mfbukowski Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 I'z with ya on this one buddy. Good post! Likewise!
mfbukowski Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 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,UncertainOk well thanks for humoring me- it helps to let me know it is not that theologically important to you as well because I could not figure out what all the fuss was about.I presented the analogy of an embryo, which you replied that you would not consider as "you" which seems reasonable. I disagree, and think that embryos are in fact "persons" and that when I was one, I was still "me", but it is reasonable to believe otherwise.I still wonder how you handle the question that if I was unconscious, perhaps even on artificial life support and not technically "alive", and let us say for purposes of argument, non-sentient and unconscious, if I would still be "me", and if so, how that is an exception to your view.
CV75 Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 I still wonder how you handle the question that if I was unconscious, perhaps even on artificial life support and not technically "alive", and let us say for purposes of argument, non-sentient and unconscious, if I would still be "me"
CV75 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Do you have any scriptural clues for this "copy" or "reflection"? Mirror/veil?
CV75 Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 There have been threads on God weeping and I am definitely not a proponent of that view for reasons of my own. I think that if we are exalted we will be beyond emotional reactions- not beyond emotions like love and compassion surely- but I think that if we know what is going to happen in the future, the future will not be a surprise.I make a distinction between responding and reacting, but that's my thing.I agree that a God's rejoicing and weeping are responses, not surprise reactions. Not a surprise for for Him, anyway, but to those who thought they had it made (Matthew 25: 31-46) and were approaching the veil, perhaps expecting an "uppermost seat," or for their humble counterparts who realize their plea for grace has been realized.I think that perhaps for a moment at least, in the Judgment, all get to see themselves as they are seen (2 Nephi 9: 46, Mosiah 3: 24-25) before they either shrink away (Mosiah 3: 25) or enter into His presence (D&C 121: 32). At that time, the veil is rent and we face the results of our own informed (whether from a standpoint of pride or humility) choices. Perhaps this is what God's smiling / weeping alludes to, if it is only an imagery.(additional thought) The scripture,
Nofear Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 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. I had actually come to essentially the same conclusions independently of Paulsen -- and was pleased when I discovered his article. A thread on theodicy would be worthy of attention.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. I don't disagree that my mind, personality, and consciousness as they are currently define who I am. What I assert is that the root, source, foundation of my mind, personality, consciousness comes from matter which behaves indeterminately. Without it... I simply am not. I can replace every particle of matter of my body -- except that fundamental core. And that fundamental core is unique specifically to me, has always existed, has never and never will pertain to another. Given that framework, I have no problem with saying that, in some sense, I have always existed. Mind you, LDS doctrine makes no statement on what it is exactly that has always existed. Other LDS seek different solutions.Let us suppose materialism and that my mind, personality, etc. are the specific results only of the arrangement of the matter of my spirit and physical bodies. If my bodies are then completely disassembled then I would simply cease to exist. This kind of nihilism is not easily accommodated within the framework of Mormonism, at least not as I understand it. Let's go further... let's make two bodies with completely identical arrangements. With identical arrangements then there would be two identical consciousnesses, minds. Could there be two me's? And let's not even get much into the problem of theodicy (saved potentially for another thread) this model allows.Yet, note how both of these scenarios are rendered completely moot by the assumption of a necessary and essential component to define a unique mind, consciousness, personality. We could create two completely identical bodies with their identical arrangements of matter but each of the two bodies would possess distinct components of intelligent matter. They would be different persons (potentially radically different) with different personalities and consciousnesses. Suppose further that for whatever reason both of my bodies where completely annihilated. What of me? Do I cease to exist? No. Rather, the uncreate (and un-destroyable) intelligent matter could be recovered and rebound with new bodies. My old memories would be completely gone and I could be in a very, very different bodies... yet the root of my person would be the same.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. Given that my model stems from several assumptions about reality and that not all of them are fundamental to Mormonism (such as reductionism, rejection of panpsychism, etc.) then my model is certainly not a test of the correctness of Mormonism.PS: It's Nofear, not NoFear.
