Core Conversations

[mfbukowski]

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

Fine, and the same to you. Honestly, I didn't mean to be too argumentative, I just could not see what the significance of your line of reasoning was- where you were going with it, if you will.

Just for the record, what I believe in regard to this matter is that just as "we" grew from a single cell containing genetic information which governed our development, while "we" were hardly sentient nor conscious during this period, we also "grew" from an intelligence which might or might not have been conscious or sentient. I don't think it matters if we were c. or s. either way. Just as an embryo does not make choices, I don't see choice as essential at this phase of our development. At some later stage, I presume we grew to be C&S and were able to make choices, though we do not remember that, just as perhaps we don't remember phases of our own childhood, or had a period of amnesia etc.

Just to mention- this is strictly an analogy.

Of course all this is speculation, based on faith. Whatever story we make up which makes sense is ok with me, as long as I have a personal testimony of it.

All I have a testimony of is that "I" existed before I "came here". I believe that that much has been revealed to me, and I believed that before I joined the church or even heard of it.

[Nofear]

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.

I quite agree that random does not yield free-will. Indeterminate does not necessarily mean random, however.

Devoid of information, an indeterminate agent will essentially, for all practical purposes, be random (link to funny Dilbert cartoon). Yet, my model hypothesizes that when intelligent matter is so organized with a body to allow access to information (this has to be a non-classical physics process) then decidedly non-random patterns appear. How? Heck if I know and perhaps it is not knowable at all.

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 .

We agree humans have a mind, have personality, have sentience. Mormonism makes no definitive statement how far that goes back -- only that "intelligence" is self-existent. But what "intelligence" is really isn't defined. As stated before, I personally have no problem with not being sentient for essentially the entirety of my existence. I disagree with your assertion that "Under this model we have not in fact existed forever only inanimate parts of us hav[ing] no differen[ce] than the atoms that make up our current body." An electron which can trace its existence into the infinite past is not intelligent matter -- it lacks the properties to serve in that role. It may be self-existent but that is not a sufficient condition under the model I posit. As mentioned above, intelligent matter is not deterministic and (given the right conditions) not random. Electrons (or any other known particle of physical matter) simply do not meet the requirements of the model.

Now, what are we left with if we embrace alternatives? Things like: To Be or Not to Be: The Self as Illusion

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!

Aaahhh, but then you miss out on all the other benefits of Mormonism

And yes, self-consistency is a low bar. But it is a bar that the (part) models many adopt fail to meet. It's a starting point. And hopefully the model will yield testable hypotheses.

[Nofear]

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

[mfbukowski]

I don't think I am really following anything you are saying. That is not to say you words are communicated poorly, but perhaps there are concepts and ideas implicit in your words that are simply not part of the vocabulary of my worldview.

Yeah.

There's a lot of that going on around here.

[CV75]

I don't think I am really following anything you are saying. That is not to say you words are communicated poorly, but perhaps there are concepts and ideas implicit in your words that are simply not part of the vocabulary of my worldview.

I guess my attempt at discussion has had the opposite effect!

[tana]

Nofear,

What is the difference between attributing awareness to being an emergent property of spirit matter functions *and* the atheist's view of awareness being an emergent property/by-product of brain/physical matter functions?

In the atheist's worldview, when the brain dies the image it is projecting does also

Similarly, If there is some energy or force capable of assembling a spirit body, which then projects a by-product awareness, that force can conceivably disassemble that spirit body causing the projection to cease.

In this worldview, awareness appears to be NOT timeless, but abandoned to the mechanics of matter.

This matter which seems so important to so many, is the same matter which when squeezed, the entire universe, all the *substance* of the universe can be compressed down to occupy the area of a grain of sand....This was the size of all substance in relation to the breadth of all existence just before the "big bang".

It (matter) seems rather insignificant to me in comparison to all the other forces that come with this existence

[mfbukowski]

Nofear,

What is the difference between attributing awareness to being an emergent property of spirit matter functions *and* the atheist's view of awareness being an emergent property/by-product of brain/physical matter functions?

In the atheist's worldview, when the brain dies the image it is projecting does also

Similarly, If there is some energy or force capable of assembling a spirit body, which then projects a by-product awareness, that force can conceivably disassemble that spirit body causing the projection to cease.

In this worldview, awareness appears to be NOT timeless, but abandoned to the mechanics of matter.

