Are cureloms imaginary?

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This begs a question for me that maybe we can start on another thread...is any emotion evidence?  Why and why not?

Emotion can be evidence. Being angry is clear evidence I'm angry. So an emotion is evidence for the representation of that emotion.

Many states though are complex states (say love) which require emotion to know we hold the complex state. So emotion is a key evidence for knowing I'm in love with my wife for example.

The place of emotions in epistemology is an active field right now in epistemology. One of the big debates is whether emotions were present in epistemology all along as part of intuitions. The other argument, influenced more by cognitive science, is that emotions are actually epistemic judgments that the brain engages in. This is actually reasonably well understood although it's being broadened to comprehensive neurological-economic models. But if you think about it disgust is usually taken to either be an emotion or have a strong emotional component. Yet the biological importance of disgust is fairly well understood especially as tied to instinct. A good example of this is the fairly high level of cognitive processing that is constantly going on in the brain for kin detection. Usually kin detection processes result in emotional reactions dependent upon the actions one is engaging with. As such it seems undeniable that it is largely an unconscious but reasonably accurate conclusion.

Edited July 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Huh? It shows Hebrew usage due to the explanation of faith and truth. That is the argument is the metaphor is the explanation. 

You're seeing a correlation between Hebrew concepts and language. That doesn't make the use in BoM "Hebrew usage". The far more obvious reason there is correlation all come from the context of a 19th c. English-speaking American.

 

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As you test the object you learn about the object. That information let's call partially knowledge or knowledge of a part of the object. We can call that knowledge(1). As more information about the object is unveiled as it presents itself eventually you know the object. Let's call this knowledge(2). 

That's not what Alma 32 says. You are saying that there is some form of active interaction with the thing that causes it to grow from seed to full flower.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

The choice, the act is in planting the seed. I.e. giving it place in your heart. This idea that faith comes from reasoning isn't in the text itself. I'd argue the text is pretty clear that reason, if it contradicts the presupposed position one has to accept in order to give space to the seed in the first place, is considered damaging to the process.

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's the same choice. You can give it a place or cast it out. No counter-evidence is mentioned in the chapter. What verse are you getting that from? The unbelief is the starting point analogous to partial faith or desire. For some people unbelief means they won't even try the test. The resist part is to not even give a place where the spirit can act. It happens before not after. It's not due to counter-evidence but lack of evidence.

There are two sides to the verses. One contains "spirit", feelings, swellings, etc. The other - casting out the seed due to unbelief. Where does unbelief come from? Evidence that the thing being considered through faith isn't what it claims to be. This isn't a matter of desiring to not believe. Something comes along and causes a person to resist the feelings the chapter calls the "Spirit of the Lord".

Alma 32 is not about a reasoned epistemic approach to discovering truth. It's about choosing faith and finding spiritual knowledge. Choices are associated with faith, knowledge comes passively. The action in relation to knowledge later in the chapter is about maintaining and strengthening this passively acquired state it differentiates from faith because one has felt feels.

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It never says emotion. Rather it's arguing for something discernible i.e. empiric. The whole point is "it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yeah it beginneth to be delicious." Now I suppose you could say desire is emotion. I wouldn't, but if that's what you mean I'll not oppose that. However that's only a very small part. The point is that there are consequences to acting on the words and the emphasis is on knowledge/mind.

I'm not saying desire is emotion. I'm saying the chapter is clear that the fruit of faith or knowledge is confirmed through feelings rather than the result of a well grounded reasoning process. Here's what it says -

behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

"When you feel these swelling motions"...? Clark, you're better than this. The chapter is clear where faith starts, what it requires, and that it transitions into knowledge which is passively gained by resisting challenges to one's faith and feeling the right feels. Then one is asked to not neglect the knowledge and keep feeling the feels.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

This is no way to come to truth. It's a pretty good way to resist counter evidence and entrench one's self in one's predetermined biases.

[Honorentheos]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Emotion can be evidence. Being angry is clear evidence I'm angry. So an emotion is evidence for the representation of that emotion.

Many states though are complex states (say love) which require emotion to know we hold the complex state. So emotion is a key evidence for knowing I'm in love with my wife for example.

