hope_for_things Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Just now, mfbukowski said: Exactly. They know nothing about it. I'm not sure anyone knows much about consciousness. Mormonism seems to have some differing ideas about it, but no cogent well articulated definition.
hope_for_things Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 On 7/12/2018 at 11:10 AM, mfbukowski said: I strongly suggest you read the article. It touches on issues we have discussed before between us and not been able to establish communication well. From what little I know about Interpreter, topics for articles are not assigned or anything like that. It is not like Interpreter is going after transhumanism. I am sure that what happened is that Greg submitted the article and Interpreter thought it was good enough to be published. It does not necessarily reflect any position particularly of Interpreter. Ok, I read through most of the essay, had to skim parts because it was just too annoying. Can't say I'm surprised or very disappointed because my expectations were really low and I was pretty much right about it being a boundary maintenance apologetic piece. I don't get some of these Interpreter essays trying to police Mormon doctrine and scriptural interpretations. Mormonism is so much broader and more diverse than they realize or are willing to accept. Unfortunately, my original worry that the author would try to discredit such a small group that isn't even a threat or trying to recruit people out of Mormonism or anything of that sort, was confirmed. I didn't think his section on dualism and physicalism really got into the things we've been discussing very well, so it didn't prompt any further thoughts from me. Two thumbs down from me on this essay...
mfbukowski Posted July 13, 2018 Author Posted July 13, 2018 35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, I read through most of the essay, had to skim parts because it was just too annoying. Can't say I'm surprised or very disappointed because my expectations were really low and I was pretty much right about it being a boundary maintenance apologetic piece. I don't get some of these Interpreter essays trying to police Mormon doctrine and scriptural interpretations. Mormonism is so much broader and more diverse than they realize or are willing to accept. Unfortunately, my original worry that the author would try to discredit such a small group that isn't even a threat or trying to recruit people out of Mormonism or anything of that sort, was confirmed. I didn't think his section on dualism and physicalism really got into the things we've been discussing very well, so it didn't prompt any further thoughts from me. Two thumbs down from me on this essay... Well at the absence of cogent arguments from transhumanism, I have no choice but to keep my present opinion. If anyone knows of any cogent arguments I would appreciate it, or even any arguments which allege to be cogent. In short I see no answer to the mind-body problem whatsoever here.
mfbukowski Posted July 13, 2018 Author Posted July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not sure anyone knows much about consciousness. Mormonism seems to have some differing ideas about it, but no cogent well articulated definition. Mormonism? Isms don't have ideas only people do. I think there are Mormons who have a very good understanding of consciousness. On the other hand I have not seen a transhumanist who does. I am sure that this only reflects my lack of education in this area, but I would love to see evidence of that. 1
Calm Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, I read through most of the essay, had to skim parts because it was just too annoying. Can't say I'm surprised or very disappointed because my expectations were really low and I was pretty much right about it being a boundary maintenance apologetic piece. I don't get some of these Interpreter essays trying to police Mormon doctrine and scriptural interpretations. Mormonism is so much broader and more diverse than they realize or are willing to accept. Unfortunately, my original worry that the author would try to discredit such a small group that isn't even a threat or trying to recruit people out of Mormonism or anything of that sort, was confirmed. I didn't think his section on dualism and physicalism really got into the things we've been discussing very well, so it didn't prompt any further thoughts from me. Two thumbs down from me on this essay... If you don’t offer specifics, it comes across as your previous bias to be blunt. You expected to see it, therefore you saw it. Edited July 13, 2018 by Calm 2
hope_for_things Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well at the absence of cogent arguments from transhumanism, I have no choice but to keep my present opinion. If anyone knows of any cogent arguments I would appreciate it, or even any arguments which allege to be cogent. In short I see no answer to the mind-body problem whatsoever here. I doubt you’ll find these kinds of arguments from the Mormon Transhumanists. It’s probably not their style. These kinds of arguments are extremely niche.
hope_for_things Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, Calm said: If you don’t offer specifics, it comes across as your previous bias to be blunt. You expected to see it, therefore you saw it. Suspions confirmed. I was worried it would be groan worthy and it was.
