Uncreated Intelligences?

[Nofear]

I am coming from D&C 93:30, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” I suppose this is not very philosophical.

Trying not to repeat my prior posts (your review of which would probably better flesh out for you where I am coming from), this is what I can offer from D&C 93:30 in light of these questions:

Where intelligence acts for itself, it behaves, in its full expression, indeterministically (God remains God under any set of conditions others may perceive He is faced with, for He is perfectly aligned and compatible with His own conditions). If it didn’t, there would be no existence, material or immaterial, however one defines these, at least from the perspective and experience God is describing in D&C 93:30. Because of this, I do not understand how intelligence could be an object, unless you also view spirits, people and God as objects.

Otherwise I view intelligence as a “self” that “acts for itself” and in our case is recognizably human. Granted, gametes are recognizably human as well, as are the parents, but as the parent in this way is also his own co-existing children (and vice-versa), so is God His own co-existing intelligences.

When intelligence does not act for itself, which it can choose to do, it becomes more determinate in its behavior. To me, to “act for itself” means to act as God does. Another way of saying this is, intelligence exercises agency within the constraints of ungodly conditions it has placed itself in, and without such constraint in godly conditions, which is “that sphere in which where God has placed it.” God placing it does not mean intelligence is deterministic, it means that God’s intelligences are with Him all along.

D&C 93 is notoriously difficult to interpret and I've seen about as many different interpretations of the section as I have seen members who have deigned to communicate their own exegisis. Consequently, I put very very little weight into the opinions of those whose sole reasoning about the nature of intelligence resides in their own private interpretation of section 93. I have my own intepretation and it both informs and coincides with my reasonings. But I do not expect it to be relevant to helping others understand my perspective and so very rarely share it.

That said, we seem to be both in agreement that intelligence must act indetermistically (this would make you a free will libertarian by the way). We also seem to agree that which you seem to intuit -- a mere simple object can't have moral agency. I make explicit that reasoning by arguing that moral agency requires more than indeterminism. It also needs vast amounts of information. So, there we both agree a simple entity/object/substance/whatever can't have moral agency.

From there we have two choices to make:

1. Intelligence must be complex. Being also uncreate, they must be complex into the infinite past.

2. Intelligence only acquires moral agency when it is coupled to a mechanism allowing it access information (e.g. a spirit body).

If I understand you correctly... you want to assert #1 and do so based on your own intperpretation of D&C 93. I have my own reasonings to take path #2 (i.e. the idea of complex structures existing into the infinite path is an aesthetic anethema). But, I don't begrudge those who choose path #1 -- atleast not on the surface of it. Dig a bit deeper and were I to find you arguing for some kind of strong emergence than I would disdain the argument. But, I really can't presume much about your position because all I've seen so far is some hand-wavy arguments based on interpretations of scripture. /shrug

[mfbukowski]

How can intelligent matter act for itself? I think intelligent matter can behave indeterministically. If I could answer how it acted, it would be deterministic. A rather unsatisfying answer philosophically speaking, but I have other issues with the model that concern me more. Plus, it's a problem answer that generically plagues believers in libertarian free will. Do you believe in libertarian free will or are you a compatibilist? Are you a materialist or do you hold to the reality of immaterial substances? Where are you coming from and then I can tailor my responses accordingly. In my original post, I tried to be explicit about some of my foundational premises.

If you take these as propositions, and symbolize them, and try to show that they are logically inconsistent, I think you will find that none of these really have much to do with each other logically; in other words, they are not as logically inconsistent as you may think they are at first blush.

Discussions of "isms" are necessarily generic, no real person is ever a full-blown proponent of any "ism". In other words, there are holes and exceptions and twists in every real person's view of these matters, so saying one "ism" is incompatible with another "ism" is often too generic a statement to account for the particular positions of individual philosophers.

Another way of saying this is that the terms are so ambiguous - cloud like perhaps as a metaphor- that the "clouds" might appear to overlap but really just be full of holes.

