Would we be "us" no matter which sperm fertilized the egg?

[inocente]

Let’s drop the term “absolute truth” for a second and ask a simple question. If one were to order the following list according to which contains the most truth and which contains the least, what would the list look like in your estimation?

For me, eye of the beholder. We’re not equipped to be able to see the whole truth and can only look through one face of a prism, through a glass darkly.

Light shines
Around us
So bright!
We do not see.

(badly remembered San Francisco poem on being blinded by the light)

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

A purely material explanation of mind is now on the horizon and once presented there will be a battle to rival geocentrism and evolution, but future generations may lose the desire for an immaterial explanation.

Not everything can be discovered. There are some things that can be ruled out, such as the possibility of discovering a four-sided triangle, or building a clock that knows what time it is in the same manner that we know what time it is. The following quote is taken from a web site devoted to the philosophy of C.S. Lewis. It argues that the mind must be immaterial.

"The argument [against a material mind] holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it, or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause. Lewis asserts that by this logic, the statement “I have reason to believe naturalism is valid” is self-referentially incoherent in the same manner as the sentence “One of the words of this sentence does not have the meaning that it appears to have”, or the statement “I never tell the truth”. In each case, to assume the veracity of the conclusion would eliminate the possibility of valid grounds from which to reach it. To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane who appeals to a similar line of reasoning. Haldane states “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

 

[inocente]

Not everything can be discovered. … The following quote is taken from a web site devoted to the philosophy of C.S. Lewis. It argues that the mind must be immaterial.

Theorizing guys versus practical guys.

There are practical guys learning about the brain in behavioral psychology (animals as well as us), neuroscience, biochemistry and medicine, doing basic research, trying to find cures, creating devices to overcome disabilities and so on.

Very few of these guys are currently trying to explain the mind, that’s too hard at the moment and not what they’re paid for, although a few of them speculate about how they think it might work. But all the time they’re gaining knowledge, filling-in the unknowns, explaining more and more.

Lewis and Haldane can theorize all they want but the practical guys ignore them. They already know that cause and effect can be darned subtle, e.g. as in chaos, and are wary of simplistic theories. In any event practical guys don’t just accept theories, they test them.

Some of this work is taught in schools, it’s about us and intrinsically interesting, and kids are predisposed to accept explanations that work. Whether we like it or not a material explanation of mind is coming.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Lewis and Haldane can theorize all they want but the practical guys ignore them.

This is what frightens me. I am grateful to practical guys who develop ways of overcoming disabilities, but not so grateful to the practical guys who developed intercontinental nuclear missiles, unnatural reproductive technologies, surgical abortion and new age psychology (that last one is probably more useless than practical). It is worth noting that “ignore” is the root of “ignorant”.

 

[greylorn]

Let’s drop the term “absolute truth” for a second and ask a simple question. If one were to order the following list according to which contains the most truth and which contains the least, what would the list look like in your estimation?

(in no particular order)

1. Scientific Materialism (as defined by Marx)
2. Epicureanism (happiness is pleasure)
3. Catholicism (as defined by the Magisterium)
4. Eastern Orthodoxy
5. Hinduism
6. Syncretism (combination of all religions)

Interesting puzzle. It was easy to put #2 at the bottom, and Catholicism at the top. But I do not know the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, so perhaps they could swap places. The rest have to fight it out for fifth place.

Essentially, I have to give a big fat None of the Above to the entire list. That’s why I devised my own theology and creation theory, which can be approximately regarded as a mix of gnosticism, advanced pantheism, and physics.

I am certain that the universe and life forms did not come into being as a result of accidents. I am equally certain that all conventional interpretations which try to explain the properties and motivations of the creators are incorrect.

 

[greylorn]

… J. B. S. Haldane … states “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Great quote! Thanks!

 

[greylorn]

Granted this is a widespread intuition and admittedly it’s a little unlikely we’d have invented the MRI scanner before the wheel, but suppose we’d always been aware of electrochemical brain activity, would we ever have developed the concept of an immaterial soul?

I am certain of it. 3% of people have had an OOB (Out Of Body) experience. Many have experienced the effects of “ghosts.” I’ve personally seen one of my house ghosts in action. Fascinating experience.

General paranormal experiences are not well-explained by a theory which regards the brain as the only source of thought and action, particularly telekinesis and remote viewing.

A purely material explanation of mind is now on the horizon and once presented there will be a battle to rival geocentrism and evolution, but future generations may lose the desire for an immaterial explanation. It could even be a salvation of sorts which leads us towards a new spirituality.

I promise that the impending material explanation of mind will remain on the horizon. Do you know of anyone who has actually reached a horizon?

 

[greylorn]

… Whether we like it or not a material explanation of mind is coming.

You’ve presented this theme before, which is curious, coming from a Baptist. Do you believe in the continuity of post-death consciousness?

We do have a material explanation of mind, namely that it is a property or effect of the brain. However, the explanation does not cover all the mind-related evidence, so it isn’t any good. Kind of like Darwinism and the Big Bang, which sound good when presented with words, but fail the math.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

It was easy to put [Epicurianism] at the bottom, and Catholicism at the top.

Agreed. The only significant difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the papacy so I would put Orthodoxy second. I would place Epicurianism and Scientific Materialism at the bottom. The middle is a bit of a free for all (as you suggested).