Calm Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Suspions confirmed. I was worried it would be groan worthy and it was. You can keep saying that as much as you want, but unless you offer details on what was groanworthy, boundary maintainer, etc., I see no reason to see your comments as informing me about anything but your personal experience (I have the same reaction to posters/writers who applaud articles without details, except in the few cases where I believe someone has demonstrated they think much like me in their reactions so my expectation is I will likely judge the article like they do or it is easy for me to both understand them and seen them as highly consistent in their appraisals no matter who they are examining, though I wouldn't make claims about an article based on my expectations). 1
mfbukowski Posted July 13, 2018 Author Posted July 13, 2018 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Suspions confirmed. I was worried it would be groan worthy and it was. Ah ,then clearly Greg was totally wrong. Not one cogent argument, just "groanworthy". And yet you waste your time not commenting on the article? Why comment at all?
mfbukowski Posted July 13, 2018 Author Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I doubt you’ll find these kinds of arguments from the Mormon Transhumanists. It’s probably not their style. These kinds of arguments are extremely niche. Which is precisely the "niche" their ideas occupy. Transhumanism is hardly mainstream and Mormon Transhumanism is even more obscure. And yes, I am trying to provoke some cogent response from ANYBODY. I know for a fact at least one highly intelligent person who used to post here frequently- not "as" a Transhumanist yet nevertheless a member- would perfectly well understand the issues here. There are others. It appears that Lincoln himself answered but has not come back to justify his earlier post. Of course that may have been a troll. If it is a cogent position I would think someone would want to stand up for it and set the record straight. Edited July 13, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted July 14, 2018 Posted July 14, 2018 53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ah ,then clearly Greg was totally wrong. Not one cogent argument, just "groanworthy". And yet you waste your time not commenting on the article? Why comment at all? Guilty as charged, I broke my rule about not commenting if I just have negative things to say. Sorry 1
mfbukowski Posted July 14, 2018 Author Posted July 14, 2018 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I understand that the way we interpret every sensory input is filtered through our minds, so in some sense is psychological. I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe like the chair I'm sitting on as I type this message on my computer that also exists in the universe. If someone else were to walk over to my desk right now, and I were to shake their hand, then that person and handshake exist in the universe, and my experience shaking that person's hand is a different kind of experience than if I just close my eyes and imagine a person coming to my desk and shaking my hand. Those two events are qualitatively different. Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction. Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something. I don't agree, there is a difference. OK I know we have been talking about this for a year or more so I see here a glimmer to perhaps get you to understand Rorty and the problem with "correspondence" so I will go with it. This is an experiment. Quote Those two events are qualitatively different. Now the effects of the two experiences on me from a motivational perspective might be the same, but that doesn't mean the two events don't have a difference and a distinction. Sometimes I think that you want to say that this distinction doesn't exist, that imagining a person doing something in the world is exactly the same as a person doing something. I don't agree, there is a difference. YES there is a difference! The question IS - what IS the difference and can it be put into precise wording?? The answer is "NO". THERE IS A DIFFERENCE WHICH CANNOT BE DESCRIBED. That is the crux of Rorty and our whole discussion and the crux here of the difference between direct subjective experience and what can be described INCLUDING describing it scientifically. Now let's look yet again at the Rorty quote Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. THIS " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. " Is SIMILAR to THIS: "I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe " Rory might put your words like this though: "I'm making a distinction , with common sense, between causes in the world like what we CALL "shaking another's hand" - which occur in space and time- and do not include MY human mental states" So now let's change the equation just a bit and eliminate any reference to "What we call shaking another's hand"- because it is Language- because we "Call " it something. But now you know what the "cause" of the mental state IS to make the transition easier. The result of eliminating that term is virtually identical to Rorty's statement. AND instead of using "mental state" we will use the term "psychological inputs" HERE is the result of the change: "I'm making a distinction , with common sense, between causes in the world -- which occur in space and time- and do NOT include MY human psychological inputs" THAT is essentially what you said! There is a distinction between something "in the world" and MY PSYCHOLOGICAL INPUTS of that "cause" or "thing in the world" So Rorty would agree with you on that. And then I asked you to define that difference between what is "real" and a CAUSE of a psychological state and the thing itself- and I predicted you COULD NOT DEFINE that difference in words. YES we know they are different- religious experience depends on that difference between what is "real" and our perceptions of it. But now comes the clincher!! Rorty EXPLAINS why we cannot define the difference! :: My words are in brackets. " To say that truth [TRUE descriptions independent of psychology] is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth,[TRUE descriptions without psychological inputs] ,that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations [and therefore not in the world or independent of human psychology]" Does that make sense? WORDS are not things in the world they are SYMBOLS of what are CALLED "things in the world". ALL we KNOW are our PSYCHOLOGICAL inputs! (perceptions) But that relationship cannot be defined as "correspondence" because we can NEVER get outside of our PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTIONS of the world to check to see if they are "correct" And now Rorty's conclusion: "Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."
