Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? — Athena

Of course! Even feminists, like Simone de Beauvoir, accepted that male and female minds had inherently different "styles". This dichotomy --- as the French say, "vive la difference" --- is obviously related to the contrasting bodies that their brains reside in. The male body was adapted by evolution to life in "Nature - red in tooth and claw". Hence, they were physically & mentally adapted to "Hunter" jobs that require them to face dangers away from home base. Meanwhile, the female body was adapted to "Gathering" jobs that could be done near the village and dependent children. Thus, the male mind tends to be more confident & aggressive & combative, while the female mind is more sociable & nurturing & passive. This is the either/or distinction between male & female roles that we have inherited from thousands of years of human history.

But suddenly, in just a couple of centuries the influence of Nature has been moderated by the rise of human Culture. Hence, in the 21st century, most men do not hunt wild animals for food --- even though a few still do for sport. And technology has allowed women to do jobs that were traditionally reserved for men. But conservative thinkers, of both sexes, rely heavily on emotion & custom, and are wary of tradition-threatening cultural changes. So, they "feel" that women should be content to play their natural "god-given" role as passive "help-meet" to dominant men. Yet again, technology has eliminated much of the advantage of physical strength & combativeness, and civilization has learned to control the aggressive competitive temperament with communal laws. So, for the first time in history, women are empowered (by technology & culture) to do the same mental & physical work as men.

Unfortunately, bodies don't adapt as quickly as minds. So the mind-styles of men and women are still emotionally & hormonally influenced by innate genetic differences. Therefore, we will have to gradually learn to modify our cultural expectations to accept the fact that physical bodies are no longer the primary factor in social roles. The either/or rules of ancient societies are no longer applicable to our modern anything-goes culture. Today, a man can become a woman physically, and vice-versa. But socially, the change is much more difficult. And since many world societies are lagging behind in cultural evolution, it will take a few generations for the egalitarian ideal to become the norm. Meanwhile, we'll have to do our best to accommodate the advantages & disadvantages of each mind-style. Again. "vive la difference". :wink:


Gendered Mind Styles : https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

PS___Women are typically rare posters on Philosophical forums. That may be, in part, due to the wild-west openness & freedom of online forums. It allows aggressive posters to play rough, which suits the individualistic male mindstyle better than the more communal female mindstyle. It's also why most forums have moderators to level the playing field by putting a damper on the boys-will-be-boys rough-housing and I'm-smarter-than-you trolling. Perhaps some philosophical self-defense training will give women more confidence to play with the big boys. :joke:

One of the battles of science against medieval scholasticism was the elimination of final causes (purpose) in the study of nature. — David Mo

Yes. But post-20th-century scientists --- since the advent of Quantum Theory --- are losing that battle. We discuss some of the Teleological implications of modern science in the various Teleology threads on this forum. :cool:

Final Causes : "But I was surprised to read that biologists especially (including Darwin himself) have begun to tackle even Teleology, the Fourth Cause. Is this appropriate in Modern Science?"
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1896/does-science-reject-aristotles-final-cause

Systems Theory : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Goal_Structure_(Teleological_Behavior)

Aristotle never made a distinction between inductive science and rational science. This is a further interpretation of his writings. His division was between science and opinion. — David Mo

Aristotle did make a distinction between a> empirical Induction and b> rational Deduction, which roughly parallel the methods of a> Science and b> Philosophy. Are you saying that Philosophy is mere opinion, hence of no value to science? That has been the "opinion" of some prominent modern scientists. But, whether they realize it or not, most scientists use both methods.

Induction vs Deduction : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

No modern philosopher (marginal exceptions are possible) tries to impose "first principles" on any science now. — David Mo

They are now called "axioms".

First Principles : A first principle is an axiom that cannot be deduced from any other within that system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

In what sense is interpretation metaphysical? I do not see the point. — David Mo

I'm not sure which "interpretation" you are referring to. A> That Science has rid itself of the "pernicious influence" of Philosophy, or B> That "Analysis" is superior to "Synthesis"?

Oh. Maybe you are questioning my implicit assertion that human opinions are metaphysical "interpretations", not physical Facts. The Closer To Truth TV series was a philosophy of science program, based on the understanding that Science deals not in final truths, but in pragmatic information, useful for specific applications. All Theories are philosophical conjectures. Ultimately, all human "facts" are somebody's "opinion". They are always subject to revision and update.

