Certainly you don’t think that I put this out expecting everyone to automatically agree @Fyrius? Do you? I put this out with the specific expectation for disagreement. I desire it. This forum is an excellent source of disagreement. May we use it as a tool to help work out the thoughts in our heads. Your attempt to “dismantle” is a gift to me, a reason to speak deeper on the subject, and a source of materialist criticism that needs to be addressed, and that I may otherwise have overlooked. Please keep it up. I will only be the better for it.
I adhere to A Discipline Independent Definition of Information, as set forth by the American Society for Information Science, where Information is a description of observable phenomenon, and not the phenomenon itself.
It takes into account all disciplines from Information Theory, to Biology, to Physics, and seeks to unify them with a hierarchical model for defining Information.
Information, therefor, is not to be considered synonymous with any observable phenomenon (as modern physics would have us believe). As a description, Information is created when a phenomenon is described through codification. It is literally the process of manifesting thought in-to-form.
Now, you seem quite bent upon exposing my “skillfulness” at “bending words” and “sneak(ing) past” explanations. Yet all one must do is ask me for clarification, as I have attempted to provide answer to anyone who requests it. I even preempted my comments to you with specific clarification of words such as “being, place, realm” among others. It is my desire to communicate with you professionally, sans any perceived “vagueness”. Please lay down your guns for a moment and address my thoughts with some degree of respect, as you would have me address yours. Skepticism is fine, and understandable. But attitude serves only to reveal entrenched dogmatic cynicism.
The points you raise are valid and deserve addressing. And though I risk “boring” you further, it is my privilege to offer an apologetic to your concerns.
“So, a “realm” is not a place, since it’s not material and not physical? Intriguing. And are there also things that a realm is?”
If by “things”, you mean physical things, then no, there are no physical things in an immaterial realm. Likewise, an immaterial realm cannot be considered as a physical thing. But if you consider an immaterial thought to be a thing, then yes, we can allow that under the condition of noting the difference between physical and nonphysical things.
I prefer to think of immaterialism as nothing… a no-thing.
It is extremely difficult to discuss notions of immaterialism with a materialistic vernacular. Metaphor and analogy are common tools which allow us to “bend words” in order to fit the concepts we attempt to relate. I used the term “realm” specifically to denote a disembodiment of mind/thought. I avoided the term dimension, for that seems to me, more akin to a separate, yet synonymous physical dimension, with notions of height, width, and so on, including perhaps other dimensions that we are currently incapable of detecting.
”...amazing how you explain your view of the non-place you call by the same name as the ancient biblical heaven. ”
How is that amazing? I’m unfamiliar with any doctrine which promotes Heaven as a physical place. Whether it be Christian or Taoist, Heaven is consistently considered to be sans any notions of materialism, energy/matter, space/time. Christianity specifically notes that God and his Heavenly Kingdom is beyond space/time and that creation is within space/time. Whilst at the same time, Christ depicts the Kingdom of Heaven within us. Taoists specifically note that Heaven/Hell concepts are states of Mind. Neither present any materialistic baggage to describe Heaven.
I find this to be a consistent source of contention for Hard Marxist Dialectic Materialist Atheists to digest, often spouting the suffering argument as justification to claim that an all loving God does not, and could not possibly exist. They seem to believe if that were the case, then our physical existence on earth should be equal to a Heavenly existence. This holds the Theist to an unfair advantage, for I know of know religion which promotes life on earth to be comparable to existence in Heaven. They are very different from each other, and the Atheist does everyone a great disservice by conflating them as being remotely comparable.
This should not be so difficult to accept in our age of Information. Where is CyberSpace? Shall we deny it exists? You sit at your computer and I sit at mine… physically. But we are both (metaphorically here), and shall stay here long after we’ve physically left our computer terminals for our comments remain, and they represent our thoughts, even beyond the grave. Where is this place that represents our thoughts and where are the thoughts this place represents?
”...a “realm” – where there are no beings, only disembodied minds, and the concepts a mind can think about are “Entities” in themselves which, presumably, have a mind of their own the same way “Truth” does.”
First off, I don’t, and cannot possibly know. But I can follow a trail of logic crumbs and infer an educated guess. And this is where (where is this?)... ahem, and this is where your skepticism will provide great rationale, challenging us both to inspect the logic of the premise.
”...where there are no beings…”
Right. No physical beings. We may refer to them as “beings” if you like, but must denote them as non-physical. That’s why I call them Entities, or Agents.
”...only disembodied minds…”
I’m not sure. I don’t know if they are disembodied minds, or disembodied thoughts, or if the immaterial realm co-joins them as one in the same… I don’t know. But here’s what I’ve put together so far…
I believe that the relationship between Thought and Mind is the very same concept as Spirit and Soul. One term from science, the other from theology. But in essence, they are synonymous and completely interchangeable. It is unfortunate that neither science or religion can see this. Failure to see this is a source of dogmatic blindness, as far as I’m concerned, and only serves to put another barrier between the two disciplines.