hope_for_things Posted July 16, 2018 Posted July 16, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 10:50 PM, mfbukowski said: OK I know we have been talking about this for a year or more so I see here a glimmer to perhaps get you to understand Rorty and the problem with "correspondence" so I will go with it. This is an experiment. YES there is a difference! The question IS - what IS the difference and can it be put into precise wording?? The answer is "NO". THERE IS A DIFFERENCE WHICH CANNOT BE DESCRIBED. That is the crux of Rorty and our whole discussion and the crux here of the difference between direct subjective experience and what can be described INCLUDING describing it scientifically. Now let's look yet again at the Rorty quote THIS " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. " Is SIMILAR to THIS: "I'm just making the distinction between something we experience completely inside our head that has no correspondence to the universe and something that exists in the universe " Rory might put your words like this though: "I'm making a distinction , with common sense, between causes in the world like what we CALL "shaking another's hand" - which occur in space and time- and do not include MY human mental states" So now let's change the equation just a bit and eliminate any reference to "What we call shaking another's hand"- because it is Language- because we "Call " it something. But now you know what the "cause" of the mental state IS to make the transition easier. The result of eliminating that term is virtually identical to Rorty's statement. AND instead of using "mental state" we will use the term "psychological inputs" HERE is the result of the change: "I'm making a distinction , with common sense, between causes in the world -- which occur in space and time- and do NOT include MY human psychological inputs" THAT is essentially what you said! There is a distinction between something "in the world" and MY PSYCHOLOGICAL INPUTS of that "cause" or "thing in the world" So Rorty would agree with you on that. And then I asked you to define that difference between what is "real" and a CAUSE of a psychological state and the thing itself- and I predicted you COULD NOT DEFINE that difference in words. YES we know they are different- religious experience depends on that difference between what is "real" and our perceptions of it. But now comes the clincher!! Rorty EXPLAINS why we cannot define the difference! :: My words are in brackets. " To say that truth [TRUE descriptions independent of psychology] is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth,[TRUE descriptions without psychological inputs] ,that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations [and therefore not in the world or independent of human psychology]" Does that make sense? WORDS are not things in the world they are SYMBOLS of what are CALLED "things in the world". ALL we KNOW are our PSYCHOLOGICAL inputs! (perceptions) But that relationship cannot be defined as "correspondence" because we can NEVER get outside of our PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTIONS of the world to check to see if they are "correct" And now Rorty's conclusion: "Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Ok, thanks for this. I think I'm getting closer and this was helpful. I'm pretty sure I follow you, but I need to ask a couple questions. I agree with this idea that everything I know comes from my perceptions. We're all perceiving things through our senses, and we're putting those perceptions into "symbols" or language to describe them. I also agree with the earlier point that you seem to agree with as well, that there clearly is a difference between a mental state (someone imagining or dreaming about something) and an event that happens in the universe in time and space. I have a challenge understanding how these two concepts intersect. If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. Isn't that what I'm doing right now, I'm describing how something a person imagines in their mind is different than something they experience when interacting in the world? I used the word correspondence because the standard dictionary definition for that word seems to fit, but I also recognize that word has a whole history of philosophical debate, and I'm not familiar with all that history, so perhaps another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates. Maybe correlate would be a better word? Something that shows a connection between someone's mental state experience and causes that can also be measured and experienced by other humans at the same time and therefore are more than just something uniquely subjective to the one person but we have some group evidence that these causes exist in the world. What do you think of how I'm describing things up to this point? It seems to me that you acknowledge a difference between mental states and events in the world. But that you are trying to say that difference doesn't matter, or is immaterial. Is that what you're saying, or are you making a different point. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2018 Author Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, thanks for this. I think I'm getting closer and this was helpful. I'm pretty sure I follow you, but I need to ask a couple questions. I agree with this idea that everything I know comes from my perceptions. We're all perceiving things through our senses, and we're putting those perceptions into "symbols" or language to describe them. I also agree with the earlier point that you seem to agree with as well, that there clearly is a difference between a mental state (someone imagining or dreaming about something) and an event that happens in the universe in time and space. I have a challenge understanding how these two concepts intersect. If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. Isn't that what I'm doing right now, I'm describing how something a person imagines in their mind is different than something they experience when interacting in the world? I used the word correspondence because the standard dictionary definition for that word seems to fit, but I also recognize that word has a whole history of philosophical debate, and I'm not familiar with all that history, so perhaps another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates. Maybe correlate would be a better word? Something that shows a connection between someone's mental state experience and causes that can also be measured and experienced by other humans at the same time and therefore are more than just something uniquely subjective to the one person but we have some group evidence that these causes exist in the world. What do you think of how I'm describing things up to this point? It seems to me that you acknowledge a difference between mental states and events in the world. But that you are trying to say that difference doesn't matter, or is immaterial. Is that what you're saying, or are you making a different point. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I am answering this in two parts because it is just too dang long! Part One I like to quote the full post to make sure of context- that it is checkable for others- and then take out portions for futher discussion. We are at the perfect CRUX of the matter!! At last!! Quote Ok, thanks for this. I think I'm getting closer and this was helpful. I'm pretty sure I follow you, but I need to ask a couple questions. I agree with this idea that everything I know comes from my perceptions. We're all perceiving things through our senses, and we're putting those perceptions into "symbols" or language to describe them. I also agree with the earlier point that you seem to agree with as well, that there clearly is a difference between a mental state (someone imagining or dreaming about something) and an event that happens in the universe in time and space. YAY!! Quote I have a challenge understanding how these two concepts intersect. Yes, you and every philosopher who has ever lived- seriously! This is called the Mind/Body problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem Just so you know. This ain't easy stuff with clear answers!! Quote If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. Isn't that what I'm doing right now, I'm describing how something a person imagines in their mind is different than something they experience when interacting in the world? That is a perfect statement of the entire philosophical problem!! The problem is what "seems to you" begs the question (is circular logic) when PRESUMING one can use language to describe "the difference" It all goes back to describing the mental state CALLED "blue" in language- to someone who has never had that mental state- a blind person for example! HOW can you describe that mental state to a blind person? You cannot. How can you describe a dream state from "reality"? You can use words like "less distinct" or "more real" BOTH of which are meaningless if you have never experienced it. Imagine a Martian lands who has never slept or had a dream. On his planet there is no need for sleep. Dolphins elephants and giraffes I understand from google seldom if ever "sleep". Do they dream? What is even the meaning of the word for those creatures? Those are highly intelligent creatures- some say that dolphins are actually "smarter" than humans but perfectly adapted to their environment so they never evolved tool making etc because they did not need to do so. So how do you talk about dreams to our hypothetical Martian? Does he see the same "blue" you do? You may be able to discuss angstrom units and wavelengths etc but that is not the raw EXPERIENCE of the color, and why red or yellow "stands out" and catches the eye more than any other color. (it is said- that's why road signs are often yellow or red). I guess our ancestors in trees really needed to find that yellow or red fruit! The bottom line is such experiences cannot be expressed in language. Try it all day if you like. What is the difference in the sound of a trumpet vs a bassoon? How does a piano differ in sound from a guitar? How do you describe an itch from a mosquito bite? Describe the voice of your wife or child so that others would know it from others. How does a smooth surface differ in touch from a rough one? Is velvet "smooth" or would you describe it that way? This is why the words simple do not "CORRESPOND" to the experience. The words point to some memory of the experience- but if you never had the experience, the word would be meaningless!! So: " If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. " Yes everyone thought that too until about 150 years ago when philosophers started thinking deeply about language itself and then the arguments against "correspondence" started to flourish. They had always been there in a philosophy called "Idealism" but they would come and go. Now quite frankly VERY FEW philosophers take "correspondence" as a function description of truth for precisely these reasons. The word "blue" simply does not "correspond" to blue unless you do this : BLUE Without that, the word points to a memory of an experience which blind people have never hand, and so it would be unintelligible to them. Quote I used the word correspondence because the standard dictionary definition for that word seems to fit, but I also recognize that word has a whole history of philosophical debate, and I'm not familiar with all that history, so perhaps another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates No, that is the problem. Dictionary writers are not philosophers and dictionaries refer to the "ordinary man" cultural definition! In fact philosophy is PRECISELY the search for " another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates" The ordinary man can speak in ordinary culturese but philosophers must speak like philosophers which is why all this stuff gets so hard to understand BECAUSE all words get side tracked into debates about words! That is why poor old Rorty cannot say " Yes of course the world is out there- common sense tells us this- things are out there and are not mental states but all we know are mental states and not things" BECAUSE that makes no sense. Instead he has to use the idea of "causes of mental states" instead of "things in the world" to be accurate. You stub your toe in the middle of the night. That thing out there VERY CLEARLY IN THE WORLD is a CAUSE of the mental state " %&*!!