Apparently you didn't see the point of my reason for making a special definition of "Metaphysics" as it relates to Information Theory. But don't worry --- it's just my opinion. It doesn't matter to Science. :joke:

PS___Scientists are fooling themselves if they think their work has been purged from the pernicious influence of Metaphysics. Quantum Physics is full of such (literal) nonsense.

"Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives)."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Neveretheless I dont know if we can directly relate those ancient myth creatures with more contemporary folk creatures. — Raptor

Joseph Campbell, in The Power of Myth, finds the commonalities in folk myths to be related to Archetypes in the human mind. For example, a bull may represent Power or Potential or Fertility in human relations. But there are so many symbolic creatures in folklore, you could spend a lifetime studying them. One contemporary folk creature is the typical "Gray" Alien, which to some people is like an Angel bringing messages of peace or warnings of dire consequences for ecological disaster. :cool:

PS___Modern Chupacabra myths seemed to be derived from monster movies , but are probably also related to more general scary archetypes in the human psyche.

What then of the postulate that the relative velocity of light with respect to an object is "constant"? — TheMadFool

I don't fully understand how this works technically. But, metaphorically, I assume that Einstein realized that everything in space-time must be moving & changing relative to something infinite-eternal. Some astrologers viewed God or the Sun as the Eternal center about which everything else revolves. So, Einstein chose the speed of light, measured relative to Earthlings, to set as a mathematical constant to which other things can be compared. I don't know if he was thinking of the Sun analogy, but it makes a nice metaphor. :nerd:

Note : Physical "constants" are sometimes measured, but Mathematical constants are sometimes created by definition, to serve as an Axiom. Einstein's Cosmic Constant was an example of the latter. But it was eventually found to have a physical basis.

What are your recommendations about works and authors that talk about myth/folk creatures? — Raptor

Modern philosophers usually make a distinction between Mythos (emotional meaning) and Logos (rational meaning). But ancient philosophers, such as Plato, seemed to use mythological stories simply as analogies and metaphors to illustrate how Nature and Culture work, without getting into technical details. I won't bother to give you a list of books --- you can Google : "Myth Philosophy", or "Mythical Creatures Philosophy" to find some references. But I will give you a link to Plato's usage of imaginative stories, to serve as background. :smile:

Plato's Myths : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/

The names "Metaphysics" and "Physics" are not by Aristotle himself. — David Mo

Yes, I know. But it's the content, not the title that I refer to as "Meta-physics". For the purposes of my thesis I adopted the term, but added a hyphen to emphasize the relationship of Mind to Matter. This is my definition, not a dictionary definition that equates Metaphysics with Spiritualism. The common usage is based on a mis-application of Aristotle's implicit distinction between the objective physical realm of Matter, and the subjective "meta-physical" realm of Mind. Volume Two was mis-interpreted, not as "after" Volume One, but as "above & beyond" Physics. Ari was not talking about spooky supernatural stuff, but mundane human ideas about nature. "Aboutness" is the essence of Consciousness. :nerd:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Aboutness : "Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and ..."
http://somatosphere.net/2014/terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature.html/

So is the distinction (i.e. duality) of "body" & "mind" itself physical or meta-physical? Do "we perceive" this body-mind distinction (as it is / as we are) or do "we conceived" of this body-mind distinction (formally / grammatically)? Does the latter cause (or mediate) the former, or vice versa? — 180 Proof

Perception and Conception are functions of the brain, not things in themselves. One does not cause the other. Perception is what we experience physically. Conception is what we think or feel about what we experience. Perception is physical, Conception is metaphysical. But both process are generated by the working brain. In visual perception, you can trace the flow of energy from eyes through various brain components to the "visual cortex". But the conscious conception of that energy is a holistic function; it emerges globally, not located in any single part of the brain.

In my view, the MInd/Soul/Self does not exist apart from the body. Minding is what the brain does, just as hammering is what a hammer does. One is the function of the other. :nerd:

Everything is just “mathematical structures” which is to say information. The physical world is the mathematical structure of which we are a part. — Pfhorrest

I like Donald Hoffman's analogy of perceived reality as the display screen for a computer, where the actual workings are concealed behind the screen. What we see are symbolic icons, not the ding an sich. :nerd:

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

How does your belief system square with Hermeticism? — 3017amen

It doesn't. :cool:

I disagree i think the writings of Paul were meant to be in the Bible. The Catholic church has always been atleast a little divided and many modern catholics to some extent reject Pauls books. I'm not going to go indepth in this right now. To say Paul doesn't belong in the Bible is a common thing said among a subset of christians. — christian2017