The place of emotions in epistemology is an active field right now in epistemology. One of the big debates is whether emotions were present in epistemology all along as part of intuitions. The other argument, influenced more by cognitive science, is that emotions are actually epistemic judgments that the brain engages in. This is actually reasonably well understood although it's being broadened to comprehensive neurological-economic models. But if you think about it disgust is usually taken to either be an emotion or have a strong emotional component. Yet the biological importance of disgust is fairly well understood especially as tied to instinct. A good example of this is the fairly high level of cognitive processing that is constantly going on in the brain for kin detection. Usually kin detection processes result in emotional reactions dependent upon the actions one is engaging with. As such it seems undeniable that it is largely an unconscious but reasonably accurate conclusion.

I'd agree with this, to add that our brains have varying stages of biological evolution within their structures. Those associated with reason are quite new on the scale of evolutionary change while we share highly successful nonconcious brain structure with our animal kin going back that is deeply effective in decision making and helping us be successful in an evolutionary sense. That doesn't make it good or bad, and both reason and nonconscious decision making have roles to play as well as pitfalls we should be aware of. I'm a big fan of Shankar Vedantam's Hidden Brain podcast where this is largely the subject. Highly recommend it.

http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain

[hagoth7]

6 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant;

...Alma claims knowledge comes in response to the test and not before. Before the test was faith which he claims is now dormant.

If I may comment:

Does faith become dormant?

A talk from several years backi explains that faith *overall* is not at all dormant, but is rather increased. It is only *a sliver* of faith *in that [one] thing* which happens to become dormant. But is that a good or a bad thing? 

Something dormant is not dead. (It is feeling much better,  a nd may later even get up and go for a walk.)  At that juncture, it is merely "fixed in position", or at rest. A stationary fixed point of reference. In other words, the smallish matter of contention or concern over a mere *thing* is put to bed, tucked in, and kissed goodnight on the forehead. The arrived-at state,  then being described as "perfect" speaks a volume or two. 

Such increased faith in larger matters, and an at-rest faith in thing-based smaller matters, suggests something important. That even dormant/ at-rest/sleeping faith in smaller things can be, when needed, mustered and awakened, when needed., to support/sustain/rally flagging faith in larger, more crucial things. The greater things.

As in, brethren...a small helm... Seven sleepers.

Per the 1828 DIctionary, the meaning of dormant is inclusive of a supporting beam, the basis for the word dormer...as in framing beams for a dormer window. (Such a dormer framework sheds greater light on the more important things meriting focus in the rest of the room, field, beach....or whatever you prefer to call one's workspace.) 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/dormant

In other words, per Elder Cormack, a *viable framework* for knowledge isn't a faith killer as many have claimed, but instead forms a protective harbor or greenhouse around put-to-rest lesser things that increases/nurtures faith and shifts our view/focus on greater things.

We've basically got bigger fish to fry. 

Thoughts?

Edited July 14, 2017 by hagoth7

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Emotion can be evidence. Being angry is clear evidence I'm angry. So an emotion is evidence for the representation of that emotion.

Many states though are complex states (say love) which require emotion to know we hold the complex state. So emotion is a key evidence for knowing I'm in love with my wife for example.

The place of emotions in epistemology is an active field right now in epistemology. One of the big debates is whether emotions were present in epistemology all along as part of intuitions. The other argument, influenced more by cognitive science, is that emotions are actually epistemic judgments that the brain engages in. This is actually reasonably well understood although it's being broadened to comprehensive neurological-economic models. But if you think about it disgust is usually taken to either be an emotion or have a strong emotional component. Yet the biological importance of disgust is fairly well understood especially as tied to instinct. A good example of this is the fairly high level of cognitive processing that is constantly going on in the brain for kin detection. Usually kin detection processes result in emotional reactions dependent upon the actions one is engaging with. As such it seems undeniable that it is largely an unconscious but reasonably accurate conclusion.

Thank you for your reply and take on this..but what about those emotions/feelings one gets in a church..is that evidence that there is truth there??  We all get these feelings and some use those feelings for everything but evidence.  Do you agree to a point?

[Honorentheos]

36 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

In other words, per Elder Cormack, a *viable framework* for knowledge isn't a faith killer as many have claimed, but instead forms a protective harbor or greenhouse around put-to-rest lesser things that increases/nurtures faith and shifts our view/focus on greater things.

We've basically got bigger fish to fry. 

Thoughts?

Such as?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your reply and take on this..but what about those emotions/feelings one gets in a church..is that evidence that there is truth there??  We all get these feelings and some use those feelings for everything but evidence.  Do you agree to a point?