@$" or to be civil, "pain". So instead he has to refer not to "things" out there in the world but to "causes" in the world " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. " But even the word "cause" is a very difficult one in philosophy. What was the "cause" of your birth? The love of your parents? The love of your great great grandfather? The origins of life? The singularity which "caused" the Big Bang? VERY complicated! So the thing in the world is the "cause" of the mental state which we then express in language. So three states : Thing in the world causes> mental state which causes> language. That's 2 steps of removal from the "world" to language- any of which might be mistaken! Thing> 1 -misperception/interpretation/hallucination etc> 2- linguistic ambiguity/unclear wording/misrepresentation/ambiguity Getting from the "thing" to "corresponding language" is dang near impossible unless it is pretty simple stuff. And since you cannot get outside perception to get to the "thing" how do you check the perception against the thing?? End of part one Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2018 Author Posted July 16, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Maybe correlate would be a better word? Something that shows a connection between someone's mental state experience and causes that can also be measured and experienced by other humans at the same time and therefore are more than just something uniquely subjective to the one person but we have some group evidence that these causes exist in the world. What do you think of how I'm describing things up to this point? It seems to me that you acknowledge a difference between mental states and events in the world. But that you are trying to say that difference doesn't matter, or is immaterial. Is that what you're saying, or are you making a different point. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Part 2 Quote Maybe correlate would be a better word? Something that shows a connection between someone's mental state experience and causes that can also be measured and experienced by other humans at the same time and therefore are more than just something uniquely subjective to the one person but we have some group evidence that these causes exist in the world. Unfortunately I don't think "correlate" works any better but at least it does imply an indirect correspondence There is a philosophy and a number of philosophers who have attempted to create a "science" of direct human experience but because of the problems with language mentioned above, if you think Rorty is hard to understand- these guys are seriously DIFFICULT and must be studied in college courses to be "translated" as I am attempting to translate this stuff for you. This is called "Phenomenology". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) But what is fantastic that many Mormon philosophers ARE phenomenologists- and students especially of Heidegger- but you will never find them writing here because the terminology is so technical AND were almost always written first in German or French I try to get out the English version which is Pragmatism sort of- but even then folks are few to understand the points. For phenomenologists the word "Being" is about an individual "being" in the world. The word "Dasein" is often used- for a beginner I would suggest you understand the word "being" to refer to YOU - your personal subjective experience of finding yourself here in the world. What is it like to BE here in the world?? It is the attempt to avoid correspondence in language by going to direct experience of finding yourself in the world. But horribly difficult for a philosophy student even on a graduate level- you would need some course work for sure to get into it simply because it IS a new language you need to lean - precisely avoiding the usual problems with old ways of saying things. So I suppose it is like a convention of programmers using their new "language" which is specialized and not for beginners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time But this is probably the best attempt to find what you refer to here- a science of raw experience. And yes there is quite a community - like facebook pages etc studying and commenting on phenomenology, agreements and disagreements etc but again even these are VERY difficult for a beginner. This is a "science" in its infancy and indeed philosophy and semantics is very important in computer coding. I knew Alonzo Church when he was at UCLA, and he was a religious man because he got all this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church Quote What do you think of how I'm describing things up to this point? It seems to me that you acknowledge a difference between mental states and events in the world. But that you are trying to say that difference doesn't matter, or is immaterial. Is that what you're saying, or are you making a different point. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. So far we are making great strides!! Very encouraging that we might actually be able to communicate! The difference between the world and mental states is obvious, even as Rorty says in my siggy. It's common sense BUT IT IS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT Every time we try we are stuck in language. Direct experience- intuition- is the only way and for you to understand this the light has to "come on". Words are not things and all we have is words If we could talk without language we could get somewhere. And that is where non-verbal communication comes in as you have with your wife, and your kids and when you step on the lego in the middle of the night. Direct experience. Once you really grok the idea that language is limited a new world opens. All you see is light at that point- literally. You are the one giving it meaning. Parable: We come into the world and the God within us says "let there be light" and then unfortunately we learn to speak. Babel confounds us and it's downhill from there! Repeat endlessly: "All I see is light and my own perceptions, all I feel is what I feel, all I hear is vibrations in the atmosphere and I am the one giving it meaning through language" I am kidding of course but there is some truth there! Yes there is certainly something out there- but what is another story!
