Gray Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 (edited) On 12/16/2016 at 0:06 PM, pogi said: Did you read more than the first line? Again, you are taking one meaning and use of the word and insisting that it is the only meaning and use. From the link of which I quoted in my last comment: Can you find me a definition of the word "arbitrary" that matches the goal-based moral reasoning of homo sapiens in a hypothetical godless universe? I haven't seen one that fits it yet. Quote Existential nihilism makes sense in the absence of "self" and "agency". Note how this sentence (from the link) uses the word "arbitrary" in the same way that I have used it throughout this thre Using the definition of "objectivity" which I quoted in my last post, the objective existence of God and the objectivity of God can be synonymous in how they are used in a sentence. So I think we are speaking past each other on this subject. I was talking about his objective existence, and I now see that you were talking about his objective perspective. Either way, I would not say that it is Mormon doctrine that his perspective is not objective. We don't know all the qualities of Godhood and it may include an objective perspective which comes with his qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. We don't really know the implications of that, but it could include an objective perspective. Who knows? The problem you have here is in concluding that there is no such thing as self or agency based on the materials you've shared so far. Like so many of your arguments, this too does not follow. If the concept of self is created by our brains, and is not what it seems, it does not follow that it does not exist at all. It follows that our perceptions do not exactly match the reality, which should come as no surprise to anyone. An "illusory" self is still real, because we experience it. It amounts to the same thing as a "real" self, whatever that might mean. We experience selfhood, therefore it is real to us in the only sense that matters to us. "Self" is inherently subjective anyway. Here's a question regarding the objective perspective of God - how could a finite being ever be truly objective about anything? Those who hold to a God whose perspective is objective do so because their God is infinite. Their God was always God, their God created existence itself, their God set up all the rules. The LDS God is none of those things. The LDS God is essentially a super powerful alien father figure, no different in substance from us. How do you derive objectivity from that? Edited December 27, 2016 by Gray 1
pogi Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gray said: Can you find me a definition of the word "arbitrary" that matches the goal-based moral reasoning of homo sapiens in a hypothetical godless universe? I haven't seen one that fits it yet. The problem is that I can't find "goal-based moral reasoning homo sapiens in a hypothetical godless universe". Don't be "absurd"! You are assuming that you have control or some way to direct your future...you don't. You have no more control, meaning, or morality than the moon in it's orbit. In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe. Quote Nihilism is the philosophy that believes that there is no purpose in the universe, and that every choice is arbitrary.[6] According to nihilism, the universe contains no value and is essentially meaningless. Because the universe and all of its constituents contain no higher goal for us to make subgoals from, all aspects of human life and experiences are completely arbitrary. There is no right or wrong decision, thought or practice, and whatever choice a human being makes is just as meaningless and empty as any other choice he or she could have made. http://neofic.com/a-arbitrariness 8 hours ago, Gray said: The problem you have here is in concluding that there is no such thing as self or agency based on the materials you've shared so far. Apparently you know better than Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and neuroscientists like Bruce Hood, because they are the ones who are making the conclusions that free will and the self are illusory. Take it up with those guys if you have a problem with their understanding of physics and neurology. 8 hours ago, Gray said: The problem you have here is in concluding that there is no such thing as self or agency based on the materials you've shared so far. Like so many of your arguments, this too does not follow. If the concept of self is created by our brains, and is not what it seems, it does not follow that it does not exist at all. It follows that our perceptions do not exactly match the reality, which should come as no surprise to anyone. An "illusory" self is still real, because we experience it. It amounts to the same thing as a "real" self, whatever that might mean. I have never made the claim that the illusion is not real, but the part in red is just insane. If your illusory girl friend amounts to a "real" girl friend in your mind, then you might want to see somebody about that. Just sayin'! When you acknowledge that the "self" and "free will" are simply illusions and are as you say "not what they seem", and yet you continue to accept them as something more than meaningless, false perceptions, and misinterpretations, because we "experience" them as something more, then the illusion is no longer just an illusion, but a delusion - that is straight up schizophrenic. To search for meaning in the meaningless is the definition of "absurd". Are you suggesting that we embrace the absurd and welcome the schizophrenic mind? I am fine with acknowledging that the illusion is real, but that doesn't mean that you should believe in it as if it was more than an a false perception or a misinterpretation of information. That's when you start to sound crazy! I for one stop believing in things when I learn that they are "not what they seem". Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi
pogi Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Gray said: Here's a question regarding the objective perspective of God - how could a finite being ever be truly objective about anything? If you are limiting God's attributes to his finite corporeal body, then you simply don't understand the infinite nature of God. Read D&C 88 and the following links and get back with me. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipotent?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipresent?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng = Objective perspective Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi
Meadowchik Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 1. I think this might be a conclusion drawn out of the privileged position of living in relatively wealthy, progressive societies...or of practicing transcendence. 2. There are plenty of problems: man vs the natural world, man vs self, man vs man, man vs death which have always been a struggle with or without religion, but which religion addresses. Christ represents a bridge between all parties, a solution, a mediator, a hope. I believe that faith is the best result of religion and it has the power to move us all forward. We'll be exercising faith even in the eternities.