Depends upon what you mean. I tend to think saying church is only emotional is false. I might have an emotional response but I don't consider that evidence of much. To me focus on the emotional response tells me a bit about myself but not about truth. It has to at best be correlated with something or more importantly be what Joseph called flows of pure intelligence. Otherwise what's to distinguish church from say a pentecostal church or an emotional concert?

[Gray]

On 7/12/2017 at 2:21 PM, RevTestament said:

Not necessarily. It means God does follow some laws - not that He doesn't give us additional laws which are totally within His control - polygamy might be one example of this. I think God is bound by principles of justice. He is God because He is just. Therefore, essentially, we made Him God, because He was the most just of us back in the beginning before this world. Justice demands equality. So nothing God expects of us does He not expect of Himself. Also as the final arbiter of justice between us, He must be just which is why He is no respecter of persons. We all have to meet the same standards of justice, forgiveness, etc. He doesn't play favorites. Those who follow best receive the most light - receive the promises.

That's a possibility. But it does mean at least that there are moral principles that just exist, uncreated by God and outside of God (at least within Mormon theology)

[Gray]

On 7/12/2017 at 2:37 PM, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't the regress of Gods in the King Follet Discourse allow self-ascribed relativists like Mark to deal with this?

In what sense? I don't think Mormons deny morality to many of God's decrees either directly or in a secondary sense. (The secondary sense of obedience - much like it's not a moral issue when I tell my kids not to eat ice cream before dinner but it's moral in that they are consciously disobeying me.) So for instance I have a hard time seeing a coffee proscription as moral, but because I've made a covenant to abide by that proscription it becomes moral. I think Mark's argument is that all morality reduces to that sort of arrangement.

 

Sorry, I phrased it very poorly. I meant to say that God doesn't create morality. Morality just exists out there, for anyone to discover. God doesn't will morality into existence.

But, to your point about coffee, it's possible that there is a set of immutable moral principles (A), and God is free to tack on sub-clauses (B) onto them (word of wisdom, law of Moses, etc) as he sees fit.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

You're seeing a correlation between Hebrew concepts and language. That doesn't make the use in BoM "Hebrew usage". The far more obvious reason there is correlation all come from the context of a 19th c. English-speaking American.

I'm not arguing for influence, merely noting as you point out a parallel. I think this is the correct way to read the text though.

Quote

That's not what Alma 32 says. You are saying that there is some form of active interaction with the thing that causes it to grow from seed to full flower.

Planting (28) is generally considered active interaction as is nourishing (37). So far as I can tell nothing else is except perhaps in a limited way feeling.

Quote

The choice, the act is in planting the seed. I.e. giving it place in your heart. This idea that faith comes from reasoning isn't in the text itself. I'd argue the text is pretty clear that reason, if it contradicts the presupposed position one has to accept in order to give space to the seed in the first place, is considered damaging to the process.

 I didn't say it was from reasoning. I said it was a consequence of the evidence. Reasoning is absent from the text. So you're again arguing against something I'm not saying. I just went through the prior page and while you talk about reasoning a lot I didn't. I looked at my Times and Seasons article and I didn't say anything about reasoning there either.

Quote

There are two sides to the verses. One contains "spirit", feelings, swellings, etc.

Again I'd note spirit only occurs in one place and it is "spirit of the lord" and doesn't appear to really be spirit in the sense of the Mormon concept of Holy Ghost. As I acknowledged before many Mormons treat it as such. But as I said earlier I think that's not really justified. I think it's more a synonym for the person of God and his desires. So you can plant the seed as God wants or you can resist God. The spirit is not treated as evidence in any way shape or form.

Now I'll admit a case can be made from the use of the phrase "spirit of the Lord" in 1 Nephi (say 1:12). But there's no indication that even if it is a broader sense than I think that it constitutes evidence from revelation. At best it probably means something more akin to Alma 40:13 where you have a dualism with influence from the Spirit of the Lord leading to good works, or the spirit of the devil which leads to evil works. I think there's an argument one can make there - but thus far you've not made it.

Swelling is the growth of the plant. The feeling is not emotional feeling but discerning the growth of the seed in an empirical fashion. i.e. feel as touch not feel as emotion.

Quote

The other - casting out the seed due to unbelief. Where does unbelief come from? Evidence that the thing being considered through faith isn't what it claims to be. This isn't a matter of desiring to not believe. Something comes along and causes a person to resist the feelings the chapter calls the "Spirit of the Lord".

