Core Conversations

[mfbukowski]

Humankind create their own gods - any and all of them.

Ironic that you would actually get it right while trying to make a point against anthropomorphism without even seeing it.

Yes, we reproduce. Thus humankind DOES create their own gods- and they are US.

We ARE human culture and are created by it and it creates us. That, sir is "revelation" but you are too blind to see it.

Thus "revelation" is all that we know or can know.

[mfbukowski]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that in order to be more than half educated, one must believe in something for which there is no ability to measure, or in other words, no quantitative evidence?

If that is the case, if there is no ability to measure something, how do you know that the thing I am not able to measure is the same thing that you are not able to measure?

How do you know whether my unmeasureable spiritual forces are any better or worse, or the same or different, than your unmeasurable spiritual forces?

Can you appreciate how difficult it would be to defend your line of reasoning here given that one who is only half educated can take it apart in a few seconds?

You appear to have no understanding of what constitutes a spiritual point of view. Evidence is irrelevant to spirit.

The spiritual point of view speaks of meaning and significance in one's personal life, not evidence.

The quest for "evidence" can itself give one's life meaning as it does for many scientists- THAT is what gets them out of bed in the morning, but evidence is not itself meaning.

What makes your life important? What is your purpose in shuffling around this silly ball of dirt for a lifetime? Enjoyment, pleasure and "fun"?

Good! Then you have your "god" don't you?

[tana]

Hey Curt,

I have four kids as well. All but one married now and on their own. I know every analogy has it's limitations (and this one has a number which can be discussed) but here goes.

I view this earth life as somewhat of a microcosm of the universe and God's kingdom.

At times I would look at my kids and think, "Here they are! They are here because I desired them. I had the capacity along with my wife to bring them into this sphere of existence and chose to do so.

What was the level of their agency as to whether or not to choose to come to my little part of life? I don't know precisely. But what I do know is that I have a responsibility to nurture and teach them and then make them accountable for their decisions. If I don't, THE LAW WILL. And that is a hard way to go.

As far as they know (as children) they don't know (or remember) having a choice as to whether to come to this life or not. They're just here living with me (when they were young) and seeming for the most part to really value and love the experience.

But at some undefined point on the continuum, they also become self-creators. They make their own decisions as to whether to recognize and respect the law or not. If one of them decided to completely and utterly view the law with contempt and to even relish in its disregard, would an individual then say "better for this one that he were never born" or be given the opportunity? Or perhaps "this one had no choice in his creation therefore he cannot be held responsible or be made accountable".

To me this is simply a disavowel of one's own responsibility for their own choices and the ability to create oneself. Does God already know (through His omniscience) those who will return to him and those who won't? I believe so but that's not the point. The point is that we don't know. It is our future left for us to decide. Our "self-determination" that we are here to discover.

I think in this way God gives us the ability to go (unlike a computer) beyond our (seemingly) set parameters.

Man (in general) has the ability to override his hardwiring whenever he chooses.

A short story:

My father used to work for the Gas company where we grew up. One time during some road construction a large backhoe struck and broke a 12 inch main (extremely dangerous situation).

Some of the management at the headoffices made the decision to try and patch the line without turning off the gas (possible, but the risks are huge) which would have cut service to hundreds of homes.

Against their better judgement, my father and his co-workers followed the orders. The work went on into the evening and large spotlights were brought in to illuminate the area. They later figured it was probably one of them that ignited the gas line. There were five men working in the pit when it went up. The initial explosion blew and forced everyone near the trench to the ground. The resulting superheated flame shot 150 feet into the air and stayed at that height until they finally got the gas shut down. No one could get near the trench, all they could do was wait to see if anyone came out.

As the immolated men who were in the trench clawed their way out screaming, my father and those with him began to cut their burning clothes off and role the men on the ground. The last man to come out of the trench realized that one of his co-workers (who was working underneath the pipe) had failed to come out and in a decision that defies comprehension (even though he himself was completely engulfed in flames) turned to go back in and get his friend.

The men who were assisting grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground before he could re-enter the trench. The next day after the trench cooled down, they found the melted wedding ring of the man who was working beneath the pipe....and that was pretty much all.

What is it that makes men do what goes against every instinct and every inclination? That makes them go beyond their parameters?

Wow, What an experience. Crazy that they would set repair crews to work on a live line. I do see your point tho as to "over-riding ones hard wiring"

It is extremely difficult to give up on the "reward and punishment" establishment. Misbehave in society, go to jail, misbehave in spirit, go to hades. It's something we have been taught all of our lives, it's logical, reasonable, completely natural.....But in my opinion, when looked at more closely, NOT viable. My reasons:

1. The theme of this thread. Locating the precise point where the human machine becomes accountable for it's actions is hard enough, if one takes into consideration factors like physical mental impairments, severe emotional abuses, etc..... Let alone trying to locate at what point the eternal spirit becomes accountable.

2. Punishment. Why does society put criminals behind bars? Rehabilitation, Isolation, (to protect society from them), justice, deterrence. Why does god put criminals in hades?