This matter which seems so important to so many, is the same matter which when squeezed, the entire universe, all the *substance* of the universe can be compressed down to occupy the area of a grain of sand....This was the size of all substance in relation to the breadth of all existence just before the "big bang".

It (matter) seems rather insignificant to me in comparison to all the other forces that come with this existence

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me give my answer to this anyway if that's ok. Obviously Nofear I presume will do likewise from his pov.

For me, there is very little difference. Mormons are materialists- but I believe there is yet an unmeasureable (but measurable in principle) force called "spirit" for lack of a better term which includes an element of intelligence into matter.

This is what is being referred to when the scriptures or other writings say things like "God commands the elements" in some way.

On my view, there is no conflict between all we will eventually know scientifically and what we know subjectively. Both viewpoints though independent of each other can be reconciled, just as we can both agree that a certain observation is a "green car". The significance of that green car may be more to you- perhaps it was a gift to you from your deceased father and your first car, but to me it is just a green car with a certain bluebook value, but at least we will be able to agree that it is a green car.

On this analogy, if and when science discovers this property of matter I am now calling "intelligence" or "spirit" we may disagree with it's significance with scientific observation, but we will at least agree that there IS a force like what I am describing, that matter is in some way programmable.

So we will still disagree with atheists about the significance of the force, but will agree that "force x" exists.

So even though it is still a part of matter, "but more refined" there is no logical reason to postulate that "force x" ("spirit") must dissolve upon death.

[Uncertain]

I quite agree that random does not yield free-will. Indeterminate does not necessarily mean random, however.

Devoid of information, an indeterminate agent will essentially, for all practical purposes, be random (link to funny Dilbert cartoon). Yet, my model hypothesizes that when intelligent matter is so organized with a body to allow access to information (this has to be a non-classical physics process) then decidedly non-random patterns appear. How? Heck if I know and perhaps it is not knowable at all.

Hi Nofear,

That was actually a funny cartoon somewhat nerdish which is right up my alley. If I understand you correctly you would agree that intelligence without a mind in order to be indeterminate must be governed purely by random chance. However you would argue that when combined in some undefined way with soul stuff magic happens and the resulting spirit is still in-deterministic but in a non random way. Well there is a whole lot of magic happening to patch up the shaky bits and I don't believe a word of it . But it is self consistent which as you point out is a good starting point. So in my view you have handled this potential objection quite well.

We agree humans have a mind, have personality, have sentience. Mormonism makes no definitive statement how far that goes back -- only that "intelligence" is self-existent. But what "intelligence" is really isn't defined. As stated before, I personally have no problem with not being sentient for essentially the entirety of my existence. I disagree with your assertion that "Under this model we have not in fact existed forever only inanimate parts of us hav[ing] no differen[ce] than the atoms that make up our current body." An electron which can trace its existence into the infinite past is not intelligent matter -- it lacks the properties to serve in that role. It may be self-existent but that is not a sufficient condition under the model I posit. As mentioned above, intelligent matter is not deterministic and (given the right conditions) not random. Electrons (or any other known particle of physical matter) simply do not meet the requirements of the model.

I was not trying to state that ordinary everyday matter is the same as whatever matter intelligence is made out of. I am arguing that mind, personality, sentience are essential components defining who I am. Without them I am not who I am but something else. If there was a time when I did not exist as a sentient, entity with mind and personality than there was a time I did not exist. Because I am defined in part by those things. If my brain was removed but somehow my body was kept alive. I would be gone the body without sentience, personality and mind is not me it is a lump of matter no difference than any other lump of matter. This is the point I am trying to get across your model requires that lifeless intelligent matter floating in the void without a mind without a personality or sentience is somehow still me and I don't buy it .

Aaahhh, but then you miss out on all the other benefits of Mormonism

Mormonism certainly does have many benefits. But from my perspective those benefits are also available outside of Mormonism. Obviously I don't accept the LDS claim that religious ordinances only provided by the LDS church are needed to obtain certain heavenly rewards.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Fine, and the same to you. Honestly, I didn't mean to be too argumentative, I just could not see what the significance of your line of reasoning was- where you were going with it, if you will.

Just for the record, what I believe in regard to this matter is that just as "we" grew from a single cell containing genetic information which governed our development, while "we" were hardly sentient nor conscious during this period, we also "grew" from an intelligence which might or might not have been conscious or sentient. I don't think it matters if we were c. or s. either way. Just as an embryo does not make choices, I don't see choice as essential at this phase of our development. At some later stage, I presume we grew to be C&S and were able to make choices, though we do not remember that, just as perhaps we don't remember phases of our own childhood, or had a period of amnesia etc.