Meant by whom? Obviously, the Catholic council at Nicea thought the letters of Paul should be in the Bible they were putting together. There was little dissension on that point, because Paul's reinterpretation of Jesus' mission was the dominant theme for Greek & Roman gentiles. If Paul's writings were omitted, the gentiles would have to become Jews in order to partake in the Messiah's mission to save Abraham's children. And the early followers of Jesus debated that very question. But Paul's expansion of the mission to include the gentile world won out. Paul's writings were approved by a mundane vote, not by divine mandate. :smile:

I found it interesting that Roger, in this context of existence, refers to himself as not a dualist but a trialist (a different form of Trialism) where he believes in: mind, matter, and mathematics as things existing universally, objectively. — 3017amen

Penrose has some good ideas, but as a mathematician, he seems to be swayed by the long-successful physical method of Reductionism, which divides things into ever-smaller sub-categories. Rather than dividing Reality into a third category, I prefer to view it as a universal Whole with no hard (objective) dividing lines between classes of things. That makes me a Monist.

In my worldview, Mind, Matter & Mathematics are all forms of universal generic Information. Even Space & Time are mental concepts that are also forms of Information. This theory may be hard for reductionists & materialists to grasp, It's a form of Holism. where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. That something extra is Potential, which I call EnFormAction. In physics it would be labelled Energy, but in metaphysics it's Mind or Consciousness.

Ironically, Mind, Matter, & Mathematics are usually considered to be non-objective because they are not tangible physical objects. I suppose Penrose means we can all agree that they exist, even though we may disagree about the details --- for example, the so-called "strings" of String Theory are mathematical "objects" that we struggle to even imagine. :nerd:


Information :
. . . .Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
. . . . .For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
. . . . .When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

The term metaphysics is very ambiguous. If we don't clarify it, we can make a mess of it.
In my opinion and since Kant (to quote the sources is useful) metaphysics is a branch of knowledge that is based on universal and necessary knowledge obtained in the sole light of reason (without being based on experience). — David Mo

I agree. That's why, for my personal worldview, I provided a definition that is specifically tailored to the primary subject of the thesis: Information. It's obvious that Aristotle believed that both volumes of his encyclopedia of early iron-age knowledge were scientific. But the Physics volume was focused on physical material aspects of reality, while the volume that later came to be called "Metaphysics" was mostly concerned with how we come to know the truth about reality : the mental & rational element.

After the Enlightenment though, both Religion and Philosophical metaphysical traditions were rejected by physical scientists because they were ambiguous enough to support religious doctrines that were deemed superstitious. Since then, only philosophers wasted their time on mushy metaphysics, especially anything that involved understanding of the human mind and consciousness. But eventually some thinkers attempted to apply scientific methods to off-limits subjects that came to be called Psychology and Sociology. These are metaphysical topics about "stuff" that's invisible & intangible.

Now, in the 21st century, Metaphysics has become unavoidable in scientific investigations. Information Theory, Quantum Theory, Systems Theory, and Consciousness studies have become mainstream Science, even though they are all about invisible intangible topics that are not subject to empirical methods. So, philosophy can no longer be viewed as the red-headed step-child of Science. :smile:


Metaphysics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Some christians claim there is a close connection between free masonry and Kabbalah. My assumption is that is true. — christian2017

Yes. Both have roots in ancient Jewish and Egyptian mysticism. The article below even asserts that "Although the Christian Church Fathers of the first century were demonstratably Kabbalists, mystical or gnostic elements within the Church largely disappeared within the first three centuries, only to reappear as a Christian Cabala during the Renaissance." But that's a masonic tradition, hard to verify from non-masonic sources.

Kabbalah & Freemasonry : https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/kabbalah.html

Did any one ever tell you that Jesus Christ was butt ugly — christian2017

Yes. The original followers of Jesus were Jews. And Jesus rebuked a gentile woman : “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24) But Saul/Paul (not Jesus) was rejected by the Jews, so he took his message of the Messiah to the Greeks. Centuries later, Paul's gentile-friendly version of Jesus/Judaism was adopted by the Roman Emperor, who made it the Imperial Religion. This mashup of Roman polytheism and Jewish monotheism is what modern Christians have inherited. It has little to do with the actual mission of Jesus. :cool:

mythical Roman Christ? My assumption is you mean a Catholic bastardization of who Jesus Christ is? — christian2017

