-related-talk. First, there's courage. Roughly, this first sense of "courage" refers to a states of affairs of a certain sort. For example, consider an arachnophobic woman holding a spider. An observer to that situation might point and say "Lo! There is courage", or "Hark, I see an instance of courage", or "Hey, that woman is being courageous". Second, there's the phenomenology of courage (what it feels like to be courageous). To see that the first and second are different just note that one could be induced to feel courageous by, say, a drug or a tricky scientists' courage-inducing tin hat or something. That could happen even when one is not actually being courageous. Third, there's the concept/idea/notion of courage. It might be tempting to think of the first and third cases as the same, but that isn't the case for the simple reason that ideas/concepts/notions are not states of affairs. Or, if you're a materialist about the mind and think that ideas/concepts/notions are just brain matter configured in certain arrangements (a state of affairs), then just note that there's still a difference in the first and third cases because a state of affairs in the brain (in this case, the concept of courage) is not the same as a state of affairs outside of the brain (courage, in this case). As to the third and second, one can grasp the concept of courage without feeling courageous. Fourth, there's "courage" (just the word; a mere collection of letters). All of these are different things and it's important not to confuse them.

So, if the response of yours that I quoted above is a response to the question "Is courage physical?", then it seems as though, as I said at the beginning of this post, you've conflated the first and third sense; you've confused courage with the concept of courage. Now, it's possible that I'm wrong about what you mean by your response. Perhaps your response means something other than what it appears to mean. For example, maybe you mean something like this. "I believe the concept of courage is non-physical". There are no conflations in that response and, actually, it asserts something controversial (that is to say, something that philosophers disagree on).

[Mordecai]

Roughly, this first sense of "courage" refers to a certain state of affairs (ex. An arachnophobic woman holding a spider). Second, there's the phenomenology of courage (what it feels like to be courageous).

Oh, hey! Someone reasonable. I might point out that the courage to which I was referring to is the predisposition of an arachniphobic person to hold a spider. She has not yet held the spider (or may never do so). At the same time, who says we must measure things by linear time? While an arachniphobic holding a spider is an example of courage, the predisposition is real, like how an observable, in-the-present state of affairs is real. The state of affairs may exist outside of the present time (note that physicists say that it is not necessary to observe the universe in linear time). We might note that those who have life-after-death experiences and come back don't experience time the same way we do. So it comes back to us having a spirit, part of which includes courage (or lack thereof). The spirit is as real as any state of affairs, in the present or out of the present.

[mfbukowski]

I'm very sorry to say, as a faithful Mormon, it is against my religion to take courage.

[mfbukowski]

Courage is something I can live without

[mfbukowski]

I don't recommend that my kids have anything to do with courage.

[Brade]

Oh, hey! Someone reasonable. I might point out that the courage to which I was referring to is the predisposition of an arachniphobic person to hold a spider. She has not yet held the spider (or may never do so). At the same time, who says we must measure things by linear time? While an arachniphobic holding a spider is an example of courage, the predisposition is real, like how an observable, in-the-present state of affairs is real. The state of affairs may exist outside of the present time (note that physicists say that it is not necessary to observe the universe in linear time). We might note that those who have life-after-death experiences and come back don't experience time the same way we do. So it comes back to us having a spirit, part of which includes courage (or lack thereof). The spirit is as real as any state of affairs, in the present or out of the present.

It's certainly plausible that people can be predisposed to certain things, like courage. But, I'm not sure how that's relevant. The predisposition to courage is, it seems to me, not courage. That isn't to say that the predisposition isn't real. It's just to say that the predisposition to exhibit a certain property isn't that property; it's just the predisposition to exhibit a certain property. That should still be true even in worlds with no time or in worlds with infinite time. Let's just stipulate that if something is predisposed to exhibit a certain property P, then in timeless worlds or over infinite time property P will be exhibited. Now let's imagine that Lucy happens to be a thing (a person, perhaps) that is predisposed to exhibit property P. Now let's imagine that Lucy exists in a timeless world or, if you like, exists over infinite time. This, according to what I've said, means that property P will be exhibited. And, in fact, if Lucy is in a timeless world, we'd probably just want to say that Lucy has property P. But, that wouldn't mean that the predisposition to exhibit property P is property P. Rather, it seems that it just ought to mean that Lucy has at least two properties: (1) the property of the predisposition to exhibit property P, and (2) property P.