But again that's not in the text. The text doesn't mention evidence against the thing at all. That is purely you projecting onto the text. The text simply asks if a person as a particle of faith in the thing which leads to planting it. If you don't have that particle of faith then he asks that the desire work in the person to plant it. (Note he doesn't present these as volition) Unbelief is purely just not being in those two states. There's nothing in the metaphor nor text about competing evidence. If you think it is please identify the verse and the relevant phrase. (Giving a list of verses and you think should be read that way isn't doing that - what counts is the argument closely tied to the text)

Now if you want to discuss epistemology we can discuss such matters. But that's simply not part of Alma's presentation if we're purely concerned with exegesis. We can perhaps argue Alma's presentation is lacking because he doesn't engage with the problem of competing evidence. Again though that's separate from what Alma says.

Quote

Alma 32 is not about a reasoned epistemic approach to discovering truth. It's about choosing faith and finding spiritual knowledge. Choices are associated with faith, knowledge comes passively. The action in relation to knowledge later in the chapter is about maintaining and strengthening this passively acquired state it differentiates from faith because one has felt feels.

Again I've never argued it is about reason which is about reflection and deliberation. You're the one who keeps bringing that up.

Again the word "choice" nor synonyms for that word don't appear in the text. The only actions are about either planting or not planting. I agree that in some sense that is a choice, but not the type of choice you suggest. Your entire argument hinges upon several things missing from the text (1) counter-evidence (2) faith being the planting and not the result of the growth.

I can understand why you might wish that interpretation, but I don't think it engages well with the text.

Quote

I'm not saying desire is emotion. I'm saying the chapter is clear that the fruit of faith or knowledge is confirmed through feelings rather than the result of a well grounded reasoning process. Here's what it says -

[...]

"When you feel these swelling motions"...? Clark, you're better than this. The chapter is clear where faith starts, what it requires, and that it transitions into knowledge which is passively gained by resisting challenges to one's faith and feeling the right feels. Then one is asked to not neglect the knowledge and keep feeling the feels.

It says you can feel the growth of the seed growing. In context it is, as I mentioned, touch feeling. There's no indication the feeling is emotional.  Feeling motions is simply not emotion. I'm shocked you think it is. When you are on a boat and feel the boat heaving is that emotional or empirical? Now desire is talked about but again that doesn't fit in with your argument.

I agree the chapter is fairly clear. It's the metaphor of planting a seed, seeing/feeling if it grows, as it grows it shows itself to be a seed of the sort you thought, when it's grown enough to fully identify you have knowledge. Faith is the trust that the object is what it appears to be before that full unveiling happens.

Quote

This is no way to come to truth. It's a pretty good way to resist counter evidence and entrench one's self in one's predetermined biases.

While I'm not particularly keen on the Hebrew approach to these things, it's not that far from pragmatism honestly. But there are definite advantages to what the Greeks gave us in terms of communication.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I phrased it very poorly. I meant to say that God doesn't create morality. Morality just exists out there, for anyone to discover. God doesn't will morality into existence.

But, to your point about coffee, it's possible that there is a set of immutable moral principles (A), and God is free to tack on sub-clauses (B) onto them (word of wisdom, law of Moses, etc) as he sees fit.

To the second point it might be the difference between principles and implementations. Sort of like we seek after justice but make laws to try and bring it about (usually with some inherent conflict between law and justice)

To the first point, that might be the case. That's more a kind of platonic conception of morality I'm not sure I buy. One can think morality doesn't come from God without thinking morality is something "out there."

[Honorentheos]

Clark,

I think there is a meaningful if difficult difference between feeling that can be tied to one of the five senses compared to feeling that is an expression of sense but not obviously externalized. Feeling a boat sway can be tied to ones visual sense of seeing the boat and it's movement, of the action within one's inner ears that indicate motion is occurring, along with other collaborating sensory inputs. It's difficult because demanding it be tied to the material world brings philosophical challenges but I'd argue we can at least describe it as we ought to be able to tie it to something external to our mind. It also needs to hold up under subsequent investigation. A sound misheard that the brain interprets as a threat (a successful biologically evolved response) but that gets reinterpreted upon investigation as not being an angry growl or bark would be an example of a "feeling" that becomes better understood and substantiated through investigation.