Rehab? Don't think so.

Isolation? This doesn't seem relevant.

Justice? maybe, but it would seemingly need to be temporary and not eternal, to fit the crime.

Deterrence? That works only as a threat for mortals, who needs deterred in the here-after?

3. The biggest reason why I can no longer adhere to the system is the *logistics of judgment*. I think that a perfect being doesn't judge, he just passes sentence. He doesn't "look into hearts" and make a guess as to a souls character. He either already knows it, in which case he shoulda culled the guy a long time ago. Or he can't know it, and that's why he is testing them.

But even if he is testing them. It all has to be quantified. It has to be fair. God isn't making educated guesses, or making judgment rulings based on "a preponderance of evidence", He's simply totaling up the facts. Anybody with a calculator could do it.

Every action, inaction and thought that a soul does/has from the moment it is determined to be accountable would have to be quantified and a number attached. The numbers tallied, and the soul sent to the proper place.

Problem being, and I saw "Krose" make this same observation a few mths ago in another thread, Some souls could potentially miss making the cut for the CK by a billionth of a decimal point. Ouch.

[tana]

You appear to have no understanding of what constitutes a spiritual point of view. Evidence is irrelevant to spirit.

The spiritual point of view speaks of meaning and significance in one's personal life, not evidence.

The quest for "evidence" can itself give one's life meaning as it does for many scientists- THAT is what gets them out of bed in the morning, but evidence is not itself meaning.

What makes your life important? What is your purpose in shuffling around this silly ball of dirt for a lifetime? Enjoyment, pleasure and "fun"?

Good! Then you have your "god" don't you?

Not intending to pick a fight with you MFB, but this is precisely what I believe "resurrection" type religion is doing. That is, setting up a scenario where immortals *entertain* their senses/bodies for eternity.

[mfbukowski]

Not intending to pick a fight with you MFB, but this is precisely what I believe "resurrection" type religion is doing. That is, setting up a scenario where immortals *entertain* their senses/bodies for eternity.

Not intending to pick a fight either, you're totally wrong.

The gospel is about service and the pure love of Christ, not entertainment.

Healing the sick and counseling broken spirits does not have much entertainment value. Feeding the multitudes and teaching others with pure love doesn't quite compare to video games.

In today's terms, counseling people on their broken marriages and changing your dying parent's diapers just plain doesn't sound like "entertaining your senses/bodies" to me.

Of course I could be wrong.

[Palerider]

Wow, What an experience. Crazy that they would set repair crews to work on a live line. I do see your point tho as to "over-riding ones hard wiring"

It is extremely difficult to give up on the "reward and punishment" establishment. Misbehave in society, go to jail, misbehave in spirit, go to hades. It's something we have been taught all of our lives, it's logical, reasonable, completely natural.....But in my opinion, when looked at more closely, NOT viable. My reasons:

1. The theme of this thread. Locating the precise point where the human machine becomes accountable for it's actions is hard enough, if one takes into consideration factors like physical mental impairments, severe emotional abuses, etc..... Let alone trying to locate at what point the eternal spirit becomes accountable.

I'm not sure why finding the precise beginning of accountability is important and I'll explain moreso below. But your question is analogous to "When do we start to physically die?" If you wanted to look at it this way, the instant we are born we are indeed headed for death, so it becomes an unanswerable question. And also an unneccesary one because it isn't the time given to us (or the aspect of WHEN we become accountable) that's as important as is the experience of the process of life itself. If we're not careful we miss the mind and spirit expanding concepts of:

"Oh this is what it means to be temporary as opposed to eternal"

"This is what it means to suffer physical pain and enjoy bodily pleasure"

"This is what it means to lose someone you love"

" This is what it means to physically live with the consequences of a poor decision."

One can learn alot about God and Eternity by experiencing temporality.

And it goes on. Each experience giving one the opportunity to appreciate Heavenly Father for what we are learning, or curse God in our bitterness.

2. Punishment. Why does society put criminals behind bars? Rehabilitation, Isolation, (to protect society from them), justice, deterrence. Why does god put criminals in hades?

Rehab? Don't think so.

Isolation? This doesn't seem relevant.

Justice? maybe, but it would seemingly need to be temporary and not eternal, to fit the crime.

Deterrence? That works only as a threat for mortals, who needs deterred in the here-after?

Yes, here we put people in prison. But having actually worked for a time in the justice system I am more and more convinced the reality is that people put themselves in prison. I believe that those who truly go to hell (and there are some indicators that perhaps it won't last forever; see Matt: 5:26) will be those who knew what was right and in direct contradiction to God choose to love evil. They wouldn't want to live with God because he would ruin their party, so to speak.

Hard to imagine but there are people out there like that. Pray you never meet them.

3. The biggest reason why I can no longer adhere to the system is the *logistics of judgment*. I think that a perfect being doesn't judge, he just passes sentence. He doesn't "look into hearts" and make a guess as to a souls character. He either already knows it, in which case he shoulda culled the guy a long time ago. Or he can't know it, and that's why he is testing them.