Or yet another metaphor- when you zoom in close enough on objects, you find they are mostly holes!

Objective determinism, for example is not at all incompatible with subjective freedom.

Edited November 16, 2011 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

D&C 93 is notoriously difficult to interpret and I've seen about as many different interpretations of the section as I have seen members who have deigned to communicate their own exegisis. Consequently, I put very very little weight into the opinions of those whose sole reasoning about the nature of intelligence resides in their own private interpretation of section 93. I have my own intepretation and it both informs and coincides with my reasonings. But I do not expect it to be relevant to helping others understand my perspective and so very rarely share it.

That said, we seem to be both in agreement that intelligence must act indetermistically (this would make you a free will libertarian by the way). We also seem to agree that which you seem to intuit -- a mere simple object can't have moral agency. I make explicit that reasoning by arguing that moral agency requires more than indeterminism. It also needs vast amounts of information. So, there we both agree a simple entity/object/substance/whatever can't have moral agency.

From there we have two choices to make:

1. Intelligence must be complex. Being also uncreate, they must be complex into the infinite past.

2. Intelligence only acquires moral agency when it is coupled to a mechanism allowing it access information (e.g. a spirit body).

If I understand you correctly... you want to assert #1 and do so based on your own intperpretation of D&C 93. I have my own reasonings to take path #2 (i.e. the idea of complex structures existing into the infinite path is an aesthetic anethema). But, I don't begrudge those who choose path #1 -- atleast not on the surface of it. Dig a bit deeper and were I to find you arguing for some kind of strong emergence than I would disdain the argument. But, I really can't presume much about your position because all I've seen so far is some hand-wavy arguments based on interpretations of scripture. /shrug

God’s reasoning is reflected in the scriptures, and they can facilitate understanding (D& 50:10). I think sharing scriptural insights from the same source can prevent the hand-wavy and the philosophically-constipated from serving as barriers to understanding.

Another choice is a fusion of the two you presented, as in the principle of the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and of seeing the end from the beginning, each of these principles dependent on the span of agency exercised in using them. On one hand I can see uncreated intelligence as #1 (post #68), ever unchanging as man but being added upon. I can also see it as #2 (post #75), recognizably human at any stage of being added upon.

But “uncreated man” is not necessarily complex (or complex to someone). Complexity does not equate to man’s increase or progress, especially when his past, present and future are considered simultaneously. As intelligence acts for itself, it assesses complexity and reducibility according to the particular level of agency it possesses and uses. God of course does this to perfection: are His children and creations complex (and/or not) and reducible (and/or not) to Him?

[Cobalt-70]

Unless I am highly mistaken, no one has ever seen or experienced a "bit", but the behavior of electrons can be observed.

According to the latest in modern physics, a "bit" is not just a linguistic convention. Rather, the "bit" content of the universe is the only thing that is real. See, e.g., John Archibald Wheeler's famous 1990 article, "It from Bit." Not only that, but even more strangely, the information content of the universe is actually two-dimensional. The bit content of the three-dimensional reality can only be described as a two dimensional surface. (Sort of like a hologram.) If you try to fit any more information within a given volume than could fit within the two-dimensional surface defining that volume, it turns into a black hole.

So what does that mean? If you say that "intelligence" is information, then the entire universe is created out of "intelligence." Matter is merely a manifestation of intelligence, and there is no matter/energy without intelligence. Because all information is quantum information, and is therefore unpredictable, you could say that all matter/intelligence has "free will." Also, intelligence, if it is information, can never be destroyed and is thus immortal according to modern physics. The only significant disparity, however, is that in modern physics, information (though not matter/energy) can be created. Anything you do, in fact, creates information--a kind of two-dimensional "record in heaven"--not that any human would be able to decipher that two-dimensional record.