Just to mention- this is strictly an analogy.

Of course all this is speculation, based on faith. Whatever story we make up which makes sense is ok with me, as long as I have a personal testimony of it.

All I have a testimony of is that "I" existed before I "came here". I believe that that much has been revealed to me, and I believed that before I joined the church or even heard of it.

Hi mfbukowski,

I don't want to get sucked into a long discussion. I would not agree that an embryo is the same type of entity as I currently am. When doctors freeze extra embryos derived from fertility treatments I don't think they are imprisoning human beings but instead a collection of cells which have the potential to become human but are not yet. I am arguing there is a meaningful difference between the parts of me and me. I am not my arm or my leg they are parts of me but are not the same as me. I am a thinking, sentient entity with personality and consciousness. If there a was a time I did not have those things there there was a time I did not exist because I am defined in part by those things. Something else may have existed that later became a part of who I currently am but that something else is not me. I have no problem with the concept we existed before we were born as thinking reasoning entities. I have a big problem with stating a lifeless lump of matter floating in space without a mind or consciousness is somehow the same as me. This may just be one of those things we can agree to disagree on.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

This may just be one of those things we can agree to disagree on.

Ok with me. We definitely disagree and I don't see any basis on which to resolve it.

I wish you well!

But there might be a kernel here which is worth further discussion:

I have no problem with the concept we existed before we were born as thinking reasoning entities. I have a big problem with stating a lifeless lump of matter floating in space without a mind or consciousness is somehow the same as me. This may just be one of those things we can agree to disagree on.

How do you propose that one could exist before birth without being material? No long discussion necessary- I am just curious how you resolve this seeming conflict.

An immaterial sentient conscious entity?

[Uncertain]

Ok with me. We definitely disagree and I don't see any basis on which to resolve it.

I wish you well!

Thanks!

But there might be a kernel here which is worth further discussion:

How do you propose that one could exist before birth without being material? No long discussion necessary- I am just curious how you resolve this seeming conflict.

An immaterial sentient conscious entity?

Well it is not the idea we existed as sentient material beings before birth I have a problem with. In other words I don't necessarily claim we existed as immaterial sentient conscious entities before birth. Now in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding I am not claiming I personally believe we existed as sentient material beings before birth. I just don't find the idea logically objectionable.

Best,

Uncertain

[Nofear]

What is the difference between attributing awareness to being an emergent property of spirit matter functions *and* the atheist's view of awareness being an emergent property/by-product of brain/physical matter functions?

In the atheist's worldview, when the brain dies the image it is projecting does also

Similarly, If there is some energy or force capable of assembling a spirit body, which then projects a by-product awareness, that force can conceivably disassemble that spirit body causing the projection to cease.

In this worldview, awareness appears to be NOT timeless, but abandoned to the mechanics of matter.

Not all atheists subscribe to emergentism. Rather, many simply deny free will exists and that it is all illusion -- these are the hard determinists. This latter view is rather problematic with Mormonism and so I shan't really address that.

So, what is different? With emergentism it is logically coherent that I simply had no existence whatsoever until my body was assembled. Only until the brain is sufficiently organized does my person, my self, my awareness emerge. This seems to me incompatible with the idea of self-existence. Aside from that, being a reductionist, I have serious problems with (radical) emergentism and do not believe in has any reflection in reality.

So, how do I differ then? I'll reply to Uncertain's comment here as well.

If I understand you correctly you would agree that intelligence without a mind in order to be indeterminate must be governed purely by random chance. However you would argue that when combined in some undefined way with soul stuff magic happens and the resulting spirit is still in-deterministic but in a non random way. Well there is a whole lot of magic happening to patch up the shaky bits and I don't believe a word of it . But it is self consistent which as you point out is a good starting point. So in my view you have handled this potential objection quite well.

Because I believe in free will and do not subscribe to compatibilism there has to be something about us which can act indeterministically. Suppose I have particle A in state X. We then let it interact with a second particle and call the interaction event E. Our physics is deterministic* such that it if a second particle in a particular state interacts with particle A it will always yield state Y. Or E(A,X) = Y. Suppose we let particle A be governed by some mechanics that is random. Then under the same conditions the same interaction would yield a well-defined distribution of states (Y₁,Y₂,Y₃...Y_N). Or E(A,X) = P(Y).