Yes. The "suffering servant" prophesied by Isaiah "had no form or comeliness". But the same was said of the Greek "Jesus", Socrates. Plato emphasized that he was "butt ugly" in a society obsessed with beauty. It was intended to show the irony of a beautiful message in an ugly vessel. :nerd:

My belief in aliens is due to something i read in "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. He said if you roll a trillion sided dice (die) a trillion times you should expect to roll an 18 if your desire was to roll an 18. — christian2017

So, you are playing long odds that aliens are real and relevant??? :joke:

But i believe in Jesus Christ. lol. — christian2017

I believe in the apocalyptic Jewish preacher, but not in the mythical Roman Christ. :cool:

Based on the differences between the Talmud and Old Testament, i agree. — christian2017

Although it claims roots in ancient Jewish wisdom traditions, the Kabbalah is a post-Christian scripture. It implies that those ancient scriptures were written in code, so only a select few adepts can understand it. That's one thing I don't like about magical cults, they are proudly occult, and keep important stuff secret from ordinary people like me. By contrast, Science is conducted out in the open, where it can be skeptically criticized to weed-out the bad stuff. Unfortunately, most people tend to take anything remotely sciency on faith in authorities, without critical thinking. So, they can't tell the difference between reasonable Facts and irrational BS. :cool:

cool. Considering i believe in aliens, i don't think this is entirely unplausible. — christian2017

Modern Aliens are equivalent to ancient Angels. They are messengers from the great beyond, but they are very secretive, and only appear to a select few people. Have you ever seen one? Have you received a message of peace, or a warning for us to stop sinning against Nature or God? :joke:

I actually didn't know you didn't like the Kabbalah, i don't like the Kabbalah either. I don't like the talmud but i didn't want to bore you with that right now. It deals with the way it is worded in relation to the old testament. — christian2017

I don't dislike the Kabblah more than any other ancient scriptures. But I am wary of how people get sucked-in to the vortex of magic & mysticism. Like Gnostics, they believe they know secrets that give them supernatural powers. But they're just fooling themselves and others. The Kabbalah is definitely not compatible with Christianity, or even with second temple Judaism, for that matter. :gasp:

Based on this post of yours, could someone go far as to say with the creation of the universe it was inevitable that a being that has feeling and/or consciessness would come to exist? Or is that a stretch? — christian2017

Yes. I have concluded the the emergence of intelligent creatures was programmed into the Singularity that caused pure Energy to complexify over time into Matter, and eventually into Minds. I don't know for sure where we go from here, but I'm pretty sure that 21st century humanity is not the final solution to the intention behind evolution.

Teilhard deChardin imagined that evolution was essentially developing the Big Bang embryo into a child of god, that he referred to as the Cosmic Christ. More secular scientists, think that robots will replace humans as the pinnacle of Natural and Cultural evolution. But I just don't have enough information to predict the future course of world-building. So, I tend to focus on the here & now. :nerd:

So perhaps with "god of philosophers", the main god intended philosophers and/or people to discover him through deep thought? — christian2017

As a rule, philosophers such as Spinoza, don't make any attempt to read the mind of G*D. They merely assume the existence of an intentional creator of the world as an Axiom, upon which they build a worldview. But they are still free to try to interpret the intentions of the creator from the way the world works.

For example, evolution seems to be causing the physical world to change in the direction of increasing complexity and intelligence. This was not apparent to the ancient priests & prophets, before the advent of scientific investigation. So the concept of Evolution or progressive change would not have occurred to them. Yet now we can look back at the Big Bang and follow the emergence of organization from energetic atoms to living organisms, and eventually to thinking beings. And some of those thinkers may conclude that their personal interpretation of divine intentions is the true Will of G*D. But I am not that confident in my sign-reading abilities. So my relationship to G*D is not a personal friendship, but more like developing a rapport with Nature, that makes my life more meaningful. :cool:


Rapport : relation; connection, especially harmonious or sympathetic relation:

this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come buti'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")? — christian2017

If you are already at "666" then there's no hope for you. The devil's gonna get you. But then, PI is an endless string of numbers, so maybe all you have to do is move-on to the next digit in your imagination.

Yes, I saw the movie. And it's based on Jewish numerology. But you should avoid getting ensnared in such Kabbalistic nonsense. It could make you as crazy as the protagonist (lit. one torn by inner conflict). :cool:

PI : Max Cohen is a number theorist who believes everything in nature can be understood through numbers.