[mfbukowski]

According to the latest in modern physics, a "bit" is not just a linguistic convention. Rather, the "bit" content of the universe is the only thing that is real. See, e.g., John Archibald Wheeler's famous 1990 article, "It from Bit." Not only that, but even more strangely, the information content of the universe is actually two-dimensional. The bit content of the three-dimensional reality can only be described as a two dimensional surface. (Sort of like a hologram.) If you try to fit any more information within a given volume than could fit within the two-dimensional surface defining that volume, it turns into a black hole.

So what does that mean? If you say that "intelligence" is information, then the entire universe is created out of "intelligence." Matter is merely a manifestation of intelligence, and there is no matter/energy without intelligence.

No problem so far. I see it a little differently but I think it amounts to the same thing. As a linguistic constructivist, I would say that "the only reality we can talk about is language"- so in a very real way, reality is language. I don't understand the black hole part though.

Because all information is quantum information, and is therefore unpredictable,

Lost me.

you could say that all matter/intelligence has "free will." Also, intelligence, if it is information, can never be destroyed and is thus immortal according to modern physics. The only significant disparity, however, is that in modern physics, information (though not matter/energy) can be created. Anything you do, in fact, creates information--a kind of two-dimensional "record in heaven"--not that any human would be able to decipher that two-dimensional record.

I think I just found the black hole by falling into it. Don't understand.

But what I do know is this is all talk. Literally. Physics is description in either a natural language or math, another natural language.

If it's written in symbolic characters, or spoken, it's "information" and that's all we can talk about. Everything else is inexpressible.

Edited November 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

God’s reasoning is reflected in the scriptures, and they can facilitate understanding (D& 50:10). I think sharing scriptural insights from the same source can prevent the hand-wavy and the philosophically-constipated from serving as barriers to understanding.

I resemble that remark.

Speaking of which, I haven't had a chance to read your scriptures and respond yet, but I haven't forgotten

[cdowis]

I have difficulty with the concept of Satan as an intelligence, and Christ. Why and how did they become so different? Was this something inherent in their nature, starting as intelligences, or was this the end-result of the choices they had made prior to the Great Council.

What made them so different?

[Cobalt-70]

No problem so far. I see it a little differently but I think it amounts to the same thing. As a linguistic constructivist, I would say that "the only reality we can talk about is language"- so in a very real way, reality is language. I don't understand the black hole part though.

I agree that the only reality we can "talk" about is language, because talking is a form of language. But I disagree that reality is language--I'd say that reality is text. Text is more materialist than language, and for that reason it should appeal to Mormons who have always been suspicious of the Platonic logos. Text is more like writing than speech, and includes markings created, transmitted, received, or processed without the necessity of construction by any mind or will. All information (by the physics definition, or by whatever other definition you might choose) is text. But all information is not language.

As to the black hole part, this is a consequence of modern physics. A black hole is an entity containing the maximal amount of information (i.e., entropy) within a bounded space. When a fixed volume of space becomes filled with too much information, it becomes a black hole, and it becomes impossible for that volume of space to hold more information. (Though we are talking about a mind-boggling amount of information.) This is the reason why, if God is part of this universe, as the standard Mormon theology teaches, yet only the size of a human being, then he is not truly omniscient. The Mormon God cannot process faster than, or hold more information than, a black hole the size of a human being.

(because all information is quantum information, it is unpredictable)

Lost me.

Because information is measured in quantum bits (qbits), which are superpositions of a large number of possible states. Unlike computer bits, which are either "1" or "0", a qbit is a combination of "1" and "0". If you measure it, the qbit will choose either "1" or "0" in an unpredictable way. All you can predict are the probabilities, not the outcomes. So it looks a lot like the Mormon idea of agency.

But what I do know is this is all talk. Literally. Physics is description in either a natural language or math, another natural language.

If it's written in symbolic characters, or spoken, it's "information" and that's all we can talk about. Everything else is inexpressible.