Have you ever considered that God doesn't cull them for our benefit? God allows evil men to continue for a number of reasons.

There is another side to the equation.

1. It gives (tests) OTHER people (on all ranges of the scale) opportunity to show how THEY deal with evil when they are confronted by it.

2. It also gives God credit because it shows how long he is willing to suffer men who are evil and give them the opportunity to repent.

3. Finally it leaves those who truly choose and love evil with no excuse for not repenting, having been treated fairly and with great equity. God's Grace gave them even better than they deserved.

But even if he is testing them. It all has to be quantified. It has to be fair. God isn't making educated guesses, or making judgment rulings based on "a preponderance of evidence", He's simply totaling up the facts. Anybody with a calculator could do it.

Every action, inaction and thought that a soul does/has from the moment it is determined to be accountable would have to be quantified and a number attached. The numbers tallied, and the soul sent to the proper place.

Problem being, and I saw "Krose" make this same observation a few mths ago in another thread, Some souls could potentially miss making the cut for the CK by a billionth of a decimal point. Ouch.

You're seeing this as a *** for tat equation. The reality is that in a sense when "one breaks part of the law he has broken it all", for in order to meet the demands of the law one must live it PERFECTLY start to finish. So in Christ, the "numeric" quantifier is made irrelevant by the "At-one-ment" when we turn to God through faith in his Son and ask to be reconciled to Him. Past sin is no longer held against us and future error is remitted as we continue to strive to overcome sin. We are literally in a state of Grace and "plugged in" to His Spirit as our aid. We become sanctified through his Spirit and bear fruit in repentance and good works. So in a very literal way the best man who ever lived (save Christ himself) was never good enough to return to God on his own merits.

Holding up the measuring stick to assess righteousness or wickedness is "Law of Moses" mentality. But the Law was given moreso to help men realize and recognize what constitutes "sin".

As the Apostle Paul says: "Where there is no law, there is no condemnation". But God wanted his children to know and understand Him (and their own true potential) so He gave the law to make them accountable and then he gave them the sacrifice of His Son to enable them to fulfill the law and establish His own love and mercy.

Truly in God's "rating" we will receive much better than we deserve and He will be much more than fair.

[mfbukowski]

Some souls could potentially miss making the cut for the CK by a billionth of a decimal point. Ouch.

What you are not taking into account is that 1- there may be infinite gradations of rewards and 2- that we judge ourselves and find where we would be most comfortable for eternity.

Guys who hang out in biker bars want to be there. They do not want to be in a tux at a black-tie affair at the Ritz Carlton.

It isn't that "one misses the cut for the CK by a billionth of a point", it's that one's glory is one billionth of a lumen less than it could have been, and we will be ok with that because that is precisely what it should be.

The whole notion that one might actually be disappointed in what is supposed to be perfect happiness forever is contradictory. We will all be where we want the most to be, and are most comfortable.

God is a loving father, not a bean-counter.

[Uncertain]

I disagree with one of your fundamental premises: "At the core of the human tho is a self awareness that IS uncreated and timeless." While not a canonical source, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on intelligences correctly points out that this is not a settled concept

For my part I don't think that our eternal, uncreate core is conscious or self-aware (see my post in a separate thread for my reasoning as to why).

The point I would like to emphasize is my belief that our eternal, uncreate core is indeterministic. This means that it it is fundamentally impossible to correct predict its actions -- even for an omniscient being. It is quite simply something that is not knowable. So, when our Father organized for us spirit bodies, while there is certainly a high degree of interplay between the intelligent core, the body, character and personality the mere fact that our core is indeterministic makes it inherently impossible for our Father to know ahead of time which spirit child will be "good" and which "bad". This would make the ranking you propose impossible.

Computers on the other hand, have no indeterministic, uncreate core. It is perhaps inevitable that we'll be able to create a machine with such an advanced AI as to be virtually indistinguishable from a human. But we would, given omniscience, know exactly how "good" or "bad" that machine will be*. They are completely determined.

* If a truly random process is built into the AI then we would only know the probabilities of "goodness" or "badness" of the machine.

PS: You mentioned the age of 8 and accountability. It should be pointed out that 8 is the age at which we start to become accountable.

Hi Nofear,

I find your thoughts here interesting. The idea that intelligences are sentient but also eternal creates some fairly insurmountable problems. Your view here potentially solves some of these problems. I did have some concerns for example how can a non-sentient non-conscious lump of matter be said to "choose" anything? Does not free will require sentience? It appears consciousness is required in order to make choices if you do not have a mind then clearly you cannot choose anything because there is no "you" that can make choices. Instead there is a lump of matter without sentience or mind. Therefore how can non sentient intelligences be usefully labeled as "indeterministic"? If they are not governed by a mind making choices it appears the only other options are they are governed by natural law which would make them fully deterministic or they are governed by random chance which potentially makes them indeterministic but creates some fairly serious theological issues. As serious as the ones you are trying to solve by making intelligences non-sentient and non-conscious. In short the very concept of free will requires a mind that is capable of making choices without sentience free will is impossible because there is no one home capable of making decisions. A rock does not have free will because it does not have a mind. Hence a non sentient intelligence in order to be indeterministic must be governed purely by random chance which is very problematic.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

I disagree with one of your fundamental premises: "At the core of the human tho is a self awareness that IS uncreated and timeless." While not a canonical source, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on intelligences correctly points out that this is not a settled concept

For my part I don't think that our eternal, uncreate core is conscious or self-aware (see my post in a separate thread for my reasoning as to why).