I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why thistop mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind? — christian2017

The universal mind imagined by AI enthusiasts is a creation of the universe, not the creator of it. They assume that the physical universe itself is eternal, and operates via inherent logic. Some religious people do indeed accept that the whole world is gradually becoming conscious.

Omega Point : The Omega Point is the belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . . [Chardin sometimes referred to the Omega Point as "The Cosmic Christ". But this is not a biblical exegesis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith. — christian2017

I coined the term "G*D" for a completely different reason from that of the Jews. They were afraid of offending their tyrannical God by using his personal name "Yahweh", instead of the obsequious "your Lordship". My G*D has no personal name, and is unlikely to be offended by such effrontery. I added the asterisk merely to indicate that I was talking about a different god-model from that of traditional religions.

Where did you get the idea that I was ambiguous about G*D being the creator of the universe? I sometimes use other terms, such as "Programmer". But creation is the essential function of the "First Cause" in my thesis. The only alternative I'm aware of is an eternal Multiverse, which must be self-existent --- like a god.

When did I "accuse" you of acting on faith? We all act on faith for things we take for granted without bothering to look for proof. Even scientists take some things for granted. They're called Axioms. I refer to my G*D theory, not as a proven fact, but as an Axiom from which I developed a worldview that explains aspects of reality that are excluded from the materialistic paradigms.

The Enformationism idea, that I "conceived", is a theory, not a doctrine. It's the result of reasoning from modern evidence, not taken on faith in ancient revelations. Enformationism is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific paradigm. So it's supported by arguments, not experiments. The website and blog are extensive arguments that present the reasoning process for coming to the conclusion that the Big Bang was an act of creation. And that Information is the "single substance" of reality. Four centuries ago, Spinoza reached a similar conclusion, but he had no concept of Information in the Shannon sense, or of thinking machines that process information. So I have just updated his philosophy.

FWIW, my god-model is not appropriate for religious faith. Instead, it's equivalent to the "god of the philosophers", based on reasoning and skepticism. :nerd:


Spinoza single substance : https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Effrontery : insolent or impertinent behavior.

Axiom : a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. [i.e. not based on physical evidence]

God of the Philosophers : "The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac" [His argument was directed toward the Deists of his day]
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm

We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. — christian2017

What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?

However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.

The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation. :nerd:

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post? — christian2017

Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]

However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors (e.g. idols) in order to understand the concept of an invisible god. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the popular vs professional god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.

Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahman). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.

Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion. :nerd:


G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/brahma.shtml

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

So the system of theology in the Dark Ages (and latter) took Aristotle's idea that God is most actual, and that there is a hierarchy in "creation" where those higher up have more actuality than the lower. — Gregory

I suspect the higher evaluation of Actual compared to Potential is similar to the proverb that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

On the other hand, both Plato and Aristotle believed that potential Forms or Ideals were more "Real" (important, meaningful) than Actual (physical) things in the world. That's because, without the infinite Potential, there would be no finite (bird in hand) Actual. Without ultimate eternal "Reality" there could be no proximate temporal Reality. But our normal intuition tends to place more value on the bird-in-hand. Except in religious faith, where the supernatural eternal God-in-bush, is presumed to be more important (valuable) than any of his natural temporal creatures.

So, the hierarchy of creation is that Actual Real things are dependent on Potential Super-Real Forms. And I assume that Aristotle's usage of "Actual" would be more accurately indicated by "Ideal".

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? — christian2017

For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.

Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. But some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.

In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.

Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous. :cool:


Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation. — christian2017

I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.

So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.

The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers. :cool:

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. — Stoic Toad

Ancient humans, in a natural world "red in tooth and claw", and animated with spooky invisible forces, probably felt more vulnerable than us sophisticated moderns. Today we are surrounded by human culture, and power tools, that give us some control over nature and over competing humans. But those primitives, like herds of ungulates surrounded by predators, huddled together in small tribes, with brave men to lead them. Even so, sometimes the scary world made even the powerful leaders insecure. So they reached out into the darkness for an even stronger leader, who could control the natural forces that threatened them. And the best science of the day postulated invisible human-like gods running the show with their magical powers.