The faith description in Alma is describing inner workings. It seems clearly to imply the influences that are acceptable must already be understood as coming from God which means they must already ally themselves with the intention of pursuing faith. The acts that give rise to the seed growing in Alma 32 are those of protecting the seed to maturity. I'm not seeing reason to pursue the inclination to move faith out of the realm of choice. One is not compelled to faith by evidence. One makes room for faith and protects it.

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a possibility. But it does mean at least that there are moral principles that just exist, uncreated by God and outside of God (at least within Mormon theology)

No, not the way I framed it. I view it as a type of agreed ethics. We agree that it is fundamentally unfair for a judge not to dispense equal justice. It's the eye for an eye type of thing. While God wants us to learn to forgive, if we do not we can still seek justice for wrongs against us. However, then we are told we cannot expect God to forgive us. If we demand justice under the law, we must expect justice dispensed to us for our wrongful doings. Again, isn't that just? But if we don't repent and don't forgive, someone must dispense the justice. I think most humans feel that way. Hence, we gave that job to God to do it fairly and equitably - hence, He says He is no respecter of persons. There is no favoritism. Hence, JS said if we want to come to the same glory as Christ, we must live the same laws, and principles as He.

[Maidservant]

I am satisfied that cureloms are llamas.  It's even the same word, to me.  LOM and LAM.  Same word.  Llama comes from a native Peruvian language, Quechua.  I guess they got tired of saying "cure" and dropped it, ha ha ha.  No, but seriously.

There is an Andean area/people, Quechua speakers, that are called q'ero (do they call themselves that?).  Maybe they are the ones that had the q'erolams.

I imagine Joseph receiving this as a pronunciation and recording it to the best of his ability as a pronunciation.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Morality just exists out there, for anyone to discover.

In what sense?  Morality is an idea, could it exist without beings to think it?  Can light exist without a light source? Does gravity exist if there are no masses to interact?  Theories are often more description/narratives (first this happens, then that will happen) than explanations.  If they manage to explain the "why", it seems to me to simply push it back to the next level of why's...infinite regress of moral and physical law side by side with infinite regress of God and Man and likely Others.

Is there a truely simple idea that exists in our universe unencumbered by its past, present, future, by its internals, externals, by forces and voids....?

note:  at this point A mbien hit hard and kept building...it is likely quite incoherent or juvenile and will embarrass me in the morning, but at the moment it feels not insightful or profound, but at least trying to phrase the conversation intelligently.  Be very gentle please if it turns out to be mostly drug fumes.

One could, I suppose, suggest morality itself is just a physical/energy law that has an impact on the way we socialize and therefore we have created a story about what that law is, but ignore the ultimate source and just speak of the impact (what is wrong and right).  Even so, such laws don't just exist out there independently, they are just descriptions/stories of how bodies interact.

survival of the fittest is a story of how socializing occurs and promotes that biology and behaviour that leads to reproduction (including offspring living long enough to reproduce).  This is logical because if something reproduces, its type sticks around; if it doesn't , it disappears.  It can be easily adapted to morality.  Killing babies is wrong because the species that didn't have a repugnance to killing babies died out due to less and less off spring, while those who felt the need to protect babies had babies survive till they reproduced, so that behaviour/attitude became socially coded for those societies.

Other moralities can be simplified to start out as "avoid pain"...best ways to do so is to control resources so as to have enough to be healthy and safe and also to not go out and inflict pain and death on others (because they will often return to inflict pain on you) except in situations where they would take your resources that allow you to avoid pain.

Of course, as soon as you add in the complications of emotional pain, minimizing mass pain, maximizing happiness and pleasure to help with minimizing pain through eons of time, it all becomes a rather complicated dance.  And the primitive, but effective "avoid pain" as the prime mover becomes "love the other as the self", a much more sophisticated, but less effective or efficient way of living.  I wonder which is the more satisfying  law or if it is the same, all that matters is what you 'know' in your gut.  Does the painfree one feel as good, as right, in that moment as the loving father getting hugs from his children?

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I phrased it very poorly. I meant to say that God doesn't create morality. Morality just exists out there, for anyone to discover. God doesn't will morality into existence.

But, to your point about coffee, it's possible that there is a set of immutable moral principles (A), and God is free to tack on sub-clauses (B) onto them (word of wisdom, law of Moses, etc) as he sees fit.