The point I would like to emphasize is my belief that our eternal, uncreate core is indeterministic. This means that it it is fundamentally impossible to correct predict its actions -- even for an omniscient being. It is quite simply something that is not knowable. So, when our Father organized for us spirit bodies, while there is certainly a high degree of interplay between the intelligent core, the body, character and personality the mere fact that our core is indeterministic makes it inherently impossible for our Father to know ahead of time which spirit child will be "good" and which "bad". This would make the ranking you propose impossible.

Computers on the other hand, have no indeterministic, uncreate core. It is perhaps inevitable that we'll be able to create a machine with such an advanced AI as to be virtually indistinguishable from a human. But we would, given omniscience, know exactly how "good" or "bad" that machine will be*. They are completely determined.

* If a truly random process is built into the AI then we would only know the probabilities of "goodness" or "badness" of the machine.

PS: You mentioned the age of 8 and accountability. It should be pointed out that 8 is the age at which we start to become accountable.

I will also add I think the concept our intelligences are non sentient and non conscious is more or less a flat contradiction of the LDS teaching that we existed for all eternity. If my intelligence is not sentient than clearly me as a person at one point did not exist. The fact that physical components that make up me did exist for all eternity does not mean that I existed for all eternity. For example your body is made up of atoms that have existed for eons of time. This does not mean that you have existed for as long as your atoms did. The carbon atom that is a component of one of your skin proteins is not you it is not sentient it does not have your mind or personality. The fact the carbon atom is very old does not make you very old. Similarly if my core intelligence is non sentient and non conscious than it is not me. Because I am both those things. Claiming I existed for all eternity because a non sentient non conscious part of me existed for all eternity is nonsensical. It is the same as claiming I existed for eons of time because the atoms that make up my body have existed for eons of time its an absurd conclusion.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

I will also add I think the concept our intelligences are non sentient and non conscious is more or less a flat contradiction of the LDS teaching that we existed for all eternity. If my intelligence is not sentient than clearly me as a person at one point did not exist. The fact that physical components that make up me did exist for all eternity does not mean that I existed for all eternity. For example your body is made up of atoms that have existed for eons of time. This does not mean that you have existed for as long as your atoms did. The carbon atom that is a component of one of your skin proteins is not you it is not sentient it does not have your mind or personality. The fact the carbon atom is very old does not make you very old. Similarly if my core intelligence is non sentient and non conscious than it is not me. Because I am both those things. Claiming I existed for all eternity because a non sentient non conscious part of me existed for all eternity is nonsensical. It is the same as claiming I existed for eons of time because the atoms that make up my body have existed for eons of time its an absurd conclusion.

Best,

Uncertain

I'd like to suggest that a lot of this depends on semantics and you are not providing definitions, and I suspect if you did, we would find that they are question-begging.

It's all so vague to me that I feel I don't understand a word of it, quite honestly.

Clearly it does not logically refute the meaning of the LDS assertion that "we are eternal beings", which is itself not well defined.

Bottom line: In my opinion, it is a fruitless debate.

[Uncertain]

I'd like to suggest that a lot of this depends on semantics and you are not providing definitions, and I suspect if you did, we would find that they are question-begging.

It's all so vague to me that I feel I don't understand a word of it, quite honestly.

I am not sure what you find unclear perhaps you can clarify and I will do my best to address any questions you may have. Frankly the concept seems quite clear. Me as a person posses certain attributes that are key to defining who I am. Some of those attributes are sentience and consciousnesses. Just because physical components such as atoms that make up me as a person have existed for eons of time. Does not mean I have existed for eons of time because those physical components lack essential attributes that define who I am such as sentience and consciousness. Similarly if my intelligence lacks those same essential components of who I am such as sentience and consciousness then simply because my intelligence has existed forever does in no way mean I have existed forever. In fact it means the very opposite I came into being as who I am right when I first became sentient and conscious therefore I clearly have a beginning and have not existed forever. What definitions do you need provided and what remains unclear to you? If it helps I am making an argument reductio ad absurdum. Showing how the premise stating "if components of you exist forever you existed forever" leads to absurd conclusions i.e.(our bodies are made up of atoms claiming those atoms are the same as us is absurd).