The fun thing about about our current known matter is that all particles behave the same way. Suppose I put a second particle B in the place of A and give it state X and subject it to the same interaction event E. Because it is the same kind of particle it will behave in the same way so long as it starts in the same initial state and is subjected to the same interaction. E(B,X) = Y or E(B,X) = P(Y).

An indeterministic particle on the other hand would not behave the same way. Particle A and particle B would or could behave in very distinct ways. The problem is, particles have no memory -- none whatsoever. So, the behavior of the particles would necessarily be indistinguishable from random. Even if the probabilities distributions come out very differently, would could never know for sure (a la the Dilbert cartoon). Yet, these differences, I posit will manifest themselves under the conditions where the two particles** are given a mechanism to access information (past and present -- memory and perception) then the differences between the two particles would then clearly distinguish themselves (even when the two are placed in perfectly identical "bodies").

To reiterate, I am not proposing that intelligent matter behaves randomly only that it would be indistinguishable from random in the absence of accessible information. But once given access to information about its environment, then the differences clearly manifest themselves. Further comment in the next post.

* Even the probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic -- just probabilistic as well. One can mentally hedge the argument with probabilities and everything still stands. For the record though, I currently am partial to Bohmian mechanics, which is not a probabilistic mechanics (though when the observer lacks sufficient information, all the probabilities of Copenhagen quantum mechanics reappear).

** Again, the choice of the word particles here may very well be premature and inaccurate.

[Nofear]

However you would argue that when combined in some undefined way with soul stuff magic happens and the resulting spirit is still in-deterministic but in a non random way. Well there is a whole lot of magic happening to patch up the shaky bits and I don't believe a word of it . But it is self consistent which as you point out is a good starting point. So in my view you have handled this potential objection quite well.

As weighty with baggage as the word "magic" is, it is not an unapt word here*. The truth is we have no mechanics to describe indeterministic matter. The physics is quite simply unknown. And so, anything resulting from these kind of interactions is "magical". Is this a flaw? Certainly. Yet, it is a flaw evenly shared with every other philosophy which supposes free will. Radical emergence is "magic". Compatibilism is a kind of "magic" (though, with as little respect I have for that viewpoint I'm am begrudging to give it even the credit of "magic"). In short, if you believe in free will you believe in magic.

* Magic will be defined here as inexplicable, even in principle, events by our current science.

I was not trying to state that ordinary everyday matter is the same as whatever matter intelligence is made out of. I am arguing that mind, personality, sentience are essential components defining who I am. Without them I am not who I am but something else. If there was a time when I did not exist as a sentient, entity with mind and personality than there was a time I did not exist. Because I am defined in part by those things. If my brain was removed but somehow my body was kept alive. I would be gone the body without sentience, personality and mind is not me it is a lump of matter no difference than any other lump of matter. This is the point I am trying to get across your model requires that lifeless intelligent matter floating in the void without a mind without a personality or sentience is somehow still me and I don't buy it .

But you don't necessarily subscribe to to the self-existence of distinct entities and so it isn't a problem whatever world view needs to adopt. Instead, if one adopts a finite starting point for one's seat of consciousness then there is the problem of evil to grapple with. Too bad after nearly two millenia of thinking on the topic hasn't produced any suitable response. Good luck with it though.

One the other hand, Joseph Smith solved it quite simply by supposing there is something self-existing which resides at my core.

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]

You can say if this fundamental part (I drop the plural here) is not sentient (as I argue it can't be) then it is not ME. But it can't be, never was, and never will be part of another. It is uniquely associated (now and forever) with my current ME. Without it I would not be my current self/awareness/sentience/etc. So, maybe my awareness/consciousness/sentience has a finite past but ME, for there is no other suitable way to identify this unique fundamental core, has always existed.

Mormonism certainly does have many benefits. But from my perspective those benefits are also available outside of Mormonism. Obviously I don't accept the LDS claim that religious ordinances only provided by the LDS church are needed to obtain certain heavenly rewards.

Too bad God just didn't make you in a way -- given you the appropriate character -- such that you would have accepted the evidences of Mormonism and subscribe and adhere to its truth. Now, Mormonism explains why this is so... but that is perhaps a topic for another day.

[Nofear]

For me, there is very little difference. Mormons are materialists- but I believe there is yet an unmeasureable (but measurable in principle) force called "spirit" for lack of a better term which includes an element of intelligence into matter.