Malum in se vs malum prohibitum: not exactly a new debate.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

In what sense?  Morality is an idea, could it exist without beings to think it?  Can light exist without a light source? Does gravity exist if there are no masses to interact?  Theories are often more description/narratives (first this happens, then that will happen) than explanations.  If they manage to explain the "why", it seems to me to simply push it back to the next level of why's...infinite regress of moral and physical law side by side with infinite regress of God and Man and likely Others.

Is there a truely simple idea that exists in our universe unencumbered by its past, present, future, by its internals, externals, by forces and voids....?

note:  at this point A mbien hit hard and kept building...it is likely quite incoherent or juvenile and will embarrass me in the morning, but at the moment it feels not insightful or profound, but at least trying to phrase the conversation intelligently.  Be very gentle please if it turns out to be mostly drug fumes.

One could, I suppose, suggest morality itself is just a physical/energy law that has an impact on the way we socialize and therefore we have created a story about what that law is, but ignore the ultimate source and just speak of the impact (what is wrong and right).  Even so, such laws don't just exist out there independently, they are just descriptions/stories of how bodies interact.

survival of the fittest is a story of how socializing occurs and promotes that biology and behaviour that leads to reproduction (including offspring living long enough to reproduce).  This is logical because if something reproduces, its type sticks around; if it doesn't , it disappears.  It can be easily adapted to morality.  Killing babies is wrong because the species that didn't have a repugnance to killing babies died out due to less and less off spring, while those who felt the need to protect babies had babies survive till they reproduced, so that behaviour/attitude became socially coded for those societies.

Other moralities can be simplified to start out as "avoid pain"...best ways to do so is to control resources so as to have enough to be healthy and safe and also to not go out and inflict pain and death on others (because they will often return to inflict pain on you) except in situations where they would take your resources that allow you to avoid pain.

Of course, as soon as you add in the complications of emotional pain, minimizing mass pain, maximizing happiness and pleasure to help with minimizing pain through eons of time, it all becomes a rather complicated dance.  And the primitive, but effective "avoid pain" as the prime mover becomes "love the other as the self", a much more sophisticated, but less effective or efficient way of living.  I wonder which is the more satisfying  law or if it is the same, all that matters is what you 'know' in your gut.  Does the painfree one feel as good, as right, in that moment as the loving father getting hugs from his children?

I like this post a whole lot.

Could, perhaps, the nearly universal taboo on homosexuality be a pain avoidance strategy? Experience demonstrated practitioners to be, on the whole, angry, unfulfilled, resentful and, in short, unhappy and in pain?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Only if you accept that emotion in opposition to the evidence that is otherwise compelling a person to reject "faith" in favor of reason is actually the better kind of evidence. I get why one might, but that isn't being reasonable.  

I have never seen such a mush of ambiguous words in my life

On the other hand opposing evidential faith by reason alone leads to faith in compelling belief in reasonable evidence of a non-sequitur and is clearly superior in saying nothing at all.

Keep a shoveling amigo!

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The second half of that paragraph seems a bit of a non sequitor. At least I don't see how it relates to the first part.

And that's just the beginning!   He'll keep it coming too- just wait and see.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I like this post a whole lot.

Could, perhaps, the nearly universal taboo on homosexuality be a pain avoidance strategy? Experience demonstrated practitioners to be, on the whole, angry, unfulfilled, resentful and, in short, unhappy and in pain?

Not to mention producing no babies.  Not a great evolutionary strategy.  I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for the evolution of homosexuality, but I know that comment will get me into trouble.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Clark,

I think there is a meaningful if difficult difference between feeling that can be tied to one of the five senses compared to feeling that is an expression of sense but not obviously externalized. Feeling a boat sway can be tied to ones visual sense of seeing the boat and it's movement, of the action within one's inner ears that indicate motion is occurring, along with other collaborating sensory inputs. It's difficult because demanding it be tied to the material world brings philosophical challenges but I'd argue we can at least describe it as we ought to be able to tie it to something external to our mind. It also needs to hold up under subsequent investigation. A sound misheard that the brain interprets as a threat (a successful biologically evolved response) but that gets reinterpreted upon investigation as not being an angry growl or bark would be an example of a "feeling" that becomes better understood and substantiated through investigation.

The faith description in Alma is describing inner workings. It seems clearly to imply the influences that are acceptable must already be understood as coming from God which means they must already ally themselves with the intention of pursuing faith. The acts that give rise to the seed growing in Alma 32 are those of protecting the seed to maturity. I'm not seeing reason to pursue the inclination to move faith out of the realm of choice. One is not compelled to faith by evidence. One makes room for faith and protects it.