Best,

Uncertain

[tana]

I think that "No Fear" is trying to reconcile issues caused by *having* separate, sentient beings uncreated and in the beginning with god. If beings come as is/uncreated, they obviously had nothing to do with creating themselves, and therefor MUST be held harmless. They do not need tested, judged or dealt with in any way.....The whole system fails.

The only way around this is to find a way for the beings awareness to be NOT eternal.

But, as "Uncertain" points out; To say that the eternal components *when assembled* constitutes a sentient entity having been there in the beginning/uncreated is a stretch of logic.

I personally don't see how one can solve this riddle, I guess that's why I gave up and went lookin elsewhere.

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure what you find unclear perhaps you can clarify and I will do my best to address any questions you may have. Frankly the concept seems quite clear. Me as a person posses certain attributes that are key to defining who I am. Some of those attributes are sentience and consciousnesses. Just because physical components such as atoms that make up me as a person have existed for eons of time. Does not mean I have existed for eons of time because those physical components lack essential attributes that define who I am such as sentience and consciousness. Similarly if my intelligence lacks those same essential components of who I am such as sentience and consciousness then simply because my intelligence has existed forever does in no way mean I have existed forever. In fact it means the very opposite I came into being as who I am right when I first became sentient and conscious therefore I clearly have a beginning and have not existed forever. What definitions do you need provided and what remains unclear to you? If it helps I am making an argument reductio ad absurdum. Showing how the premise stating "if components of you exist forever you existed forever" leads to absurd conclusions i.e.(our bodies are made up of atoms claiming those atoms are the same as us is absurd).

Best,

Uncertain

Let me summarize what I think you are saying further and see if I have it right.

It seems that you are saying that since you cannot remember existing before birth, you were therefore not "sentient" or "conscious" before birth, and therefore by your definition, did not exist as a "person", or at least as "you".

Is that about the gist of it?

Is a person who has amnesia or alzheimers the "same person" then?

[Uncertain]

Let me summarize what I think you are saying further and see if I have it right.

Hi mfbukowski,

Perhaps another example would prove helpful. My computer is made of many components suppose the metal casing surrounding my computer came from a iron deposit laid down a million years ago. Stating my computer is a million years old because the metal making up one of its components is a million years old is an absurd conclusion. The reason it is an absurd conclusion is the metal casing does not posses certain key attributes possessed by my computer as a whole. Do you agree?

Lets take another example as a believing LDS I assume you would agree the soul is an essential component of a human being. Suppose your soul was extracted would you agree that what is left behind the physical form is not the same person as who you are right now? That is because a soul is an essential component of who you are and without one the body left behind is just not the same as it was with a soul.

I am simply arguing sentience and consciousness are essential components of who we are. I am using standard definitions of sentience and consciousness.

Sentience: The capability of sensing and responding to our world.

Consciousness: Conscious creatures are not only aware but also aware that they are aware.

If a component of us such as intelligences lack these key attributes then that component is not us. And simply saying it existed for a long time doesn't mean we have existed for a long time.

It seems that you are saying that since you cannot remember existing before birth, you were therefore not "sentient" or "conscious" before birth, and therefore by your definition, did not exist as a "person", or at least as "you".

Not at all, I would agree there are certain nonessential components of who we are that we can do without and still be defined as us. For example suppose you lost an arm you would still be you. Because an arm is not an essential component of who you are. Similarly memories may not necessarily be an essential component of who you are.

Is that about the gist of it?

Is a person who has amnesia or alzheimers the "same person" then?

Well I would say a person with amnesia or alzheimer are the same person. Again I am not claiming all attributes are key only certain ones. Now you can certainly try and argue that sentience and consciousness is not an essential component defining the core of who you are good luck with that .

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

I think that "No Fear" is trying to reconcile issues caused by *having* separate, sentient beings uncreated and in the beginning with god. If beings come as is/uncreated, they obviously had nothing to do with creating themselves, and therefor MUST be held harmless. They do not need tested, judged or dealt with in any way.....The whole system fails.

If that is what he is saying, it doesn't matter if we are created or uncreated. If a god created us to be sinners, then no one is responsible and the whole system fails anyway.

The issue of free will vs determinism, is, in my opinion, a logical confusion between points of view, and I am not alone in that opinion philosophically.

From an external source observing a person in action, theoretically one might be able to predict everything he does correctly. Let's grant that that is in principle possible, though of course it is not actually possible yet.

Yet from the person's point of view, he is making choices, subjectively, every moment. He decides when to visit the refrigerator and what time he wants to drive to the store or do his chores etc.

The bottom line is that he is still making choices based on what is important to him regardless of if a god or a supercomputer "knows" exactly what he will do!

He still makes choices based on his values and what is meaningful in his life.

The difference is one of point of view. We personally cannot see ourselves "objectively" as an external observer would because we ARE OURSELVES and by definition NOT an external observer.

Spirituality is not an issue of what is externally defined but what is internally defined (ie: subjectively defined).

For more on these issues, see various discussions between Thomas Nagel and others, one of which is referred to in my siggy.

It is a logical category error to mix points of view between subjective statements (which start with the word "I") and those which are objective observations.

