Mormon Materialism?

[Nofear]

I am not quite sure why you feel we need the dualism, and I am not sure I see the distinction between intelligence and spirit?

For the reason I specified... any material substance to comply with libertarian free will has to depart from the same kind of deterministic matter that we now understand. While I don't quite understand what those departures would need to be (it's on my queue of things to think about after I work out the ftl issues (which I am much closer to, exciting stuff)) but I rather suspect that the departures would disallow it from being a viable substance to construct complex structures (like a body, physical or spirit).

Though, I do grumble a bit at the accusation of dualism as that's usually meant to describe a physical and mental bifurcation. But I am definitely positing that the universe is host to three fundamentally different kinds of matter: physical matter (best described by the Standard Model), spirit matter (which may well have its own version of the a "Standard Model"), and intelligent matter (non-deterministic matter that obeys very different rules of physics).

In the good old days....

I did wonder if he wrote that before his meltdown paradigm adjustment.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Nofear

[mfbukowski]

For the reason I specified... any material substance to comply with libertarian free will has to depart from the same kind of deterministic matter that we now understand. While I don't quite understand what those departures would need to be (it's on my queue of things to think about after I work out the ftl issues (which I am much closer to, exciting stuff)) but I rather suspect that the departures would disallow it from being a viable substance to construct complex structures (like a body, physical or spirit).

Though, I do grumble a bit at the accusation of dualism as that's usually meant to describe a physical and mental bifurcation. But I am definitely positing that the universe is host to three fundamentally different kinds of matter: physical matter (best described by the Standard Model), spirit matter (which may well have its own version of the a "Standard Model"), and intelligent matter (non-deterministic matter that obeys very different rules of physics).

I did wonder if he wrote that before his meltdown paradigm adjustment.

I don't get it at all.

I suspect we should talk about it some more- here, there, or anywhere would be fine with me.

I am kind of a Wittgensteinian and see these problems as more "semantic" to put it into one word than anything. It's all in how you define the words to me, and sometimes we can get all confused by words alone. Wittgenstein would say that by examining the language, one would make the alleged problems of free will and determinism or indeterminism etc vanish.

After all, you WILL decide whether or not to respond to this post- and the metaphysics just becomes hocus pocus at some point. At least that is what I think. But I am kind of simple-minded about this stuff.

I won't push it.

Edited August 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

Thanks for that! Highly relevant I think, especially that light, heat and magnetism were considered "matter".

And all that long before that Eisenstein guy . . .

[shalamabobbi]

For the reason I specified... any material substance to comply with libertarian free will has to depart from the same kind of deterministic matter that we now understand. While I don't quite understand what those departures would need to be (it's on my queue of things to think about after I work out the ftl issues (which I am much closer to, exciting stuff)) but I rather suspect that the departures would disallow it from being a viable substance to construct complex structures (like a body, physical or spirit).

Though, I do grumble a bit at the accusation of dualism as that's usually meant to describe a physical and mental bifurcation. But I am definitely positing that the universe is host to three fundamentally different kinds of matter: physical matter (best described by the Standard Model), spirit matter (which may well have its own version of the a "Standard Model"), and intelligent matter (non-deterministic matter that obeys very different rules of physics).

I did wonder if he wrote that before his meltdown paradigm adjustment.

Interesting in this article is the idea of protecting the public from the knowledge that they have no free will since it makes them "choose" to behave badly..

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/

[Nofear]

I don't get it at all.

I suspect we should talk about it some more- here, there, or anywhere would be fine with me.

I'm not that motivated to spend a lot of time on it. The main point is that 1) many Mormons tend to think of our theology as a form of materialism but 2) we don't have any particular model and are still stuck in the realm of metaphysics so 3) our claim to a materialistic theology is somewhat subjective.

I categorize my personal interpretations of our theology as a materialistic cosmology but as there are about as many metaphysical cosmologies out there among the membership as there are members who bother to think about it, I'm not all that motivated to evangelize my particular interpretation (at least not yet ).

[mfbukowski]

I'm not that motivated to spend a lot of time on it. The main point is that 1) many Mormons tend to think of our theology as a form of materialism but 2) we don't have any particular model and are still stuck in the realm of metaphysics so 3) our claim to a materialistic theology is somewhat subjective.

I categorize my personal interpretations of our theology as a materialistic cosmology but as there are about as many metaphysical cosmologies out there among the membership as there are members who bother to think about it, I'm not all that motivated to evangelize my particular interpretation (at least not yet ).

OK, I agree. I think you have pointed out correctly that Mormons definitely tend toward some kind of materialism, but I don't think anyone has really worked out all the details if we ever will. That's pretty much the way I feel about it as well.

That kind of position I think just needs to leave it alone, since in principle it is a scientific way of looking at things- that theoretically some kind of interaction happens between what we now call spirit and matter, but that it will eventually be discovered that shows that they are one. Another way of seeing that would be to take the position that consciousness is an actual force in the universe as yet undefined- that is kind of the way I might put it.

The important point is the implied naturalism in Mormonism- we think that God is subject to natural law and is part of the universe as opposed to transcendent- on the other hand, I think many of us wonder if the idea of transcendence even makes sense. It's not like we are limiting God by making him immanent- it's more that we have trouble with Platonism and it's related ideas, which means that universals are somehow "real" if you want to get philosophically a little technical.

But for now that IS a "metaphysical" position which means it is now out of the realm of scientific inquiry, and I think that we all acknowedge that. That means in effect that we take it on faith.

The other part of this is that if God is immanent and is part of, and somehow something like the Light of Christ is an actual force of nature, he is subject in principle to natural laws, and that is also one of our beliefs. The notion that he "organized" the universe by natural, now unknown, forces as opposed to calling it into existence ex nihilo is also part and parcel of believing in a immanent God.

So that is how this notion of materialism ultimately really pervades Mormonism- it is part of our creation story, it is in the nature of God as a man with a glorified physical body, it is part of our understanding of ethical and scientific principles being part of natural law. It is found in the way Brigham Young saw the creation of Adam, and the incarnation of Christ. That naturalism is in our notion of the Millenium and how the earth will be changed. It is in our doctrine that families can be sealed together forever, and that we are sons and daughters of our Father, and will be able to "grow up" and become like him. It is in our notion of the spirit world- which it is said is "all around us" and yet invisible and that spirit is somehow material but yet "more refined".

You don't need references to show that Mormonism is materialistic and naturalistic- it pervades and is implied in every scriptural passage and every statement made by prophets and every Ensign article.

Some people don't recognize that, but only because they have not thought it all through. The gospel has been restored- Greek Neoplatonism has no place in it. If some don't recognize that yet, they will eventually. It's inevitable. The only place where Neoplatonism is even considered seriously today is in Catholic Universities because they have no choice.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting in this article is the idea of protecting the public from the knowledge that they have no free will since it makes them "choose" to behave badly..

http://blogs.scienti...stop-believing/

Ah- I hadn't seen this post before I posted the last one- I think I get it now!

Scientists really need to stay out of the philosophy business! They just don't get it most of the time!

Edit: wait a minute! Anybody got Templeton's address? If they want to throw their money away, I think I just became a scientist......

Edited August 27, 2012 by mfbukowski