What I'm saying is that even if it is not written in symbolic characters, it is still text or, more specifically, information. And I disagree that there exists anything that is inexpressible in information or text--though language, which requires a human mind or will, is limited in its expressiveness by the limitations of the mind or will that constructs it.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that the only reality we can "talk" about is language, because talking is a form of language. But I disagree that reality is language--I'd say that reality is text. Text is more materialist than language, and for that reason it should appeal to Mormons who have always been suspicious of the Platonic logos. Text is more like writing than speech, and includes markings created, transmitted, received, or processed without the necessity of construction by any mind or will. All information (by the physics definition, or by whatever other definition you might choose) is text. But all information is not language.

As to the black hole part, this is a consequence of modern physics. A black hole is an entity containing the maximal amount of information (i.e., entropy) within a bounded space. When a fixed volume of space becomes filled with too much information, it becomes a black hole, and it becomes impossible for that volume of space to hold more information. (Though we are talking about a mind-boggling amount of information.) This is the reason why, if God is part of this universe, as the standard Mormon theology teaches, yet only the size of a human being, then he is not truly omniscient. The Mormon God cannot process faster than, or hold more information than, a black hole the size of a human being.

Because information is measured in quantum bits (qbits), which are superpositions of a large number of possible states. Unlike computer bits, which are either "1" or "0", a qbit is a combination of "1" and "0". If you measure it, the qbit will choose either "1" or "0" in an unpredictable way. All you can predict are the probabilities, not the outcomes. So it looks a lot like the Mormon idea of agency.

What I'm saying is that even if it is not written in symbolic characters, it is still text or, more specifically, information. And I disagree that there exists anything that is inexpressible in information or text--though language, which requires a human mind or will, is limited in its expressiveness by the limitations of the mind or will that constructs it.

And what is this theory called? Who is it's prime proponent?

[Calm]

I resemble that remark.

Are you sure with the level of both your verbal fluency and frequency you aren't more of the philosophically diarrheatic variety? . I believe doctors distinguish between the disorders by counting the grunt to word ratio.

[Cobalt-70]

And what is this theory called? Who is it's prime proponent?

If you are talking about the physics part, it is quantum information theory. It is standard modern physics. The religious parts are my own, and the part about "text" is postmodern critical theory.

[shalamabobbi]

And what is this theory called? Who is it's prime proponent?

Try "The Black Hole War" by Susskind, a very interesting read.

[Storm Rider]

I have difficulty with the concept of Satan as an intelligence, and Christ. Why and how did they become so different? Was this something inherent in their nature, starting as intelligences, or was this the end-result of the choices they had made prior to the Great Council.

What made them so different?

I feel the same way; Jesus is more important to me than anyone else. I believe he was different in all ways. I don't think he was a member of the Godhead by accident. Yes, he is/was the Son of God in all ways, but there is something more than that. He was with the Father from the very first; he is unique in every way. He was God while still a spirit; his mortal existence only allowed him to gain a body.

No other Christian group has really be able to explain the reason for the resurrection; the purpose of reuniting a physical body with the spritual. I am not even sure that LDS are able to understand the full implications, but it is evident that the physcial body is of more value than most give it credit. It also tells me that the Father has just such a body.

[CV75]

I resemble that remark.

Speaking of which, I haven't had a chance to read your scriptures and respond yet, but I haven't forgotten

I look forward to your thoughts!

[CV75]

Are you sure with the level of both your verbal fluency and frequency you aren't more of the philosophically diarrheatic variety? . I believe doctors distinguish between the disorders by counting the grunt to word ratio.

There's also the hand-wavy part... and also, mathematicians work it all out with a pencil and paper.

[CV75]

I have difficulty with the concept of Satan as an intelligence, and Christ. Why and how did they become so different? Was this something inherent in their nature, starting as intelligences, or was this the end-result of the choices they had made prior to the Great Council.

What made them so different?

My two cents:

Intelligence acts for itself, otherwise there is no existence. In acting for itself, it ensures existence. As it acts for itself it can expand or diminish itself and its existence. It expands by adding truth and light to itself and contracts diminishes by rejecting these things.