You wrote:

So it comes back to us having a spirit, part of which includes courage (or lack thereof). The spirit is as real as any state of affairs, in the present or out of the present.

I'm not sure how that follows from anything you said in the response I quoted. The fact that people report experiences as of leaving their bodies doesn't show, to my understanding, that people have spirits. Also, it may very well be true that people are predisposed to things. But, I don't see how that shows that people have spirits. People might be predisposed to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with them having spirits. It's plausible that spirits are real (by any understanding of "real"), but, again, I don't see how any of what you just said bears on the existence of spirits. If I'm misunderstanding things, please let me know. Maybe I'm just missing something from earlier in this discussion. I did read through most of the posts in this thread, but I don't remember it all.

[Brade]

I don't recommend that my kids have anything to do with courage.

Hmmm, maybe we should take this in a new direction and ponder the question of whether it's courageous for men to dress as women...

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm, maybe we should take this in a new direction and ponder the question of whether it's courageous for men to dress as women...

I suppose it depends on the man!

The point of course is that the meaning of a word depends on the context and nothing else. You can google "spiritual courage", "physical courage", "courage brainstate" and just "courage" all by itself and end up with tons of meanings and nuances of meaning.

I am firmly convinced that no one can say "it IS this" or "that".

Aristotle has one interpretation, others have others. It is about as vague a word as "truth".

The whole point of this is that yes, there are brainstates, and yes, there is courage, but to attempt to lock any one word to any one brainstate is simply silly.

Emotions are complex, language is complex, and to say there is a one to one correspondence between them is just plain not true.

There is no meaning in brainstates. There is meaning in language, and it depends on context.

And the reason we are discussing courage in the first place is that it is a proxy for any complex emotional or spiritual term. You just can't link one to the other.

What we call physical courage (rescuing a child from a burning building) could show activity in an entirely different part of the brain than "spiritual courage" (an alcoholic finally deciding to seek rehab) but we call both "courage."

Spiritual qualities cannot be linked or defined by exact definable brainstates. Sure they are correlated perhaps with brain activity, but correlation is not causation. It's just too complex!

And even if there were perfect correlation, who's to say if the external experience creates the brainstate or the brainstate creates the experience?

Look up Hume on causation for that one!

[mfbukowski]

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

Hume's Problem of Causation and Necessary Connection (and thus Induction)

It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)

The point is there is no logical connection. Empirically the correlation can be shown, but the logical connection must be inferred - it cannot be proven.

So the bottom line is that spiritual matters may be correlated with brain states, but direct causation cannot be proven logically.

And speaking about such things is dependent on context- things and speaking about things are entirely different.

[Brade]

I suppose it depends on the man!

The point of course is that the meaning of a word depends on the context and nothing else. You can google "spiritual courage", "physical courage", "courage brainstate" and just "courage" all by itself and end up with tons of meanings and nuances of meaning.

I am firmly convinced that no one can say "it IS this" or "that".

Aristotle has one interpretation, others have others. It is about as vague a word as "truth".

The whole point of this is that yes, there are brainstates, and yes, there is courage, but to attempt to lock any one word to any one brainstate is simply silly.

Emotions are complex, language is complex, and to say there is a one to one correspondence between them is just plain not true.

There is no meaning in brainstates. There is meaning in language, and it depends on context.

And the reason we are discussing courage in the first place is that it is a proxy for any complex emotional or spiritual term. You just can't link one to the other.

What we call physical courage (rescuing a child from a burning building) could show activity in an entirely different part of the brain than "spiritual courage" (an alcoholic finally deciding to seek rehab) but we call both "courage."

Spiritual qualities cannot be linked or defined by exact definable brainstates. Sure they are correlated perhaps with brain activity, but correlation is not causation. It's just too complex!

And even if there were perfect correlation, who's to say if the external experience creates the brainstate or the brainstate creates the experience?

Look up Hume on causation for that one!

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

The point is there is no logical connection. Empirically the correlation can be shown, but the logical connection must be inferred - it cannot be proven.

So the bottom line is that spiritual matters may be correlated with brain states, but direct causation cannot be proven logically.

And speaking about such things is dependent on context- things and speaking about things are entirely different.

Well, I don't really disagree with any of what you've said there.