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 I agree that a God's rejoicing and weeping are responses, not surprise reactions. Not a surprise for for Him, anyway, but to those who thought they had it made (Matthew 25: 31-46) and were approaching the veil, perhaps expecting an "uppermost seat," or for their humble counterparts who realize their plea for grace has been realized.I think that perhaps for a moment at least, in the Judgment, all get to see themselves as they are seen (2 Nephi 9: 46, Mosiah 3: 24-25) before they either shrink away (Mosiah 3: 25) or enter into His presence (D&C 121: 32). At that time, the veil is rent and we face the results of our own informed (whether from a standpoint of pride or humility) choices. Perhaps this is what God's smiling / weeping alludes to, if it is only an imagery.(additional thought) The scripture,
Uncertain Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Ok well thanks for humoring me- it helps to let me know it is not that theologically important to you as well because I could not figure out what all the fuss was about.I presented the analogy of an embryo, which you replied that you would not consider as "you" which seems reasonable. I disagree, and think that embryos are in fact "persons" and that when I was one, I was still "me", but it is reasonable to believe otherwise.I still wonder how you handle the question that if I was unconscious, perhaps even on artificial life support and not technically "alive", and let us say for purposes of argument, non-sentient and unconscious, if I would still be "me", and if so, how that is an exception to your view.Hi mfbukowski, Sorry for the delayed response things have been very busy. You are correct I do not view an embryo as a person at least a early term embryo that has not yet developed a nervous system. In this I assumed I am in agreement with the LDS church since the church does allow abortions under certain circumstances i.e.(rape etc) and this is only justifiable if an embryo is not a person. Since killing a person because their mother got raped is of course indefensible. In order to not be misunderstood I am not arguing sentience, personality and a mind are necessary conditions to define person hood. But they are necessary conditions to define an entity who possesses sentience, personality and mind. With regards to unconsciousness it is my view that if my mind, personality and sentience are not present I am not present. For example if a powerful being placed me into a coma for all eternity such that I lost my sentience, mind and personality with my body still being present this in my mind is murder. Although my body is an essential component of who I am it is not the total of who I am. I am a distinct mind with a distinct personality that is dependent on my body but is not defined only by the matter that makes up my body. Best,Uncertain
Uncertain Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 I had actually come to essentially the same conclusions independently of Paulsen -- and was pleased when I discovered his article. A thread on theodicy would be worthy of attention.Aah the problem of evil a classic! Currently I am pinched for time but perhaps in a week or so would totally be up for a theodicy thread. I had actually come to essentially the same conclusions independently of Paulsen -- and was pleased when I discovered his article. A thread on theodicy would be worthy of attention.I don't disagree that my mind, personality, and consciousness as they are currently define who I am. What I assert is that the root, source, foundation of my mind, personality, consciousness comes from matter which behaves indeterminately. Without it... I simply am not. I can replace every particle of matter of my body -- except that fundamental core. And that fundamental core is unique specifically to me, has always existed, has never and never will pertain to another. Given that framework, I have no problem with saying that, in some sense, I have always existed. Mind you, LDS doctrine makes no statement on what it is exactly that has always existed. Other LDS seek different solutions.Let us suppose materialism and that my mind, personality, etc. are the specific results only of the arrangement of the matter of my spirit and physical bodies. If my bodies are then completely disassembled then I would simply cease to exist. This kind of nihilism is not easily accommodated within the framework of Mormonism, at least not as I understand it. Let's go further... let's make two bodies with completely identical arrangements. With identical arrangements then there would be two identical consciousnesses, minds. Could there be two me's? And let's not even get much into the problem of theodicy (saved potentially for another thread) this model allows.(bold added by me)Herein lies the nub of our disagreement. I am fine stating intelligences have always existed. I am not fine stating because intelligences have always existed I have always existed. Because as you state in the bold as I define ME I possess mind, personality and consciousness. Now if it is your claim that LDS theology does not require that I have always existed only that intelligences have always existed I am fine with that statement. It is not the eternal existence of intelligences I have a problem with it is equating intelligences with me a sentient entity. I disagree that because a component is key it therefore defines all of me. Hence if that component existed forever I have existed forever. PS: It's Nofear, not NoFear. Sorry about this I promise no offense was intended. In any case due to other time restrictions I am going to have to bow out of this discussion. I look forward to reading your reply I will probably not respond. Have a great week. Best,Uncertain
CV75 Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Great stuff! Thanks for sharing!No, thank you!
Nofear Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Herein lies the nub of our disagreement. I am fine stating intelligences have always existed. I am not fine stating because intelligences have always existed I have always existed. Because as you state in the bold as I define ME I possess mind, personality and consciousness. Now if it is your claim that LDS theology does not require that I have always existed only that intelligences have always existed I am fine with that statement. It is not the eternal existence of intelligences I have a problem with it is equating intelligences with me a sentient entity. I disagree that because a component is key it therefore defines all of me. Hence if that component existed forever I have existed forever. So, the quibble boils down to semantics as to what constitutes ME -- but the ontological assertions are not a particular problem. I'm fine with that. Personally, I prefer the interpretation of identity which denies the possibility of true nihilism, but that's just me.Anyway, thanks for your input and pointed questions. The discussion helped me narrow and focus my own ideas and I really ought to write them up for Mormon Dialogue or some such journal. It also so happens that just last night an interpretation of D&C 93:30 that makes sense to me, for the scripture had been problematic. I shan't bother with sharing them as I generally don't put much stock in others' exegeses of D&C 93 -- and so weight the value of my own personal interpretations of that section to others similarly. But I credit the thinking this thread provoked for the impetus to the insight. Thanks. Enjoy your week.
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Just to quote my favorite author, myself: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.On the other hand, maybe I have been inspired by Charlie Sheen.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.