FunOnlineMan Posted July 16, 2018 Posted July 16, 2018 Hello, I was invited to come in and smell the epistemology. Truthfully, I’ve read this thread, and the distracting notion of intergalactic Mormon cyborgs has made any proper treatment of philosophy impossible for me.
hope_for_things Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 On 7/16/2018 at 11:34 AM, mfbukowski said: End of part one Mark, I just wanted to let you know that I read both parts one and two of your response. They are very detailed and interesting but I haven't had much time the last couple days to articulate a response. I will do so, and I need to give it the appropriate amount of thought before I respond. Thanks much, just wanted to let you know that its on my radar. 2
aussieguy55 Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 Nancy Murphy (a prominent Christian Physicalist) maintains that humans are only physical entities, we have no “additional metaphysical element such as a mind or soul or spirit.”10 That is, she accepts the standard physicalist explanation of human beings. Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 2-28-2017 Techno-Salvation: Developing a Christian Hermeneutic of Enhancement Technology Richard Landrum Wilson
Michael Sudworth Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 (edited) On 7/11/2018 at 10:59 PM, mfbukowski said: This is an excellent article by Greg Smith on Mormon Transhumanism, and shows an excellent understanding of the issues of physicalism and the gospel. For what it's worth, I heartily endorse the article and its perspective on Mormonism. A solid undergraduate polemical essay. Without question, Smith has demonstrated that Cannon's views are simply inconsistent with the teachings of the living prophets and the restored Gospel. What I don't quite understand, however, is the hostile tone Smith adopts from the very beginning of the essay. Consider this: Quote Perhaps without intending to do so, Cannon has already shifted the scriptural ground — a command about using available means to escape a mortal, physical threat in the political realm has been shaded through choice of language into a command about how we ought to approach matters of human salvation (in the eschatological sense). This shift is not an inconsequential move. Either Cannon is unaware of what he has done, or he hopes we won’t notice.18 In an odd twist of irony, Mr. Smith employs rhetorical tricks while accusing Cannon of doing the same. Mr. Smith wants us to believe that the options that 1) Cannon is an "unaware" dimwit or 2) a devious manipulator trying to fool, rather than persuade his readers -- are the only two options available to us. May I offer a more probable scenario? Perhaps Cannon's argument was unclear and he failed to communicate his argument well. It happens. Why no charity for Brother Cannon? I have met the man several times and have always been impressed with him. He's a solid guy with his stuff together. Having read a couple of these boilerplate polemic response essays from Mr. Smith, I think he would do well to learn that people with different views are not an enemy. Edited July 18, 2018 by Michael Sudworth 2
mfbukowski Posted July 18, 2018 Author Posted July 18, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: A solid undergraduate polemical essay. Without question, Smith has demonstrated that Cannon's views are simply inconsistent with the teachings of the living prophets and the restored Gospel. What I don't quite understand, however, is the hostile tone Smith adopts from the very beginning of the essay. Consider this: In an odd twist of irony, Mr. Smith employs rhetorical tricks while accusing Cannon of doing the same. Mr. Smith wants us to believe that the options that 1) Cannon is an "unaware" dimwit or 2) a devious manipulator trying to fool, rather than persuade his readers -- are the only two options available to us. May I offer a more probable scenario? Perhaps Cannon's argument was unclear and he failed to communicate his argument well. It happens. Why no charity for Brother Cannon? I have met the man several times and have always been impressed with him. He's a solid guy with his stuff together. Having read a couple of these boilerplate polemic response essays from Mr. Smith, I think he would do well to learn that people with different views are not an enemy. It's nice to get an actual comment on the article thanks. On the other hand calling it an "undergraduate level essay" doesn't really help your position. Edited July 18, 2018 by mfbukowski
Michael Sudworth Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: On the other hand calling it an "undergraduate level essay" doesn't really help your position. By no means is this a criticism. At least when I was an undergraduate, writing clearly was an absolute requirement. Were I to grade Mr. Smith's essay, I would likely give him a B+. Solid argument, but dinged due to an unnecessary and unreasonable hostility towards the source material as well as for using big complicated words when more simple ones would do.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 On July 12, 2018 at 9:29 AM, hope_for_things said: I'm just not sure I have the patience to try and read this article by Greg. I have a problem if he's critiquing Mormon Transhumanists in the Interpreter. Why do they have to feel threatened by a group like this? Its such a small movement of people. Every Mormon Transhumanist I've ever listened to or read has been such a positive person and has such a positive outlook on life and doing good in the world. Why do the boundary maintenance police have to feel threatened by such a small group trying to do good that they have to put them down. My intuition tells me this is just insecurity by the apologists. Ugh.... I just noticed the comment above. Perhaps some history will help. I was approached by a prominent Mormon Transhumanist with the idea of his submitting an article to us on the topic. I was open to the idea. Some of my editorial board, however, were not happy about it, since they have strong disagreements (on both theological and scientific grounds) with elements of MT. I suggested that we run two articles concurrently or in close succession, one by the advocate and one by a non-advocate. As it happens, the proposed article from an MT perspective never materialized, while the non-MT article was submitted. We waited, I encouraged completion of the proposed MT article, and then we went ahead and published what we had. This didn't begin at our initiative. We don't feel "threatened." There is no "insecurity" among those awful "apologists." We weren't acting as "the boundary maintenance police." A prominent advocate of MT suggested that Interpreter cover the subject. He promised an article. He didn't write it. 3