This kind of panpsychism (the idea that every substance in the universe has some kind of rudimentary sentience and can obey God) has a fairly long tradition on Mormonism. Orson Pratt, for example, taught it and I've encountered in several of my fellow Mormons. For my part, I reject this kind of panpsychism as indefensible if one subscribes to a rigorous reductionist materialism (as I do). But if one is willing to give "mind" a kind of independent existence and fudge a little bit on materialism then it is definitely an approach worth exploring.

[Uncertain]

As weighty with baggage as the word "magic" is, it is not an unapt word here*. The truth is we have no mechanics to describe indeterministic matter. The physics is quite simply unknown. And so, anything resulting from these kind of interactions is "magical". Is this a flaw? Certainly. Yet, it is a flaw evenly shared with every other philosophy which supposes free will. Radical emergence is "magic". Compatibilism is a kind of "magic" (though, with as little respect I have for that viewpoint I'm am begrudging to give it even the credit of "magic"). In short, if you believe in free will you believe in magic.

* Magic will be defined here as inexplicable, even in principle, events by our current science.

But you don't necessarily subscribe to to the self-existence of distinct entities and so it isn't a problem whatever world view needs to adopt. Instead, if one adopts a finite starting point for one's seat of consciousness then there is the problem of evil to grapple with. Too bad after nearly two millenia of thinking on the topic hasn't produced any suitable response. Good luck with it though.

One the other hand, Joseph Smith solved it quite simply by supposing there is something self-existing which resides at my core.

I don't agree that the existence of distinct eternal entities solves the problem of evil. It does strength the free will defense however the free will defense alone does not solve the problem of evil and is rife with problems. For example God in the scriptures restricts free will all the time to prevent evil. Therefore arguing evil is a result of God respecting our free will is problematic. Think of Laman and Lemuel forced by God to not kill their brother. Or Abinadi protected by God from the evil freely chosen decisions of king Noah. Therefore according to the scriptures God clearly restricts the freely chosen actions of eternally existing entities to remove evil and bring about good. Therefore arguing God allows evil because he must respect our free will is problematic. Because according to the scriptures God can and does tamper with our free will. I am not so sure Mormonism is all that much better off with regards to the problem of evil than any other religious tradition. But this is a debate for another day.

You can say if this fundamental part (I drop the plural here) is not sentient (as I argue it can't be) then it is not ME.

How can a non sentient lump of matter without a mind or personality be ME? I am defined by those things I am not defined by the matter that makes up my body if every atom in my body was swapped with another equivalent atom and my physical "stuff" was entirely recycled I would still be ME. Because I am not defined by the physical stuff that makes me up but by my mind, personality and sentience that is who I am. In fact the physical matter than makes up my body is recycled quite frequently as we proceed through life I am still ME.

But it can't be, never was, and never will be part of another. It is uniquely associated (now and forever) with my current ME. Without it I would not be my current self/awareness/sentience/etc. So, maybe my awareness/consciousness/sentience has a finite past but ME, for there is no other suitable way to identify this unique fundamental core, has always existed.

I don't agree that because matter is uniquely associated with us it therefore can be defined as us. I also don't agree that vital components of a person can only be described as being that person. Suppose for example I was able to determine the matter that makes up my heart is unique never having been a part of anyone else. I have my heart removed and sequestered such that the matter in my heart will never be used by anyone else. Does this mean my removed heart is now ME. After all my heart is certainly a vital component of who I am. Also the non sentient matter that makes up my heart is uniquely associated with me now and forever. Simply because a part of me is vital to my continuing function as who I am does not make that part ME. This might be one of those things we agree to disagree on. I really don't think it is all that unreasonable to state: inanimate matter floating in the void without my sentience, my mind or my personality is not ME. You disagree I still think your cool .

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

The reason I never discuss "isms" or couch my views in those terms is that there are so many possible variations that, for me, using those terms would make my positions unintelligibly ambiguous.

There is no such thing for example as a "Reductionist Code" which, using unambiguous language, perfectly spells out every possible nuance of what "reductionism" means, or "determinism" means etc. AND then forces one to sign the "Reductionist Pledge" saying that yes, I subscribe in every detail to the "Reductionist Code". (insert name of your favorite "ism)

Philosophy is not a mathematical system in which one can simply plug formulas into an equation and know that one's position "equals" the quantity (ism 1 + ism 2, modified by subchapter y of ism 17)

No one is a "pure" (insert favorite "ism"), and all depends on how one defines that ism anyway, so I am often stuck in these conversations without a clear statement of what one believes or doesn't believe.