Absurd.

Any plan for a series of scientific experiments requires hope for things unseen.  Perhaps this combination of chemicals administered in this manner will kill the cancer.

Maybe if we tweak this rocket fuel in this manner, we may get more thrust.

Of course one is compelled to faith by evidence and one is protecting nothing.  And you have not even looked at what counts as "evidence" in what context.  Surely there is a different kind of evidence required in finding a mate than there is in finding the cure for cancer.

Mush in mush out.  Keep on mushin' amigo!

[Gray]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To the second point it might be the difference between principles and implementations. Sort of like we seek after justice but make laws to try and bring it about (usually with some inherent conflict between law and justice)

To the first point, that might be the case. That's more a kind of platonic conception of morality I'm not sure I buy. One can think morality doesn't come from God without thinking morality is something "out there."

Regarding the first point, maybe think of these grand moral principles as something like the laws of nature? Gravity works a certain way in this universe. We can't change the way it works, but we can take advantage of gravity to do all sorts of interesting things.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Malum in se vs malum prohibitum: not exactly a new debate.

Indeed

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention producing no babies.  Not a great evolutionary strategy.  I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for the evolution of homosexuality, but I know that comment will get me into trouble.

Given that it's more prevalent in younger sons where there are many older brothers, it seems to be nature's birth control. It's nature's way of saying, yeah, you're about to have more mouths to feed than resources, time to slow it down.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

In what sense?  Morality is an idea, could it exist without beings to think it?  Can light exist without a light source? Does gravity exist if there are no masses to interact?  Theories are often more description/narratives (first this happens, then that will happen) than explanations.  If they manage to explain the "why", it seems to me to simply push it back to the next level of why's...infinite regress of moral and physical law side by side with infinite regress of God and Man and likely Others.

Well, I'm trying to talk about it within the framework of what the Book of Mormon says about God having to obey rules, or else cease to be God. I'm really exploring Mormon theology, not necessarily trying to communicate my own particular beliefs on this topic.

I agree, morality is an idea, it doesn't exist without conscious beings. But I think the Book of Mormon's teachings give us a different model.

 

Quote

Is there a truely simple idea that exists in our universe unencumbered by its past, present, future, by its internals, externals, by forces and voids....?

note:  at this point A mbien hit hard and kept building...it is likely quite incoherent or juvenile and will embarrass me in the morning, but at the moment it feels not insightful or profound, but at least trying to phrase the conversation intelligently.  Be very gentle please if it turns out to be mostly drug fumes.

 

No, I think you're making some great insights here.

 

Quote

One could, I suppose, suggest morality itself is just a physical/energy law that has an impact on the way we socialize and therefore we have created a story about what that law is, but ignore the ultimate source and just speak of the impact (what is wrong and right).  Even so, such laws don't just exist out there independently, they are just descriptions/stories of how bodies interact.

Perhaps morality isn't literally some physical thing out there, but perhaps thinking of it that way could be a helpful metaphor?

 

Quote

survival of the fittest is a story of how socializing occurs and promotes that biology and behaviour that leads to reproduction (including offspring living long enough to reproduce).  This is logical because if something reproduces, its type sticks around; if it doesn't , it disappears.  It can be easily adapted to morality.  Killing babies is wrong because the species that didn't have a repugnance to killing babies died out due to less and less off spring, while those who felt the need to protect babies had babies survive till they reproduced, so that behaviour/attitude became socially coded for those societies.

Other moralities can be simplified to start out as "avoid pain"...best ways to do so is to control resources so as to have enough to be healthy and safe and also to not go out and inflict pain and death on others (because they will often return to inflict pain on you) except in situations where they would take your resources that allow you to avoid pain.

Of course, as soon as you add in the complications of emotional pain, minimizing mass pain, maximizing happiness and pleasure to help with minimizing pain through eons of time, it all becomes a rather complicated dance.  And the primitive, but effective "avoid pain" as the prime mover becomes "love the other as the self", a much more sophisticated, but less effective or efficient way of living.  I wonder which is the more satisfying  law or if it is the same, all that matters is what you 'know' in your gut.  Does the painfree one feel as good, as right, in that moment as the loving father getting hugs from his children?

Sometimes going too far in avoiding pain also keeps us from experiencing joy. To be a parent is to know plenty of both.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Gray