Ironically, the leverage over nature provided by modern technology has also increased the power of human predators, and is still powerless over invisible natural forces, like the Covid Virus. So, people still feel the need for confident leaders to shield them from evil. Which is why, despite the advantages of science & technology, so many insecure Americans look to self-assured leaders, like Donald Trump, to defend them from scary immigrants, insane liberals, and wild-eyed terrorists. But it's obvious that even Trump, with all the resources at his hand, has little power over the evils of the world. So, in the face of the current plague, they pray to an even more powerful, but invisible, chieftain in the sky to defend them from the imperceptible scourge of implacable Nature. This act of desperation, taking your plea all the way to the top, may not make sense for calm rational people, but for anxious fearful people it's the best plan they can think of.

So, man's relationship to God has always been to the court of last resort. Even supremely confident Trump often passes the buck to others. But the office of all-powerful deity is where the buck stops once and for all. Therefore, it makes emotional sense to appeal to the supreme court, when all other options have failed. After all, "reason is and ought to be the slave of passions". ___David Hume

What is an "intellectual"? How should this term be used. — musicpianoaccordion

When someone is called an "intellectual", the reference is usually not to invisible IQ, but to overt behavior. The most obvious difference between Intellectuals and non-intellectuals is in how they approach problems that require novel solutions : thinking or doing.

Some people immediately take action without pausing to think. But intellectuals will usually think before they act, which makes them rather awkward in situations that require prompt action. For example, athletes must move quickly, depending on instinct, intuition, and muscle memory instead of careful planning each move. In that sense, Michael Jordan was an athletic genius, but not noted for intellectual skills. By contrast, intellectuals tend to look and behave like socially inept "nerds" or "geeks" (ugly nerds), or "dorks (odd characters). Some intellectuals may be athletic, but that would be an exception. For all I know, Michael Jordan may have been shy and bookish off the court.

Bill Gates is a well-known public intellectual, but not known for physical prowess, or a way with the ladies. Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory TV show may be the best known intellectual/nerd today. His short, ugly friends may be classed as intellectual/geeks. So, to call someone an "intellectual" is merely a nice way to describe a "nerd". :joke:


SYNONYMS. intelligent, clever, academic, well educated, well read, widely read, erudite, cerebral, learned, knowledgeable, literary, bookish, donnish, highbrow, scholarly, studious, cultured, cultivated, civilized, enlightened, sophisticated. informal brainy, genius. archaic lettered, clerkly.

His plan is to install electrodes within one's brain to increase the bandwidth factor significantly between humans. The official name for it is Neuralace. — Shawn

I think you may have confused the pain-reliever technology Neuralace, with the man-machine interface Neurolink. Neither is intended to treat mental issues such as Depression --- although similar technology may be in the works for that. Neuralace is intended to replace Opium as a pain-reliever of last resort. But that may have a side-effect on the depression of constant pain.

Neuralink is what I thought you were talking about, based on your description. It is intended to allow handicapped people, such as quadriplegics, to control machines with mental effort, rather than their paralyzed hands. Both of these treat physical problems, not mental. I'm sure there are inventors out there who do intend to "increase the bandwidth factor significantly between humans". But such tech is a long way from becoming practical for Borg-like intercommunication. For now, your best mind-link may be your cell phone. :smile:


Neuralink : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink

Neuralace : https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/technology/sd-fi-neuralace-medical-sandiego-20181031-story.html

Digital Therapeutics for Depression : https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/revolutionizing-depression-treatment-digital

Technological Treatments for Depression : https://secure2.convio.net/dabsa/site/SPageServer/PDF/PageServer?pagename=wellness_depression_emerging_technologies

Nevertheless, what is notable is that another bastion of reason, philosophy insofar as it is what it claims it is - rational in the truest sense of that word - isn't heavily involved in religion-bashing. Yes, if what I hear is correct, philosophy has taken turn towards materialism and that spells bad news for religion, but there's nothing really anti-theistic in philosophy per se. Philosophy doesn't take sides or if I were to be more accurate, philosophers are as happy to fight for religion as they are to fight against it. — TheMadFool

It seems that Post-Enlightenment Science gradually but deliberately abandoned the philosophical search for moral truths, in order to focus on facts that were more stable than debatable ethical & metaphysical principles. Thus Science became amoral, much to the chagrin of moralizing Priests. At first, Science dealt mostly with passive non-human objects, while Priests had to manage passionate human subjects. But, as time went by, scientists began to extend their amoral agnostic methods to social topics, including the mechanistic theories of Social Darwinism --- which infuriated the Priesthood, and Dostoevsky.