Oh well.

[Nofear]

The reason I never discuss "isms" or couch my views in those terms is that there are so many possible variations that, for me, using those terms would make my positions unintelligibly ambiguous.

...

No one is a "pure" (insert favorite "ism"), and all depends on how one defines that ism anyway, so I am often stuck in these conversations without a clear statement of what one believes or doesn't believe.

I find your position sillism.

It is certainly true that philosophers are acutely aware of the limitations of labels. But, being aware of those limitations they can push forward and employ them for effective communication. It does not follow that if you find yourself unable to similarly push forward with the convention of a field, that all others similarly fail.

[mfbukowski]

For my part, I reject this kind of panpsychism as indefensible if one subscribes to a rigorous reductionist materialism (as I do).

I think this would only be true if one were to postulate that (1)science will not advance to the point of discovering "spirit matter" OR (2) that one defines "rigorous" to only include what has been already discovered.

I would perhaps describe myself also as a "reductionist materialist" given the above exceptions or inclusions in the definitions. But again, for me, who cares about "isms" anyway? Just tell me what you believe and don't worry about what "club" you belong to: that is my position.

But I think the tendency is to misunderstand the logical importance of points of view. All empirical observation depends on whether or not the observations are subjective or objective, and for the individual making the observation at least, subjective observations are just as "real" and in many ways more important than objective ones.

[mfbukowski]

I find your position sillism.

It is certainly true that philosophers are acutely aware of the limitations of labels. But, being aware of those limitations they can push forward and employ them for effective communication. It does not follow that if you find yourself unable to similarly push forward with the convention of a field, that all others similarly fail.

Well I admit that I am often silly.

But I am still not sure why a reductionist would limit himself to the state of current science which changes daily.

I would also wonder how that is compatible with the LDS notion of "spirit matter".

[Nofear]

I don't agree that the existence of distinct eternal entities solves the problem of evil. It does strength the free will defense however the free will defense alone does not solve the problem of evil and is rife with problems. For example God in the scriptures restricts free will all the time to prevent evil. Therefore arguing evil is a result of God respecting our free will is problematic. Think of Laman and Lemuel forced by God to not kill their brother. Or Abinadi protected by God from the evil freely chosen decisions of king Noah. Therefore according to the scriptures God clearly restricts the freely chosen actions of eternally existing entities to remove evil and bring about good. Therefore arguing God allows evil because he must respect our free will is problematic. Because according to the scriptures God can and does tamper with our free will. I am not so sure Mormonism is all that much better off with regards to the problem of evil than any other religious tradition. But this is a debate for another day.

It is indeed for another day. Not to be condescending (for I can think of no way my subsequent words will but come across as such), your counter-example to me suggests that there is some place for further thought on the matter and that not all the issues are understood.

How can a non sentient lump of matter without a mind or personality be ME? I am defined by those things I am not defined by the matter that makes up my body if every atom in my body was swapped with another equivalent atom and my physical "stuff" was entirely recycled I would still be ME. Because I am not defined by the physical stuff that makes me up but by my mind, personality and sentience that is who I am. In fact the physical matter than makes up my body is recycled quite frequently as we proceed through life I am still ME.

You are not alone in your position, certainly. For my part, there is a part of me that belongs to me, belongs only to me, never has and never will belong to another. In this, I think I am in agreement with Joseph Smith. But there is no conceivable resolution to this difference of opinion at present.

I don't agree that because matter is uniquely associated with us it therefore can be defined as us. I also don't agree that vital components of a person can only be described as being that person. Suppose for example I was able to determine the matter that makes up my heart is unique never having been a part of anyone else. I have my heart removed and sequestered such that the matter in my heart will never be used by anyone else. Does this mean my removed heart is now ME. After all my heart is certainly a vital component of who I am. Also the non sentient matter that makes up my heart is uniquely associated with me now and forever. Simply because a part of me is vital to my continuing function as who I am does not make that part ME. This might be one of those things we agree to disagree on. I really don't think it is all that unreasonable to state: inanimate matter floating in the void without my sentience, my mind or my personality is not ME. You disagree I still think your cool .

The matter that would be uniquely associated with me is not and cannot be protons and neutrons. It would be an entirely different class of matter. Most Mormons assume it would be spirit matter but I don't think we can go that far yet, and so I call this uniquely-identifiable-person-substance intelligent matter. And I posit that intelligent matter has the unique property of being indeterministic.