It's like arguing whether or not what you see as "red" is the same as what I see as "red". There can never be any objective evidence- really a reference point for such evidence - to show that. What is objective is objective, what is subjective is subjective. All the decisions we make in life, all preferences, all meaning, all that is important to us personally, is in the subjective realm.

[CV75]

Just because physical components such as atoms that make up me as a person have existed for eons of time. Does not mean I have existed for eons of time because those physical components lack essential attributes that define who I am such as sentience and consciousness.

In mortality, the physical components come and go, but the spirit or intelligence continues to progress or in other words continue to experience more and more broadly. Only in the resurrection are spirit and element inseparably connected, and even then it could be argued that the elements are inseparably connected to the god or council of gods in terms of joint ownership and use, allowing continued turnover between the elements, whether

[Uncertain]

In mortality, the physical components come and go, but the spirit or intelligence continues to progress or in other words continue to experience more and more broadly. Only in the resurrection are spirit and element inseparably connected, and even then it could be argued that the elements are inseparably connected to the god or council of gods in terms of joint ownership and use, allowing continued turnover between the elements, whether

[CV75]

I am arguing that non sentient non conscious physical components of us are not the same as us. The carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the bulk of my physical body are not me. They are the building blocks of me but they lack certain things I posses such as a mind and sentience.

I agree, going back to the idea that

[mfbukowski]

Lets take another example as a believing LDS I assume you would agree the soul is an essential component of a human being. Suppose your soul was extracted would you agree that what is left behind the physical form is not the same person as who you are right now? That is because a soul is an essential component of who you are and without one the body left behind is just not the same as it was with a soul.

The problem is, as I have said from the beginning, that you are defining your terms in such a way as to "prove" that you are right. That is called a "question begging definition". If we are including now having a spirit (which is incidentally the correct LDS term, instead of "soul" which means something else) as an essential component of being a "person", I would still disagree because you are not taking account of corporations, for example which are legal "persons" which certainly do not have a spirit.

And since we are defining "person" any way we like, I would include being eternal as an essential characteristic of being a human being.

I am simply arguing sentience and consciousness are essential components of who we are. I am using standard definitions of sentience and consciousness.

Are these necessary or sufficient conditions? Are they all the conditions or are there more?

Sentience: The capability of sensing and responding to our world.

Consciousness: Conscious creatures are not only aware but also aware that they are aware.

Is an embryo sentient and/or conscious? Are they "persons" or "humans" or what? Are persons who can't remember who they are the "same person"? Am I the "same person" I was at birth now that I have developed a tiny bit in understanding? Is my mother who denies she ever had a son the "same person" she was when I was born? I would say that in common parlance it might be said that she is not the "same person". Alcoholics, when recovering will state that they are "not the same person" they used to be, all the time.

Similarly memories may not necessarily be an essential component of who you are.

Good. Well it appears then than you are willing to concede that just because we don't remember the pre-existence doesn't mean we weren't there.

Now you can certainly try and argue that sentience and consciousness is not an essential component defining the core of who you are good luck with that

Thanks. I think that I can be me even if unconscious. I just had some surgery and boy, was I out!

Sentience: The capability of sensing and responding to our world.

Consciousness: Conscious creatures are not only aware but also aware that they are aware.

I was "none of the above".

And guess what? I was still me!

These definitions are just plain arbitrary, and I still don't see the point you are trying to make. Meanings of words depend on the context and their usage.

[Nofear]

I think that "No Fear" ...

My moniker is "Nofear". That is by choice and deliberate and has cause. It is usually incorrect (and often rude) to presume to interpret another's moniker.

[Uncertain]

The problem is, as I have said from the beginning, that you are defining your terms in such a way as to "prove" that you are right. That is called a "question begging definition". If we are including now having a spirit (which is incidentally the correct LDS term, instead of "soul" which means something else) as an essential component of being a "person", I would still disagree because you are not taking account of corporations, for example which are legal "persons" which certainly do not have a spirit.

And since we are defining "person" any way we like, I would include being eternal as an essential characteristic of being a human being.

Are these necessary or sufficient conditions? Are they all the conditions or are there more?

Is an embryo sentient and/or conscious? Are they "persons" or "humans" or what? Are persons who can't remember who they are the "same person"? Am I the "same person" I was at birth now that I have developed a tiny bit in understanding? Is my mother who denies she ever had a son the "same person" she was when I was born? I would say that in common parlance it might be said that she is not the "same person". Alcoholics, when recovering will state that they are "not the same person" they used to be, all the time.

Good. Well it appears then than you are willing to concede that just because we don't remember the pre-existence doesn't mean we weren't there.

Thanks. I think that I can be me even if unconscious. I just had some surgery and boy, was I out!

I was "none of the above".

And guess what? I was still me!

These definitions are just plain arbitrary, and I still don't see the point you are trying to make. Meanings of words depend on the context and their usage.

Hi mfbukowski,

I think we have just about exhausted this topic I doubt we will come to agreement on this. I wish you a good week.