hope_for_things Posted July 20, 2018 Posted July 20, 2018 On 7/16/2018 at 11:34 AM, mfbukowski said: " If there is a difference between mental states and things happen in the world, then it seems to me we should be able to use language to describe the difference. " Yes everyone thought that too until about 150 years ago when philosophers started thinking deeply about language itself and then the arguments against "correspondence" started to flourish. They had always been there in a philosophy called "Idealism" but they would come and go. Now quite frankly VERY FEW philosophers take "correspondence" as a function description of truth for precisely these reasons. The word "blue" simply does not "correspond" to blue unless you do this : BLUE Without that, the word points to a memory of an experience which blind people have never hand, and so it would be unintelligible to them. This is the first part that I wanted to respond to that I've been thinking about. Describing the attributes of something like the color blue, to someone that can't see or something that has no frame of reference. This is complicated task and people have been thinking about real world applications for how to address this challenge for years. In the link below they talk about relating colors to other experiences of sense. https://www.wikihow.com/Describe-a-Color-to-a-Blind-Person But what if we were communicating with an alien race that didn't share any senses with us humans? How would we communicate color to them. If you have watched the movie Arrival that came our in 2016, its a really good movie, fascinating on many levels, but one of the challenges the humans have communicating with the aliens is that they don't communicate in the same way we do. And without giving too many spoilers away, they don't even perceive time in a linear way like we humans do, so their perceptions of time are very different and it takes a while for the characters in the movie to even begin to comprehend this. You seem confident that science will never be able to describe things like religious experience and beauty. I'm not willing to say that with any level of confidence. There are many things that science has accomplished that nobody could have even imagined in the past. I was reading about some research on observations of Neutrinos that are 4 billion light years away that science is observing. (Neutrinos are sub atomic particles that science has developed very sophisticated methods for observation, since they can't be observed by our five senses.) I'm also impressed about discoveries in the neurosciences and I think we're just beginning to learn about how human minds work. This position you've carved out for what the limits of science are with respect to describing experiences people have, I'm not convinced that some kind of stand can be made on those grounds. On 7/16/2018 at 11:34 AM, mfbukowski said: No, that is the problem. Dictionary writers are not philosophers and dictionaries refer to the "ordinary man" cultural definition! In fact philosophy is PRECISELY the search for " another word would fit better that wouldn't side track into all those debates" The ordinary man can speak in ordinary culturese but philosophers must speak like philosophers which is why all this stuff gets so hard to understand BECAUSE all words get side tracked into debates about words! That is why poor old Rorty cannot say " Yes of course the world is out there- common sense tells us this- things are out there and are not mental states but all we know are mental states and not things" BECAUSE that makes no sense. Instead he has to use the idea of "causes of mental states" instead of "things in the world" to be accurate. You stub your toe in the middle of the night. That thing out there VERY CLEARLY IN THE WORLD is a CAUSE of the mental state " %&*!!@$" or to be civil, "pain". So instead he has to refer not to "things" out there in the world but to "causes" in the world " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. " But even the word "cause" is a very difficult one in philosophy. What was the "cause" of your birth? The love of your parents? The love of your great great grandfather? The origins of life? The singularity which "caused" the Big Bang? VERY complicated! So the thing in the world is the "cause" of the mental state which we then express in language. So three states : Thing in the world causes> mental state which causes> language. That's 2 steps of removal from the "world" to language- any of which might be mistaken! Thing> 1 -misperception/interpretation/hallucination etc> 2- linguistic ambiguity/unclear wording/misrepresentation/ambiguity Getting from the "thing" to "corresponding language" is dang near impossible unless it is pretty simple stuff. And since you cannot get outside perception to get to the "thing" how do you check the perception against the thing?? This part confuses me some. If the rock I stubbed my toe on a rock and this caused my toe to swell up and lose the toe nail. Is this not clearly different than if I had a dream one night that I stubbed my toe on a rock and lost my toe nail. The next morning I would wake up to a toe with the toenail still intact. It seems if the cause of my mental state actually exists in the universe as a real rock, then the effects of this cause are different than if I just imagine or dream something. My initial mental state might confuse the two experiences, but upon further observation and corroboration from other parties, and through repeating the experiments, it becomes clear that there was a difference in the causes of these similar mental states. Unless you're making an argument like those who wonder if we're living in a simulation and how it might be impossible to tell whether this life is a simulation or real. But I don't think you're making that kind of argument, so help me understand. This is the end of the part one reply.