If you glossed over the link, Ship of Theseus I would encourage reading it. Or, for a much more sophisticated look at the problem of identity the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article Relative Identity. Though I have yet to wade through the whole thing -- partly because all of the listed paradoxes and problems of identity are solved by my model and Joseph Smith's (though, I can think of some other complications that would merit discussion -- another time).

PS: It'll be Monday before I can really respond, after I finish replying mfbukowski.

[Nofear]

I think this would only be true if one were to postulate that (1)science will not advance to the point of discovering "spirit matter" OR (2) that one defines "rigorous" to only include what has been already discovered.

I would perhaps describe myself also as a "reductionist materialist" given the above exceptions or inclusions in the definitions. But again, for me, who cares about "isms" anyway? Just tell me what you believe and don't worry about what "club" you belong to: that is my position.

In my use reductionism is the statement that every complex phenomena can fully be described by the properties of its constituent components. For example, water (often used as an example of emergence) exhibits properties that neither oxygen or hydrogen do. Yet, the properties of water are fully explainable in terms of oxygen and hydrogen and their interactions -- no new property is created.

In my use, materialism is the statement that all existence is either matter or the interactions between matter. If it is neither of these, it doesn't exist.

Clearly a rock is matter but what about something abstract like "red"? I would argue that the concept of "red" would be reducible -- that is describable -- as some kind of interaction between atoms. But, even that short statement leaves a heck of a lot unanswered. And so, depending on how one chooses to think about it there is a whole new -ism to describe it: see wikipedia: philosophy of mind. No way I can just "say what I think" and be accurate without writing numerous pages on the subject.

But I think the tendency is to misunderstand the logical importance of points of view. All empirical observation depends on whether or not the observations are subjective or objective, and for the individual making the observation at least, subjective observations are just as "real" and in many ways more important than objective ones.

Meh... for me it is realism all the way. My observation has no impact on reality -- though it certainly impacts my understanding of reality.

[mfbukowski]

How can a non sentient lump of matter without a mind or personality be ME? I am defined by those things I am not defined by the matter that makes up my body if every atom in my body was swapped with another equivalent atom and my physical "stuff" was entirely recycled I would still be ME. Because I am not defined by the physical stuff that makes me up but by my mind, personality and sentience that is who I am. In fact the physical matter than makes up my body is recycled quite frequently as we proceed through life I am still ME.

Perhaps the description "lump of matter" is what is causing the problem. I am still trying to figure out what the importance is of this phrase to you.

Does that, in your mind, mean that spirit cannot be matter, or that what is "you" cannot be matter?

Would it help if we included the notion of a "field" of some kind which is somehow attendant to matter and perhaps transferable to other locations?

Suppose spirit is something LIKE a magnetic information field perhaps LIKE what is on a computer disk which can be "projected", not onto a disk, but onto other matter- perhaps any matter including the air itself- perhaps a field of electrons or ???. I am thinking in terms of an analog magnetic field as would be found on an analog tape recorder- but projectible or transferable onto any matter anywhere

The only point I am making is that perhaps the notion of a "lump of matter" is what is causing the misunderstanding?

But as usual I am in a fog as to what precisely the terms of the misunderstanding are and more importantly why this is allegedly has any theological importance.

Sorry. I am a little slow, not to mention silly!

Why is it theologically important that you are "still you" even though the matter changes? I would not dispute that point.

[mfbukowski]

If you glossed over the link, Ship of Theseus I would encourage reading it.

Perhaps it would enhance our possibility of future communication if I just said to this Ship of Theseus problem that to me it becomes just an issue of definition.

This is a Wittgensteinian approach which I would take- the alleged "paradox" is totally uninteresting to me because I see just a linguistic confusion about the definition of "same" in whether or not it is the "same" ship.

Why is it important if it is or is not the "same" ship? What importance does such a question have in even being seriously discussed?

Also interestingly, the article mentions Heraclitus. I am one of the biggest fans Heraclitus ever had, I am convinced. To me, if Heraclitus had been more popular than Plato, there would have been more need for a restoration because then the "correct" Greek philosophy would have influenced the early church instead of the plague of Neoplatonism, and these conversations would not be necessary because everyone would think like me!

And then everyone would be right like me!