Gray Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 On 12/27/2016 at 5:44 PM, pogi said: The problem is that I can't find "goal-based moral reasoning homo sapiens in a hypothetical godless universe". Don't be "absurd"! You are assuming that you have control or some way to direct your future...you don't. You have no more control, meaning, or morality than the moon in it's orbit. In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe. The goal is of course the improvement of well-being of the species. It may be subjective, but it exists, and it is goal oriented! On 12/27/2016 at 5:44 PM, pogi said: Apparently you know better than Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and neuroscientists like Bruce Hood, because they are the ones who are making the conclusions that free will and the self are illusory. Take it up with those guys if you have a problem with their understanding of physics and neurology. You continue to overstate your case. On 12/27/2016 at 5:44 PM, pogi said: I have never made the claim that the illusion is not real, but the part in red is just insane. If your illusory girl friend amounts to a "real" girl friend in your mind, then you might want to see somebody about that. Just sayin'! When you acknowledge that the "self" and "free will" are simply illusions and are as you say "not what they seem", and yet you continue to accept them as something more than meaningless, false perceptions, and misinterpretations, because we "experience" them as something more, then the illusion is no longer just an illusion, but a delusion - that is straight up schizophrenic. To search for meaning in the meaningless is the definition of "absurd". Are you suggesting that we embrace the absurd and welcome the schizophrenic mind? It's not schizophrenic at all. Schizophrenic has a specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with how you're using the word. Again, the issue here is you seem to think that subjectivity is somehow a synonym for "doesn't exist". The self is inherently subjective anyway, regardless of whether it is "what is seems" or not. On 12/27/2016 at 5:44 PM, pogi said: I am fine with acknowledging that the illusion is real, but that doesn't mean that you should believe in it as if it was more than an a false perception or a misinterpretation of information. That's when you start to sound crazy! I for one stop believing in things when I learn that they are "not what they seem". MFB may be along to object strenuously at any moment. In the mean time, I will say that selfhood is only experienced subjectively by one person - you! In that case, perception is in fact reality in the only way that actually counts.
Gray Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 On 12/27/2016 at 8:04 PM, pogi said: If you are limiting God's attributes to his finite corporeal body, then you simply don't understand the infinite nature of God. Read D&C 88 and the following links and get back with me. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipotent?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipresent?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng = Objective perspective The Bible dictionary isn't a source of doctrine. It's a pretty weak source, both in doctrinal terms and in terms of Biblical studies (just look up abomination of desolation - they talk about everything except what it actually means). God is no more or less infinite than we are.
pogi Posted January 4, 2017 Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) On 1/4/2017 at 9:07 AM, Gray said: The goal is of course the improvement of well-being of the species. It may be subjective, but it exists, and it is goal oriented! Can subjective well-being be said to be a "goal" if it is nothing more than the chemical modus operandi of your body's cells? If you study anatomy, cellular biology, physiology and pathophysiology, it really appears as if each cell in your body and blood stream are goal oriented, as if they have a mind and a purpose to preserve homeostasis, aka "well-being" of the whole body. The way that your cells react to invading cells and viruses, etc. is absolutely remarkable. They communicate with each other chemically and work as a team to preserve the good of the whole. They act just like humans. What is remarkable is that your body's cells work independent of subjective consciousness. We are not even aware of them most of the time, and don't need to be. Each has their own job and their own role chemically embedded in their nature. Homeostasis is so strongly embedded in the nature of these cells that some will undergo apoptosis (suicide) in order to preserve the good of the whole. It is such a touching human like reaction, until you realize that it truly is just a chemical reaction. These cells don't have a choice but are simply reacting to their chemical environment in accordance with their chemical makeup. Like humans, not all cells are "willing" to make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the good of the whole, rather it is a determined reaction based on their chemical makeup. You have no free control over these cells, and they don't have free control over themselves. Your cells direct everything you do, how you see, hear, taste, touch, and feel emotionally by emitting chemicals and neurotransmitter in response to their environment. The pursuit of "well-being" or homeostasis is chemically embedded in the nature of your cells. You don't have a choice in the matter. A goal implies free-will, but your cells work independent of any illusory will. They control you, not the other way around. Any "goal" other than homeostasis, aka well-being, is nothing more than a chemical imbalance. It is not a choice. On 1/4/2017 at 9:07 AM, Gray said: I will say that selfhood is only experienced subjectively by one person - you! In that case, perception is in fact reality in the only way that actually counts. If our personal perception is the only reality which "actually counts", then ignorance is impossible. We would also have to conclude that nobody else's perception "actually counts" unless it aligns with ours. Rather closed minded approach to life don't you think? Stephen Hawking and Bruce Hood would argue that when you understand, and your perception becomes aware of the workings of nature and neurophysiology, then the self and free-will vanish from this so-called subjective perception, and thus vanish from the only reality that "actually counts" according to you. If you argue that they are ignorant of reality, then you argue against your claim that perception is the only reality that counts. Are you both right? Are there some people who have free will because they believe so and others who don't because they don't believe in it? Or, is it more likely that one of you are truly ignorant of the bigger picture? Quote The Bible dictionary isn't a source of doctrine. It's a pretty weak source, both in doctrinal terms and in terms of Biblical studies (just look up abomination of desolation - they talk about everything except what it actually means). God is no more or less infinite than we are. The Bible dictionary? Did you even open the links? I gave you scriptural references on the topics. Mormonism, and the scriptures teach that God has the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. You don't quite have the infinite perspective God does do you Gray? One more question, when God's all seeing eye and absolute perspective does not align with your limited perspective, who's perspective of reality "actually counts" in the end? Will you be a law unto yourself? Quote You continue to overstate your case. Umm...no, actually all of those scientists do indeed make this case. Have I overstated their claims? Where? Edited January 5, 2017 by pogi
Recommended Posts