As it expands, the frontier between what it is and what it isn’t also expands—and so does the frontier between what it knows it knows and what it knows it doesn’t know. So faith is exercised in that which is true but not seen in order to enter that unknown territory and expand more. The same dynamic continues in the spirit and mortal worlds. This may be how Jesus became as He is, as an intelligence, spirit and mortal.

Intelligence may also experience a pride cycle of sorts: expansion to a point where it is satisfied that it knows it knows so much that it becomes threatened (proud, fearful, envious) of what it knows it doesn’t know. It may seek a false comfort or exaltation by establishing a limit, refusing to see what it knows it doesn’t know, and through competitional advantage take away from other intelligence or prevent other intelligence from progressing. Such intelligence probably does not advance into the spirit estate for reasons explained below, but this may be how Satan became as he is in the spirit world.

Intelligence can expand and diminish. Just as certain spirits qualified to come into the mortal world, some intelligences qualified to advance into the spirit world. In the same way, certain mortals will qualify through the Atonement to advance into exaltation. Those that do not qualify for advancement from intelligence to spirit or from spirit to mortality are on a path to stagnate or diminish until such occasion they might be offered an opportunity to repent, which seems to be denied or impossible under some circumstances.

Edited November 17, 2011 by CV75

[Nofear]

If you take these as propositions, and symbolize them, and try to show that they are logically inconsistent, I think you will find that none of these really have much to do with each other logically; in other words, they are not as logically inconsistent as you may think they are at first blush.

Perhaps so. Make your case by demonsrating that.

Discussions of "isms" are necessarily generic, no real person is ever a full-blown proponent of any "ism". In other words, there are holes and exceptions and twists in every real person's view of these matters, so saying one "ism" is incompatible with another "ism" is often too generic a statement to account for the particular positions of individual philosophers.

Another way of saying this is that the terms are so ambiguous - cloud like perhaps as a metaphor- that the "clouds" might appear to overlap but really just be full of holes.

Or yet another metaphor- when you zoom in close enough on objects, you find they are mostly holes!

Objective determinism, for example is not at all incompatible with subjective freedom.

I thought you had repented of this whole categories-are-hardly-ever-useful position? Ah well.

[Nofear]

But “uncreated man” is not necessarily complex (or complex to someone). Complexity does not equate to man’s increase or progress, especially when his past, present and future are considered simultaneously. As intelligence acts for itself, it assesses complexity and reducibility according to the particular level of agency it possesses and uses. God of course does this to perfection: are His children and creations complex (and/or not) and reducible (and/or not) to Him?

By "complex" we are to mean composed of constituent parts. An electron is "simple". A proton more "complex" (being composed of quarks), a cell "complex", and a human body incredibly "complex".

That doesn't mean for an intelligence to progress, it must necessarily be more complex. We simply don't know how intelligences operate. Some are more "intelligent" than others. I interpret this as the ability to respond to information more effectively than others. I also suspect it refers to some aspect of reality that we are essentially completely ignorant to. But that's just a hunch and can't really support the idea with any reasoning.

Anyway, it is clear to me that our worldviews about the material nature of the universe are somewhat divergent (mainly -- I don't think you truly believe the universe is only material or don't understand what that really entails). Consequently, our scriptural interpretations on intelligences, spirits, and so on must necessarily disagree. That's not a problem. The tent of Mormonism is broad enough for both views.

[CV75]

That doesn't mean for an intelligence to progress, it must necessarily be more complex.

I agree with this completely.

My 3^rd choice only introduces the idea that from a “generational” perspective, the individual intelligence (self, person) is materially (physically) simple and irreducible, and is also materially complex and reducible. I use “generational” to convey the single intelligence in the many ways it might express itself, as follows:

Intelligence is eternal and coexists with other intelligence, making all intelligence, or reality, one simple, irreducible entity.

In acting for itself, intelligence expresses itself differentially, and these differentiations express themselves individually in the sphere into which they have differentiated (been placed). This differentiation of the same single unit may be considered complex and reducible by individual, differentiated intelligences that do not comprehend what they or others really are. These are those who are alone; separate from, or at enmity with the whole, or not one with God.