The idea that "reality" is something other than human experience would never have happened and there would be no conflict between science and religion, no worry about free will vs determinism- all dualisms would disappear because everyone would know that all there is, is human experience and all the rest is just linguistic confusion. What we communally experience is called "objective" and what only I experience is called "subjective". There are only these two points of view, and that explains all alleged philosophical problems ultimately.

Oh well. It didn't go that way and we have all this mess to clean up.

[Uncertain]

It is indeed for another day. Not to be condescending (for I can think of no way my subsequent words will but come across as such), your counter-example to me suggests that there is some place for further thought on the matter and that not all the issues are understood.

Sound good, certainly further thought on any matter is not a bad idea. I would love at some point to hear why you believe LDS theology solves the problem of evil in a way not available to other faiths. Because frankly I don't see it. In fact certain aspects of LDS thought arguably make the problem worse. Like for example the teaching that all who die before the age of accountability reach the Celestial kingdom. I thought initially you were referring to David Paulsen's essay on this but now I am not sure. In any case this is a discussion for another day.

You are not alone in your position, certainly. For my part, there is a part of me that belongs to me, belongs only to me, never has and never will belong to another.

Fair enough, my view is even if we grant your statement here is true. If that eternal part of me lacks certain essential characteristics that I posses than that part is not me. An essential part of me yes but not ME.

The matter that would be uniquely associated with me is not and cannot be protons and neutrons. It would be an entirely different class of matter. Most Mormons assume it would be spirit matter but I don't think we can go that far yet, and so I call this uniquely-identifiable-person-substance intelligent matter. And I posit that intelligent matter has the unique property of being indeterministic.

Again if this undefined spiritual matter lacks essential components that I posses whatever else it has it is not me but something else.

PS: It'll be Monday before I can really respond, after I finish replying mfbukowski.

No worries, I am not sure there is much else to talk about. I doubt we will come to an agreement on this there is no way I can see to resolve the impasse. I believe we both understand the others position we just don't agree. I don't think matter without my mind, personality and consciousness is ME although it may very well be an essential component of me. You of course disagree it is a matter of how a person is defined there is no non subjective way to settle the question.

In any case I wish you a good weekend.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Perhaps the description "lump of matter" is what is causing the problem. I am still trying to figure out what the importance is of this phrase to you.

Does that, in your mind, mean that spirit cannot be matter, or that what is "you" cannot be matter?

Would it help if we included the notion of a "field" of some kind which is somehow attendant to matter and perhaps transferable to other locations?

Suppose spirit is something LIKE a magnetic information field perhaps LIKE what is on a computer disk which can be "projected", not onto a disk, but onto other matter- perhaps any matter including the air itself- perhaps a field of electrons or ???. I am thinking in terms of an analog magnetic field as would be found on an analog tape recorder- but projectible or transferable onto any matter anywhere

The only point I am making is that perhaps the notion of a "lump of matter" is what is causing the misunderstanding?

But as usual I am in a fog as to what precisely the terms of the misunderstanding are and more importantly why this is allegedly has any theological importance.

Sorry. I am a little slow, not to mention silly!

Why is it theologically important that you are "still you" even though the matter changes? I would not dispute that point.

Well it not all that theologically important. I was responding to NoFears model which includes the idea that intelligences are non sentient. LDS theology states we have existed forever NoFear models requires that in order for this statement to be true non sentient matter i.e.(intelligences) must be defined as the same as us sentient entities with minds and consciousness. I personally do not believe a non sentient collection of matter without a mind or consciousness can reasonably be defined as ME. Hence I think NoFears model conflicts with the LDS teaching that we existed forever. You and NoFear claim matter without a mind or consciousness can in fact reasonable be defined as the same as ME I disagree. It is a matter of defining who we are. I claim having a mind a personality and sentience is an essential definition of who I am. And any collection of matter lacking those things is not ME but something else although it may very well be an essential component of me. Perhaps it would help to think of a circle there are certain things that define what a circle is. A square for example is not a circle because it lacks certain essential characteristics that a circle has. From my point of view you are claiming a circle is really a square which is false. I don't accept that non sentient matter is the same as ME because it lacks certain essential components I have. Now you and NoFear disagree because you claim sentience, personality and mind are not essential components defining who we are. Hence the impasse we are at which frankly I don't see any resolution to. This is only an issue if someone believes NoFears model is the only reasonable one hence if it is false Mormonism is false. Assuming of course NoFears model is indeed false which is the topic under debate.

Best,

Uncertain