[Mordecai]

It's certainly plausible that people can be predisposed to certain things, like courage. But, I'm not sure how that's relevant. The predisposition to courage is, it seems to me, not courage. That isn't to say that the predisposition isn't real. It's just to say that the predisposition to exhibit a certain property isn't that property; it's just the predisposition to exhibit a certain property.

No. No. The predisposition is the courage. Courage is a subcategory of predisposition. A predisposition, in fact, is a property.

The fact that people report experiences as of leaving their bodies doesn't show, to my understanding, that people have spirits.

I think life-after death experiences in Indian children with no exposure to Christianity, passing on, seeing dead relatives as beings of light and lacking the hallmarks of hallucination, is pretty good evidence of a real after-life. If the person were hallucinating due to a physical process, the lack of oxygen would distort the 'dream.' When people regain their senses after hallucinations, they know in hindsight that it was all a delusion. Not true of near-death experiences.

Also, it may very well be true that people are predisposed to things. But, I don't see how that shows that people have spirits.

THe predispositions of a living being set him or her apart from a dead one. Without behavioral predispositions, one is dead. Furthermore, since predispositions are comprised of information and information is timeless, seeing as the universe can be observed from outside of time, then we have a timeless personality that gives us life. As far as I can tell, our predispositions are our spirits as described in the scriptures... well, that and the state of being an observer. Between the two, we have a spirit, it seems. I can't remember how I defined observer in the past. I'll have to get back to you, because just saying it doesn't seem adequate. People have been trying to define it for centuries, and I can't remember the definition I came up with . It's a bit elusive.

[Brade]

No. No. The predisposition is the courage. Courage is a subcategory of predisposition. A predisposition, in fact, is a property.

So, do you think the predisposition to murder is murder? Is murder a subcategory of [some] predisposition? Also, nothing I said contradicts the view that predispositions are properties. Recall that I said "it seems that it just ought to mean that Lucy has at least two properties: (1) the property of the predisposition to exhibit property P, and (2) property P."

[Mordecai]

So, do you think the predisposition to murder is murder? Is murder a subcategory of [some] predisposition?

Murder by definition is not a property. It is simply an act. Not so with courage.

Courage - 1. the quality [or property] of... spirit that enables [predisposes] a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.

Murder - 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

(Dictionary.com)

[Mordecai]

I mentioned earlier that I would try to define consciousness, but I can't do that so well. Still, here are some thoughts on consciousness/the state of being an observer:

Our consciousness, as I said is an integral part of our spirit. It clearly still exists in accounts of the scripture as well as accounts of life-after-death experiences, even from children in foreign countries who have not been taught about a spirit world, much less beings of light. As I also said, our characteristics or predispositions also define our spirits.

The original post in this thread discusses the contrast of using a proper noun to describe only our bodies or to describe also our spirits. I asserted that spirits are just as real as our bodies and used an analogy to show the point. Remember that Einstein showed that matter and energy are simply two different expressions of the same reality, or two sides of the same coin. This is a bit counter-intuitive for most people, especially in the following example: a stretched rubber band's predisposition to revert to its original state is potential energy, which is a form of energy which is a form of matter. I described the potential energy in a stretched rubber band as existing only in the "state-of-affairs" (to use another poster's words) or in the way that the rubber band's molecules are situated. It is the context that defines the potential energy, just as context defines good and evil. There literally needs to be an opposition in all things in order for anything to exist, is what we might glean from this.

That said, a human's predisposition toward courage (to continue with our example that has been previously discussed) also exists due to context and state of affairs. Not unlike the potential energy existing "between" the molecules of the rubber band, courage exists between the information in our brain (which represents our interpretations of our experiences), the processes and potential energies in our bodies and the future opportunities to show courage (real and hypothetical). Courage, and all the predispositions unique to living beings, exists according to context, including the context of things that have not yet happened. Courage might be described as not unlike potential energy, except more specific, complex and not bound by time. Since we are describing this as just as real as potential energy, which is just as real as matter, and since consciousness is also, by me, being asserted to be real, it seems only fair that I at least attempt to explain how it exists as real.

Consciousness, even more than our example of a predisposition, seems removed from the material world. As such, it gets even harder to define as it is seemingly abstract. Let me suggest that consciousness is also contingent upon context, just like potential energy or courage. Unlike potential energy but like courage, it is not bound by time. I might use the following term, and this is very poor wording and is rather metaphorical and shouldn't be taken too literally: potential, potential complex-specified energy (yes, both potentials are supposed to be there). This description has a lot of problems on so many levels but in the context of this discussion, it kind of makes sense if you take the time to think about it: consciousness exists within predispositions, which are like potential energy but not bound by time and are more complex and specified.