Although the Enlightenment opened a split between Moral philosophy and Natural philosophy, the rapid worldly success of expanding mechanical knowledge seemed to make the philosophers jealous with "physics envy". They got tired of recycling the same 2500-year-old ethical questions. So, some philosophers turned their focus from the subjective mental aspects of humanity (faith) to their objective actions (behavior). Thus, psychology abandoned Freud's attempts to read minds and interpret dreams, and were pleased to make rapid progress with Behaviorism, which allowed them to manipulate people without worrying about what they were thinking. This was, as you said, "a turn toward materialism" --- treating men as machines --- and away from spiritualism --- men as embodied spirits.

Ironically, the "physics envy" of rational philosophers has recently allowed them to find clues to spiritual questions in the paradoxes of Quantum Theory. So, modern philosophy, following the impartial agnostic principle, allows us to argue for both sides of the science/religion divide --- as exemplified in this forum. My own philosophy is not religious, but it is also not anti-theistic. :cool:

Physics Envy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

Quantum Mysticism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Dostoevsky vs Social Darwinism : https://books.google.com/books?id=lp1RpM8o9BQC&pg=PA636&lpg=PA636&dq=social+darwinism+dostoevsky&source=bl&ots=hDzTx3RI2G&sig=ACfU3U3O7VFO_RalsEMFaMXiARtD105BNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVndXYk7HoAhUnUt8KHZt5ALYQ6AEwCnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=social%20darwinism%20dostoevsky&f=false

Background: Against rationalism and science. In behalf of irrational belief in Christ. — David Mo

Perhaps the original quote was saying something like Hume's ironic assessment : "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions".

Dostoevsky on reason vs faith :
Science and reason have, from the beginning of time, played a secondary and subordinate part in the life of nations; so it will be till the end of time. Nations are built up and moved by another force which sways and dominates them, the origin of which is unknown and inexplicable: that force is the force of an insatiable desire to go on to the end, though at the same time it denies that end. It is the force of the persistent assertion of one's own existence, and a denial of death.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7425828-science-and-reason-have-from-the-beginning-of-time-played

I understand that both ancient jews and many other cultures believe in some sort of afterlife, but that doesn't make all those places the same simply because they were located in the same location. — christian2017

Of course, each culture has its own local myths of death and afterlife. Some, such as Egyptians, originally viewed death as final, except for kings & pharaohs, who were semi-divine, and went to heaven. Other, mostly Eastern, cultures looked to reincarnation as a form of delayed justice; not in hell, but in a new body & life. Unfortunately, due to post-death amnesia, the bad guys won't know why their new life as a rat, or a woman, sucks. So, the punishment is retributive, not rehabilitative.

The Chinese have a long tradition of gory punishments in their version of Hell : Diyu. According to Wiki, the "ten courts of hell" sound like it might have inspired Dante's Inferno. But such formal retribution in the afterlife is usually associated with complex king-led societies with official laws & prescribed punishments. Simpler primitive or egalitarian cultures (e.g. wandering Hebrew tribes) usually didn't imagine any sort of ultimate justice. So death was final --- no hell, no afterlife, no reincarnation, no damnation. :death:

Diyu : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu

Hebrew Afterlife : Most Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed in post-biblical times. . . . The Bible itself has very few references to life after death. Sheol, the bowels of the earth, is portrayed as the place of the dead, but in most instances Sheol seems to be more a metaphor for oblivion than an actual place where the dead “live” and retain consciousness.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/life-after-death/

Retributive Justice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice

I'm interested to hear other thoughts about the downsides of having one's mind automatically set on some default normalization, which nobody has any idea what that norm would look like...? — Shawn

A Borg-like future for humanity may be possible, but not inevitable. It's an option that could be accepted or rejected based on communal values. Unless, of course, mental collectivization is imposed on the majority by a few committed communists. :gasp:

As Echarmion pointed-out, Musk has envisioned a near-future technology, which will replace the mouse
as our interface with computers. But that could be interpreted by technophobes as a step on the slippery slope to computers controlling humans. That scary scenario is possible, but right now it's science fiction. So, I wouldn't worry about Musk's little side-project, among all his other sci-fi-sounding ideas. :smile:

"The only thing we have to fear . . . is fear itself" ___FDR
" . . . and the viral zombie apocalypse." ___Anon

That article you posted says that no one is damned in "the epic...". Well no one is damned in the sense that just about all of man (not the Bible but "the epic ...." ) goes to the same place, so no one is damned in that sense. — christian2017