Best,

Uncertain

[Nofear]

I find your thoughts here interesting. The idea that intelligences are sentient but also eternal creates some fairly insurmountable problems. Your view here potentially solves some of these problems. I did have some concerns for example how can a non-sentient non-conscious lump of matter be said to "choose" anything? Does not free will require sentience? It appears consciousness is required in order to make choices if you do not have a mind then clearly you cannot choose anything because there is no "you" that can make choices. Instead there is a lump of matter without sentience or mind. Therefore how can non sentient intelligences be usefully labeled as "indeterministic"? If they are not governed by a mind making choices it appears the only other options are they are governed by natural law which would make them fully deterministic or they are governed by random chance which potentially makes them indeterministic but creates some fairly serious theological issues. As serious as the ones you are trying to solve by making intelligences non-sentient and non-conscious. In short the very concept of free will requires a mind that is capable of making choices without sentience free will is impossible because there is no one home capable of making decisions. A rock does not have free will because it does not have a mind. Hence a non sentient intelligence in order to be indeterministic must be governed purely by random chance which is very problematic.

I will also add I think the concept our intelligences are non sentient and non conscious is more or less a flat contradiction of the LDS teaching that we existed for all eternity. If my intelligence is not sentient than clearly me as a person at one point did not exist. The fact that physical components that make up me did exist for all eternity does not mean that I existed for all eternity. For example your body is made up of atoms that have existed for eons of time. This does not mean that you have existed for as long as your atoms did. The carbon atom that is a component of one of your skin proteins is not you it is not sentient it does not have your mind or personality. The fact the carbon atom is very old does not make you very old. Similarly if my core intelligence is non sentient and non conscious than it is not me. Because I am both those things. Claiming I existed for all eternity because a non sentient non conscious part of me existed for all eternity is nonsensical. It is the same as claiming I existed for eons of time because the atoms that make up my body have existed for eons of time its an absurd conclusion.

We have the concept of eternal existence in Mormonism -- that a part of us has always existed. There are a couple of basic approaches:

1. We have always existed in complex form as sentient beings
2. We are emergent when self-existent matter is appropriately assembled
3. We have always existed in simple form

I find approach1 logically incoherent and aesthetically displeasing. It also runs afoul infinite regression problems.

I find approach 2 as inconsistent with the idea of self-existence (though ironically that is one of the criticisms you level against my model). Those who use this approach must also deal with questions prototyped by the Ship of Theseus paradox.

Given my materialist and reductionist leanings, I am left with approach 3. As you note, this approach is not without difficulties and so further comment on them is perhaps merited.

I find no theological difficulty with my core component being unintelligent, without free will, and non-sentient until relatively recently (any finite time ago is "relatively recent" when compared to an infinite past). There is not even so much as a scriptural hint that we had any level of accountability prior to the stage of our existence wherein we acquired a spirit body. So, I'm ok with being non-sentient for most of my existence. Intelligent matter, without a body, would indeed essentially appear to behave randomly (since we've never seen intelligent matter, it's not something we can test empirically yet).

Yet, I have to then be able to explain how sentience arises from non-sentience. Though I feel no need to be bound by the following opinion, I personally believe it (quoted by Elden Watson's article on Brigham Young and resurrection):

To a remark of Elder O. Pratt's, that a man's body changes every seven years, Prest. Joseph Smith replied: There is no fundamental principle belonging to a human system that ever goes into another in this world or in the world to come: I care not what the theories of men are. We have the testimony that God will raise us up, and he has the power to do it. If any one supposes that any part of our bodies, that is, the fundamental parts thereof, ever goes into another body, he is mistaken.--Friday, April 7, 1843; History of Joseph Smith. [HC 5:339]

Unlike Joseph Smith, I remove the plurality in "fundamental parts" and am left with just one fundamental part -- a component of intelligent matter*. What makes me different from a rock is that I could completely replace every particle of spirit matter and every particle of physical matter in my body -- but so long as that component of intelligent matter is associated with the bodies then I am ME. Since memories are stored in particles (in the materialistic worldview I hold at least) then in theory I could be given an entirely new body with entirely new memories -- memories radically different than the ones I now possess. Yet... I would still be fundamentally ME. At least that is my model, my hypothesis. This is in direct disagreement with your claim, "Claiming I existed for all eternity because a non sentient non conscious part of me existed for all eternity is nonsensical." We could argue about whether that would necessarily be true but as mfbukowski notes, nothing would come of it -- we simply don't know enough**. Though I'm still open to exploring this criticism further.

So, where would that leave us? I have a model. It may possess aspects which some find unaesthetic and or nonsensical. Admittedly it does counter some of our pre-conceptions. But so long as it is self-consistent, without self-contradiction, and without contradiction to Mormonism then it is useful. What is needed then is for alternative models to be presented. Use approach 1. Use approach 2. Deal with the difficulties inherit in those approaches and assemble a stable, self-consistent model. Then we can discuss that too and see if anything can be learned. But discussing little pieces here and there will be relatively fruitless.