hope_for_things Posted July 20, 2018 Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) On 7/18/2018 at 10:12 PM, Daniel Peterson said: I just noticed the comment above. Perhaps some history will help. I was approached by a prominent Mormon Transhumanist with the idea of his submitting an article to us on the topic. I was open to the idea. Some of my editorial board, however, were not happy about it, since they have strong disagreements (on both theological and scientific grounds) with elements of MT. I suggested that we run two articles concurrently or in close succession, one by the advocate and one by a non-advocate. As it happens, the proposed article from an MT perspective never materialized, while the non-MT article was submitted. We waited, I encouraged completion of the proposed MT article, and then we went ahead and published what we had. This didn't begin at our initiative. We don't feel "threatened." There is no "insecurity" among those awful "apologists." We weren't acting as "the boundary maintenance police." A prominent advocate of MT suggested that Interpreter cover the subject. He promised an article. He didn't write it. Dan, no offense, you may even consider this a compliment, but you are the acting Police Chief of the boundary maintenance police force. Thanks for the background on the articles around Mormon Transhumanism and the history with what was brought to the Interpreter, that adds some additional context that is important. I'm honestly not too familiar with pro and con essays being openly published in the Interpreter, from the articles I've read, they generally slant to a very apologetic audience, but perhaps there are some other topics where you've published different sides of an issue. Lastly, I don't think apologists are awful, sorry you got that impression. Its not something that works for me personally though and I have a bias towards other approaches to religion. Edited July 20, 2018 by hope_for_things
mfbukowski Posted July 21, 2018 Author Posted July 21, 2018 11 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This is the first part that I wanted to respond to that I've been thinking about. Describing the attributes of something like the color blue, to someone that can't see or something that has no frame of reference. This is complicated task and people have been thinking about real world applications for how to address this challenge for years. In the link below they talk about relating colors to other experiences of sense. https://www.wikihow.com/Describe-a-Color-to-a-Blind-Person But what if we were communicating with an alien race that didn't share any senses with us humans? How would we communicate color to them. If you have watched the movie Arrival that came our in 2016, its a really good movie, fascinating on many levels, but one of the challenges the humans have communicating with the aliens is that they don't communicate in the same way we do. And without giving too many spoilers away, they don't even perceive time in a linear way like we humans do, so their perceptions of time are very different and it takes a while for the characters in the movie to even begin to comprehend this. You seem confident that science will never be able to describe things like religious experience and beauty. I'm not willing to say that with any level of confidence. There are many things that science has accomplished that nobody could have even imagined in the past. I was reading about some research on observations of Neutrinos that are 4 billion light years away that science is observing. (Neutrinos are sub atomic particles that science has developed very sophisticated methods for observation, since they can't be observed by our five senses.) I'm also impressed about discoveries in the neurosciences and I think we're just beginning to learn about how human minds work. This position you've carved out for what the limits of science are with respect to describing experiences people have, I'm not convinced that some kind of stand can be made on those grounds. This part confuses me some. If the rock I stubbed my toe on a rock and this caused my toe to swell up and lose the toe nail. Is this not clearly different than if I had a dream one night that I stubbed my toe on a rock and lost my toe nail. The next morning I would wake up to a toe with the toenail still intact. It seems if the cause of my mental state actually exists in the universe as a real rock, then the effects of this cause are different than if I just imagine or dream something. My initial mental state might confuse the two experiences, but upon further observation and corroboration from other parties, and through repeating the experiments, it becomes clear that there was a difference in the causes of these similar mental states. Unless you're making an argument like those who wonder if we're living in a simulation and how it might be impossible to tell whether this life is a simulation or real. But I don't think you're making that kind of argument, so help me understand. This is the end of the part one reply. Thanks for the reply I still think we are going in circles, dont worry about part 2 unless you really want to
Recommended Posts