According to the Wiki article linked below, the Hebrew word "Sheol" may have been derived from the Akkadian (Mesopotamian) word "shuwala". Both cultures originally assumed (perhaps with a few exceptions) that everyone goes to the same place after death : the grave, the underworld, a cold cavern. It was an egalitarian after-death --- no sense of damnation.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) had little to say about post-life punishment or continued existence after death. But after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, they had adopted some Zoroastrian (Mesopotamian) concepts, such as a struggle between good and evil gods, and two afterlife destinations : Paradise (Garden of Eden) for the righteous, and Gehenna (burning torment) for the unrighteous. This duality-within-monotheism was later incorporated into Christianity. :lol:


Sheol : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Psalm 88:2-10 : May my prayer come before you; turn your ear to my cry. I am overwhelmed with troubles and my life draws near to death. I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like one without strength. I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care. You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths.

Has anyone read the Epic of Gilgamesh (in english)? — christian2017

Yes. I read it in Cuneiform. Just kidding, I'm not that old.

My original interest in the epic was because it seemed to backup the Genesis account of a worldwide flood. Later, my attention was drawn to the parallels with other biblical stories, such as the Garden of Eden, and some elements of the Adam & Eve story.

Unfortunately for my Christian faith, they didn't actually confirm the truth of the Bible account . Instead, they merely indicate that the writers of Genesis (circa 1500BC) were familiar with the ancient myths of Mesopotamia (Gilgamesh, circa 2100BC), and perhaps mixed them in with some Canaanite myths. Even the polytheistic poet Homer (Greece, 1200BC) seems to have been influenced by those classic stories of antiquity. So, it's not likely that Genesis was written by Moses, with divine inspiration, as some claim. Perhaps Gilgamesh was inspired by the sun god Shamash.

Regarding descriptions of eternal damnation for sinners, I was not familiar with that aspect. Apparently, those stories about the various fates of the dead, were added later in an appendix. From the except in the link below, it seems that their fates were somehow dependent upon how many sons a man had. Not exactly a biblical doctrine. So, I wouldn't conclude from Gilgamesh that parallel ideas in any way verify the inspiration of the Bible. There are many common themes in the myths of many cultures. We can learn from them, but shouldn't take them literally. :smile:


A Theodicy of Hell : https://books.google.com/books?id=EPqPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=gilgamesh+eternal+damnation&source=bl&ots=TwNEglQWd-&sig=ACfU3U3gmeTzbv5fghXJvCeQC8h-RpnI7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjemM30g63oAhUpxYUKHe20D4cQ6AEwBnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=gilgamesh%20eternal%20damnation&f=false

Myths To Live By (Joseph Campbell) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myths_to_Live_By

• how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? Or does the mind actually have some material properties? If so, which ones? — Relativist

FWIW : These are just a few personal opinions on the brain/mind paradox :
# The brain is not caused by the mind. The brain causes the mind. The causal power of the brain is energy, which produces functional outputs (i.e. mind, thought, ideas, reasoning, behavior).
# The mind is a metaphysical process, not a physical thing. The mind is a system of relationships. Relationships over time form a process.
# The mind is what the brain does, its function. The mind is located in the body, in the same sense that all functions are associated with their interrelated system . Computation is the function of the integrated system we call a computer.
# The mind has one material property : the brain. Brain and Mind together are a whole system. Brain alone is a piece of meat. Mind alone is nothing. Together, they produce the effect we call "Thought".
# We can imagine a disembodied Mind/Soul, because our thinking brains have the ability to generate images of things that are not currently perceivable to the senses (e.g. the future). The mental image of the mind is an idea. It has no causal power, unless it is translated into physical action.
# We can imagine a First Cause, which is the power (energy, EnFormAction) to produce all of the effects (forms) in reality, including material physical Brains and immaterial metaphysical Minds. Is the existence of a First Cause reasonable? That depends on values in the mind doing the reasoning. The chain (web) of causation over time has produced localized Body/Minds, that in turn cause behaviors that affect the real world. One of those behaviors is to ask philosophical questions about material objects, and immaterial functions.

Function : In mathematics, a function is a relation between sets that associates to every element of a first set exactly one element of the second set. . . . a relation from a set of inputs to a set of possible outputs. https://mathinsight.org/definition/function
In other words, function is holistic in that it is related to all members of the set that causes a specific effect (e.g. patterns of action, output, work, behavior)