* For some reason I seem hesitant to use the words particle of intelligent matter -- not sure why. Perhaps it is because I have no idea how intelligent matter manifests itself and whether or not "particle" would be an appropriate descriptor. Granted, from our current materialistic worldview everything is particle or interactions between them. But I'm keeping my mind open(ish) here...

** Still it would be interesting to discuss. How much of my memory/body affects my personality? I'm inclined to say that it does a great deal but that it is only part. Still, we get attached to our memories and what-not and it is potentially this leverage which God holds over Lucifer -- the dissolution of his spirit body. Now, if Lucifer were given a different spirit body he would ultimately still be the same rebellious guy he is, but he and we wouldn't find the erasure of our current past appealing.

[tana]

My moniker is "Nofear". That is by choice and deliberate and has cause. It is usually incorrect (and often rude) to presume to interpret another's moniker.

You know, one of my favorite peeves is when people make an attempt to apologize, but then follow it up with lengthy excuses as to why it really isn't their fault. I'm sorry *but* if you wouldn't a done this n that... I'm sorry *but* it really turns out to be all YOUR fault.

I'm gonna break my own rule right now and say, Nofear, I apologize for mistyping your moniker. It was not intentional. I thought I remembered how you present it and shoulda went back and double checked.

I think I will blame it on my spell check double crossing me.

Curt

[Uncertain]

We have the concept of eternal existence in Mormonism -- that a part of us has always existed. There are a couple of basic approaches:

1. We have always existed in complex form as sentient beings
2. We are emergent when self-existent matter is appropriately assembled
3. We have always existed in simple form

I find approach1 logically incoherent and aesthetically displeasing. It also runs afoul infinite regression problems.

I find approach 2 as inconsistent with the idea of self-existence (though ironically that is one of the criticisms you level against my model). Those who use this approach must also deal with questions prototyped by the Ship of Theseus paradox.

Given my materialist and reductionist leanings, I am left with approach 3. As you note, this approach is not without difficulties and so further comment on them is perhaps merited.

(bold added by me)

Hi Nofear,

A well thought out reasonable response. I don't have much time to devote to online discussion but I thought you deserved a reply. Here are the issues I see. Option 3 is the one you are defending. I simply don't see how an inanimate lump of matter floating in the void without sentience without a mind or personality governed only by random chance or natural law can legitimately be defined as a "We" as you do in option 3. You might as well state asteroids are really people floating between the stars. Sure inanimate matter can be a component of who I am but my individual parts are not the same thing as who I am. I have a mind I have a personality I have sentience. I simply don't see how because an inanimate clump of matter existed forever this means I existed forever. Sure you can say a part of me existed for eternity but who cares? That part of me is not me it is an inanimate lump of matter floating in the void. Under this model we have not in fact existed forever only inanimate parts of us have no different than the atoms that make up our current body. And which also at one point were floating in the void .

I find no theological difficulty with my core component being unintelligent, without free will, and non-sentient until relatively recently (any finite time ago is "relatively recent" when compared to an infinite past). There is not even so much as a scriptural hint that we had any level of accountability prior to the stage of our existence wherein we acquired a spirit body. So, I'm ok with being non-sentient for most of my existence. Intelligent matter, without a body, would indeed essentially appear to behave randomly (since we've never seen intelligent matter, it's not something we can test empirically yet).

It appears you want to make intelligences indeterminate because if you make them determinate this creates all sorts of problems when God crafts our sentient soul from non sentient parts. I really don't want to get into the whole libertarian, determinism debate but I image this is where you are coming from. But if the reason the core component of us is indeterminate is because we are governed by random chance how in the world can we be held accountable for any of our choices? It appears our choices would be a combination of deterministic forces and our in-deterministic core. However if that part of us that God can't predict is unpredictable purely because it's random how is this helpful? Instead of having the problems associated with determinism. We have the problem of souls behaving indeterministicly purely because the core component of them is governed by random chance. The core component of them is incapable of making free will decisions because it doesn't have a will or a mind to make those decisions with it is an inanimate lump of matter governed by random chance.

So, where would that leave us? I have a model. It may possess aspects which some find unaesthetic and or nonsensical. Admittedly it does counter some of our pre-conceptions. But so long as it is self-consistent, without self-contradiction, and without contradiction to Mormonism then it is useful. What is needed then is for alternative models to be presented. Use approach 1. Use approach 2. Deal with the difficulties inherit in those approaches and assemble a stable, self-consistent model. Then we can discuss that too and see if anything can be learned. But discussing little pieces here and there will be relatively fruitless.

Self-consistency is a very low bar. Also I personally am not bound by the LDS viewpoint hence I don't have to try and build models which make sense of LDS teachings. Thank goodness!

P.S. I may have to cut this conversation short. But I would love to read you reply.

Best,

Uncertain

[CV75]

"fundamental parts"

It may be that the fundamental principle or part(s) is that truth which God places into a sphere where it can independently