So, the way I see it, Thought/Spirit are like building blocks which are used to create a Mind/Soul. Yes I know, the Theist raises red flags because ultimately that means that the Mind/Soul of an adult is more developed than the Mind/Soul of an infant. Not more important mind you, just more developed. The hard swallow is understanding that unless one can demonstrate an ounce of Thought for the embryo in the womb, then one cannot therefor make a case against abortion on the basis of destroying a Spirit or a Soul.
So, if a quantity of thought/spirit builds a mind/soul, then not only should this premise be mathematically calculable, but it also suggests many possible meanings that “disembodied minds” could have.
If one is to consider Krisna Consciousness or One with God, then a case could be made that we are only capable of thought/spirit by accessing the Proto-Mind of that one Immaterial Agent. As a Linguist, you might appreciate Bhartrihari’s Sphota Theory of Language, for it suggests that is the case. We manifest Brahman into the physical realm with every spoken word that falls from our mouths. It is very similar to Biblical principles of The Word, though most Christians would never accept or admit that, and even then, mostly out of ignorance about their own religion.
Do we actually have Minds of Our Own or are we accessing the greater Proto-Mind of God? I have absolutely no idea. But the “I” in that statement suggests that we have our own individual minds, separate and apart from God, and therefor have a legitimate shot at true Free Will through the Dualistic mechanism of autonomous thought expressed via codified description, even if only within our own minds.
”...and the concepts a mind can think about are “Entities” which, presumably, have a mind of their own…”
Perhaps it is as you describe. I prefer to believe that Thought/Spirit is “the concepts a mind can think about”, and they accumulate to build an “Entity” that I call Mind/Soul.
So perhaps I misled you earlier with my loose tongued description suggesting ”...Lust, Greed, Hope, Happiness… are in themselves, Entities. Spirits if you will….” My mistake. I should have been more precise. Thanks for pointing that out. It helps.
This leaves us (me) with a quandary. Though I cannot deny the existence of Thought/Spirit, I can neither claim them as “Entities” in their own right, unless of course I resolve the issue by adhering to Bhartrihari’s Proto-Thought God.
But where I’m leaning with this is the possibility that Thought/Spirit is a different type of entity altogether, perhaps a pseudo or quasi-entity. Not necessarily with “a mind of their own”, but with needs (so to speak), like a virus needs a host.
Was it not Dawkins who coined the term “meme”, to describe an essence of meaning like a mutation that catches on and permeates throughout a society. It’s not such a conceptual leap to apply the same logic to Thought/Spirit, where a person can get overwhelmed with that feeling of desire for a new car, or become infatuated with a hobby or charitable pursuit. If this is so, then Thought/Spirit can be a very dangerous bugger, infecting some with addictions and detrimental psychosis.
Admittedly, I’ve wrestled with this notion for a while, never having resolved it to my satisfaction. What seems as “paradoxical jabberwocky” to you, is a great deal of interest to me.
”...a mind of their own the same way “Truth” does.”
There are a number of free thinkers who, like me, are coming to the conclusion that Truth, is in fact, an intelligent Entity. It’s a sorted affair. Briefly, Truth is so beyond us, as humans, that it often seems as a horrific monster. We will avoid it at any costs, preferring instead to manifest our own personal truth as a personal god, a creed, a code to live by. As Jack Nicholson says, You can’t handle the Truth!, and neither could the poor slobs in Plato’s Cave.
Yet we claim to want it… the Truth. Every endeavor of humanity is consumed by this one desire. It cannot be destroyed, for even if we destroyed it then it would be True that we destroyed it. Even if we lived in an entirely deceptive universe, one that had no mechanism for expressing Truth, then it would be True that we lived there. Truth remains. It is the chasm we cannot cross. It is the very edge of the abyss.
Yet we can glean a few insights about its intelligent nature. You very well know I believe that an author is necessary to create a codified representation of Information. Yet we are left with an anonymous author to account for the Information represented by our genetic code. Considering that Information is the process of manifesting thought in-to-form, and there is no physical author to be found, and if there was it would only push the question back further, then I must conclude to infer the existence of an Immaterial Intelligent Agent to account for the genetic code, at least.
I call this agent Truth.
And whether we consider the Prosentential Theory, the Performative Theory, a Semantic Theory, Pragmatic, be them redundant or deflationary, they are all based upon principles of The Word.