The scriptures describe intelligence as "the light of truth." I've thought about this a great deal recently. I kept asking myself, what does the light represent. Judging by how God uses light in the scriptures, as in, "I am the light and the life of the world," I would suggest that light guides toward what ought to be (more hypotheticals, as I mentioned above with regard to courage). What is truth? Well, truth is defined in the scriptures as, "What was true, is true and will be true." So the light of truth can be defined as, "That which guides existence," or "That which acts upon." What does it act upon? Primarily, it is the progenitor of predispositions, meaning that through consciousness, the future is controlled. This brings us to the Big Bang and the universal constants, which belong in another thread, so I won't get into that. This was more about semantics with relation to personal pronouns. In summary, when we refer to ourselves, we can refer to our predispositions, like courage and love, as well as what exists only in the context of predispositions and is also the progenitor of those predispositions (which is kind of a paradox... our consciousness is the beginning and the end, in other words), i.e. consciousness. I am spirit, and I am light of truth and have a body. If I were only a body, I would be missing the unique qualities of living beings, of course.

Well, this is not very clear, I am aware. It probably sounds like nonsense but if given enough thought, it can make the idea of having an eternal spirit and intelligence more concrete. Or on the other hand, depending on how you look at it, it can make the idea of matter more ethereal. Either way, our Eternal selves are as real as anything in the material realm.

[Brade]

Murder by definition is not a property. It is simply an act. Not so with courage.

Courage - 1. the quality [or property] of... spirit that enables [predisposes] a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.

Murder - 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

(Dictionary.com)

I worded things wrong. What I should have said was "Do you think that the predisposition to murder is the same as being a murderer?". The point I'm trying to get at is that being predisposed to courage isn't the same as having courage (or being courageous).

[Mordecai]

The point I'm trying to get at is that being predisposed to courage isn't the same as having courage (or being courageous).

No, being predisposed to courage isn't the same as having courage, just like me being predisposed to eating doesn't mean I am currently eating. My point is that courage is a type of predisposition, as the dictionary confirms.

[Brade]

No, being predisposed to courage isn't the same as having courage, just like me being predisposed to eating doesn't mean I am currently eating. My point is that courage is a type of predisposition, as the dictionary confirms.

I disagree with that dictionary.com definition of courage. Certainly some instances of courageous behavior may be realizations of the predisposition to behave courageously, but I see no reason why somebody with no predisposition to behave courageously couldn't behave courageously. If somebody with no predisposition to behave courageously behaved in a way that appeared courageous, I'd still want to call their behavior courageous (and I think it'd be right to do so) even though they didn't have a predisposition to behave that way. Perhaps you just think that anyone that behaves courageously has a predisposition to behave that way, and that, in that way, any expression of courage is an expression of a type of predisposition. If that's your view, then, really, we just disagree about whether people with no predispositions to do things can still do those things.

[Mordecai]

I disagree with that dictionary.com definition of courage. Certainly some instances of courageous behavior may be realizations of the predisposition to behave courageously, but I see no reason why somebody with no predisposition to behave courageously couldn't behave courageously.

Hello again, sir.

I do agree with dictionary.com. In fact, their definition was the same as mine, when I hadn't even looked at any dictionary.

courage-the attitude or response of facing and dealing with [danger/difficulty/pain]; the quality of being fearless

Perhaps you just think that anyone that behaves courageously has a predisposition to behave that way, and that, in that way, any expression of courage is an expression of a type of predisposition.

I think no such thing. A single expression of courage may be a sign of future behavior, but it would certainly be a leap of faith to describe that person as having courage. I was never defining courageous behavior. I was defining courage.

Courage being a noun, suggests a certain stability. That is why it is a characteristic, quality or predisposition; conversely, courageous behavior may be only a step toward proving courage or may merely be a fluke.

[Mordecai]

With a couple of killed "gay marriage" threads, I thought it was time to revive this thread. Does the term "gay marriage" contradict our doctrine? Doesn't it's use imply that our doctrine is false? My initial post discusses why this is so. I hate the term with every fiber of my being, as it is an affront to the English language (think Shakespeare, and how the comedies end with a marriage signifying procreation in contrast to the death at the end of his tragedies).