That’s why I devised my own theology and creation theory

That sounds ambitious. Make sure you take a lesson from L. Ron Hubbard before you find yourself deluged by wealthy celebrities!

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

1. Epicureanism (happiness is pleasure)

That’s a rather gross misrepresentation of Epicurus. He and his followers led lives that make some contemporary monasteries look like opulent indulgence.

 

[greylorn]

That sounds ambitious. Make sure you take a lesson from L. Ron Hubbard before you find yourself deluged by wealthy celebrities!

Had I known what a job it would be, I’d never undertaken it. Thanks for the warning. I don’t anticipate celebrities as a problem for two reasons. My ideas require a modicum of intelligence to understand, and I don’t own a yacht.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

That’s a rather gross misrepresentation of Epicurus. He and his followers led lives that make some contemporary monasteries look like opulent indulgence.

“Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one’s desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form.”

Couldn’t fit all that into one line, although on second thought “happiness is modest pleasure” would have been more accurate. I am more interested in what he lived for rather than how he lived.

 

[inocente]

It is worth noting that “ignore” is the root of “ignorant”.

I promise that the impending material explanation of mind will remain on the horizon. Do you know of anyone who has actually reached a horizon?

No doubt we’ve all been in debates about science and materialism.

My point is that in this field the practical guys are making significant progress step by step. Their explanations work and can be tested, and appear in a constant stream of articles, books, TV programs and courses. Unlike evolution and big bang this work has an immediacy, it’s engaging because it’s directly about us and is useful. And it’s still early days.

There are upbeat theologians who relish all of this but they seem outnumbered by those who don’t advance at all and just react negatively, who don’t get us anywhere in overcoming mental illnesses, understanding each other better, or pretty much anything else. You might make out I’m not very fond of them. They make religion appear stale, pointless and dull. Opposite of Christ.

 

[inocente]

I am certain of it. 3% of people have had an OOB (Out Of Body) experience. Many have experienced the effects of “ghosts.” I’ve personally seen one of my house ghosts in action. Fascinating experience.

General paranormal experiences are not well-explained by a theory which regards the brain as the only source of thought and action, particularly telekinesis and remote viewing.

Five centuries ago demons were fashionable, two centuries ago ghosts, last century alien abductions, now it’s OOB experiences. And that’s without including all the others like the undead and zombies. A reasonable deduction might be they’re all products of the imagination. An OOB experience could be a combination of imagination and a mechanism for disconnecting mind from body discussed here. The only reports I’ve seen on telekinesis and remote viewing showed the effect disappeared completely when experimental procedures were tightened to remove more mundane possibilities.

God created a physical universe, ‘nough said.

You’ve presented this theme before, which is curious, coming from a Baptist. Do you believe in the continuity of post-death consciousness?

God isn’t trapped by time, there’s no need for complicated theories which ignore that.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I am more interested in what he lived for rather than how he lived.

I don’t think that’s a very useful distinction to make – it seems to me that he lived for how he lived – the same as anyone else from Mother Teresa to Henry VIII. What was Teresa living for? The opportunity to live her life of sacrifice and service to God.

My concern is that many people consider Epicurus and his followers to be some sort of orgiastic cult of wild abandon to the pleasures of the material world, when nothing is further from the truth.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

God created a physical universe, ‘nough said.

Sure, but we’ve moved on from the kind of paganism that believed physical gods lived in the mountains and stole each others spouses. God is incorporeal, and a portion of His creation is incorporeal. In those articles you mentioned I often read about stuff that makes my hair stand on end. If modern metaphysics becomes completely material (i.e. just “physics”) this world is going to start looking like the Island of Dr. Moreau.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

My concern is that many people consider Epicurus and his followers to be some sort of orgiastic cult of wild abandon to the pleasures of the material world, when nothing is further from the truth.

No, they were not an orgiastic cult. How does “temperate abandonment to the pleasures of the world” grab you?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

No, they were not an orgiastic cult. How does “temperate abandonment to the pleasures of the world” grab you?

I suppose if you consider celibacy while living and eating simply to be “temperate abandonment,” then sure. But I bet that’s not what comes to mind when people read “happiness is pleasure.”

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Bruno,
Our definition of Epicureanism comes from the philosophy of Epicurus ~300 BC]. He had theories about everything, including a theory of biology which is strikingly similar to Darwinism. There is no doubt that the behaviour of an ancient, medieval or modern Epicurean would be different due to environmental factors. Nonetheless if these people operate with the same axioms as Epicurus we can call them Epicurean. This is why I am interested in axioms rather than behaviour. Celibacy tells me nothing, because celibates can be found in many different systems. As far as I can tell the central axioms of Epicureanism dictate that our highest goal is to cultivate some degree of pleasure and to avoid pain. If you see something deeper than this please let me know what it is.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Epicurus considered pleasure to largely be the absence of pain and anxiety, and believed that deferring or minimizing specific pleasures (e.g. food or drink) would serve to increase an overall sense of well-being.

This is in stark contrast to some of his contemporaries like the Cyrenaics, who believed that ever greater bodily pleasures should be pursued in order to find happiness.

I don’t think that reducing it to an “axiom” of “cultivating pleasure and avoiding pain,” with no regard to how this is achieved, is appropriate. After all, doesn’t the most devout Catholic live in faith to cultivate the eventual pleasure of union with God and the avoidance of eternal punishment?