I cannot genuinely claim however that this Truth/God is responsible for creating the Universe. For I have found no code which describes the Universe before its manifestation into physical reality. There are many arguments to suggest the Universe was created, but few pass the mustard of science, and I need not drag them into this discussion.
It is interesting to note however, that increasingly physicists are promoting the notion that observation plays a huge role in the quantum state. It is not out of line to consider this quantum state as a playground, of which Truth/God created for us to define our own physical existence the way we see it, and not how it would have us see it. In this manner, we are free to express ourselves, to discover Deception for what it is, and overcome it by defining our individual realities, yet still with the relentless pursuit of Truth first and foremost on our minds.
It could be said, that Truth Loves us so much, that it allows us to approach it on our terms, at our pace, without forcing itself upon us. We are incapable of seeing it in its entirety. And even if we were, it would be too horrific to gaze upon, crushing everything we know, everything we are into nothingness. I suggest Truth only presents itself to the degree we can handle it in order to preserve our individual nature, allowing us to mature and grow as each person is best suited for.
”...annoying questions like whether the Spirit of Loneliness can feel Pride while that feeling of Pride simultaneously feels Gloomy…”
This must be considered in light of my earlier comments about Thought/Spirit Dawkins Meme. If Thought/Spirit is indeed like a quasi-Entity, an immaterial Virus Meme, then a Mind/Soul should have no problem entertaining many of them simultaneously. But I don’t believe that a virus could have another virus… I don’t know really. Interesting. And like a virus, a thought can mutate into something entirely different than what it originally was. This happens individually, leaving the original virus intact, with another new virus that’s been created. Thought does the same thing.
The only difference between thought and virus is that one is non physical, and the other physical. Well, there is another difference actually. A codified thought can be duplicated just by looking at it, or hearing it. Viruses can’t do that.
“Or how minds can be disembodied.”
There is no evidence to suggest that a Mind was ever “embodied” in the first place. Unless again, of course, one take the Hard Marxist Dialectic Materialist approach to conflate Mind with Brain. Surely that notion is becoming quite antiquated by now.
“Or how a disembodied mind could feel Lust, a state of mind directly caused by physical hormones, or Happiness, which involves a release of physical endorphins.”
Hormones are chemical messengers. All messages come from a Mind. Therefor the Hormones do not cause the Mind to be Lustful. The Mind causes the Hormones to be released. The Mind may send a message which cannot be acted upon because of low hormone levels, but the Mind has sent the message nonetheless. Hormone therapy allows the messages to once again be carried out.
This is akin to the research of Wes Warren from Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as illustrated in April 2010 issue of Nature Journal. Although not directly involved with hormones, it demonstrates a Mind First principle which accounts for Desire to initiate a gene sequence, rather than the other way around, being a gene sequence thought to initiate a desire.
It seems that when the Zebra Finch expresses a desire to sing, that desire causes a change in sequence of the “long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcription factors and their targets.” And thereby, a change in that sequence, is the very mechanism which causes the “interactions of neurons within the brain”. The genes are instructing the brain, rather than the brain instructing the genes. The genes are a codified representation of thought. Thought first, then the physical mechanism can act upon them accordingly. And it also demonstrates that the brain is not necessarily the only physical medium which can manifest a thought. Logically, thought seems related to genes now more than ever. This makes sense because thought needs a code to become manifest into physicality.
As well, it is not necessary the case that endorphins induce a thought of happiness. Again, there is evidence to suggest that thoughts of happiness are what engages the endorphins to emerge. Dr. Joel Fuhrman MD suggests, ”When people take a placebo and they believe something’s helpful, it often works,, and gives it an endorphin factor of 2. Key term here is “believe”. Beliefs are thoughts, and therefor thought alone can release endorphins.
Fuhrman goes on to say, A person who gets pleasure in life, from whatever source, will keep endorphins at a healthy level,, and suggest that a simple viewing of beautiful art or a dramatic scene in a movie is a valid cause for releasing endorphins. People are moved to tears create more endorphins than those who are not. Feelings beyond words, proto-thought, is what triggers endorphins. Again, it is thought which controls the body, not the other way around.
“Or where Truth and Deception came from, before there were humans…”
I don’t suppose that an immaterial realm is subject to or shackled by the materialistic notions of “from” or “before”. The whole premise of a God, a Heaven, an Immaterial realm is that they are beyond physical energy/matter space/time. That’s a hard swallow for the Materialist, I know.
“But when you say it, none of that paradoxical jabberwocky sounds confusing at all…”
Thanks
”...someone in a hurry might not even think of consulting with their common sense”
We would all do well to slow down a bit and offer thoughtful consideration to the issues that concern us most.
“It’s been a while since I gave up on expecting olive oil in your word salads.”
I just tossed a new one for us. Please sit down and enjoy it with me.
Composing members:
0