God is one with generations of intelligences that have differentiated into gods and with generations of intelligences that have differentiated from Him and then reintegrated with Him. As complex an entity as “gods many” might appear, it is still a single “God” (D&C 121:28).

[CV75]

Anyway, it is clear to me that our worldviews about the material nature of the universe are somewhat divergent (mainly -- I don't think you truly believe the universe is only material or don't understand what that really entails). Consequently, our scriptural interpretations on intelligences, spirits, and so on must necessarily disagree. That's not a problem. The tent of Mormonism is broad enough for both views.

I agree with this also. I do believe the universe is only material, but again from the perspective I described involving differentiation where the material might be considered to be immaterial ("sphere" can also involve dimension).

[Nofear]

I agree with this also. I do believe the universe is only material, but again from the perspective I described involving differentiation where the material might be considered to be immaterial ("sphere" can also involve dimension).

I appreciate the exchange we had. When I finally get around to writing some of my thoughts down for possible publication I have a few more things to be careful about. My arguments stems from a certain basis of premises and is only valid inasmuch as one is willing to accept the premises. So, it becomes quite necessary to clearly establish what those are -- and make sure the words being used mean to the reader what the author intends to mean. Otherwise, one just reads past the argument by making irrelevant counter-arguments. As much as I think of philosophy as mostly human engendered nonsense, the field does a good job at just that -- making sure what is meant is clear so they can debate substance. Alas, most of the internet board debates I've seen are of the invalid refutation type and not truly substantive. Certainly true on this board.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with this also. I do believe the universe is only material, but again from the perspective I described involving differentiation where the material might be considered to be immaterial ("sphere" can also involve dimension).

My mother used to love to shop for "material". "Oh -look - there's a material store!"

To her, it was synonymous with "fabric", or "cloth".

Just pointing out that that word means a lot to a lot of people. It's just a tad ambiguous.

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate the exchange we had. When I finally get around to writing some of my thoughts down for possible publication I have a few more things to be careful about. My arguments stems from a certain basis of premises and is only valid inasmuch as one is willing to accept the premises. So, it becomes quite necessary to clearly establish what those are -- and make sure the words being used mean to the reader what the author intends to mean. Otherwise, one just reads past the argument by making irrelevant counter-arguments. As much as I think of philosophy as mostly human engendered nonsense, the field does a good job at just that -- making sure what is meant is clear so they can debate substance. Alas, most of the internet board debates I've seen are of the invalid refutation type and not truly substantive. Certainly true on this board.

I agree with you completely, but unfortunately there is no escape- many have tried to write unambiguously, but alas, language itself has meaning only contextually, and ever reader will see those words with their own interpretation.

It may be "human engendered nonsense" but if you enter the field you will be in the same category

The problem is that if you use language, you are not speaking about "the world" because all language is metaphor, or "human engendered nonsense"

When you say "chair", fortunately, a chair does not come out of your mouth. That would be uncomfortable. So every word you write will be ambiguous, "human engendered nonsense". Unless perhaps you could have a non-human write it for you in a non-human language.

Unfortunately, that would make it hard to read.

Edited November 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure with the level of both your verbal fluency and frequency you aren't more of the philosophically diarrheatic variety? . I believe doctors distinguish between the disorders by counting the grunt to word ratio.

Oh yeah?

What was that one about the pot and kettle?

[mfbukowski]

If you are talking about the physics part, it is quantum information theory. It is standard modern physics. The religious parts are my own, and the part about "text" is postmodern critical theory.

Ah, so the text part IS what I am saying, or close to it. I consider my positions close to postmodernism-

Try "The Black Hole War" by Susskind, a very interesting read.

Oh yes, of course.

THIS Susskind

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

http://www.scientifi...-boy-of-physics

This article was amazing to read, because it says exactly what I have been saying. I read it when it came out, but certainly did not recognize THIS Susskind from the discussion.

His whole point is that what is "real" depends on the point of view of the observer.

Edited November 17, 2011 by mfbukowski