Which religion of human origin condemns all human beings from birth?

I suspect that most people have the same mindset as a friend of mine who died two months ago after lingering for twelve years under the slowly debilitating effects of several brain and spinal chord cancers.

Because he was a veteran, he decided that the poem "Invictus" should be read at his funeral. The last stanza reads:

"It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul."

I find it odd that he would choose the fate which was his.

cf. Plato's Intelligible World (Being), consisting of:

1) First Principle (The Demiurge), having Intellect (Absolute Knowledge).

2) External Personhood (The Self-Mover), having External Intellect (Knower and Known).

3) Pure (Contemplative) Knowledge.

My current thinking, derived from Plato/Aristotle:

1) Scientific investigation is a function of metacognition (active intellect), which is caused by intention, is pure, linguistic, rational, and cultural, and results in declarative knowledge.

2) Metacognition is founded on cognition (passive intellect), which is caused by perception, is empirical, non-linguistic, non-rational, and cross-cultural, and results in empirical knowledge.

My question is whether the bolded part is more a statement about reality or a statement about grammar/logic (and the relationship between these kinds of statements). — lll

Awareness: factually informed condition; cognizance.

To me a good question is what does it mean to know what a text means? I'd say it's something like weaving it in to the dominant background text of the collective 'consciousness' or exploiting an otherwise dormant or merely potential utility. I imagine the rings of trees which were always there and then at some point an exploitation of various correlations and implications of said rings. — lll

In my Egyptian hieroglyph example, I was thinking more of the symbols used rather than the text they composed. But your question is an interesting one, and your observations, cogent. A good topic for a new thread.

But can we not also include the automatic reactions of organisms to their environment as a kind of reading? To understand is perhaps best understood as reacting appropriately (which brings it issues of the goals or values of an organism.) — lll

I enjoy metaphors, but if misused, they result in category error and/or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification).

Science may be true or false (just because that's the nature of verbal and mathematical language), whereas; awareness is always true.

I still see the basic distinction between inorganic matter, living things, and rational beings that goes back to Aristotle. — Wayfarer

I consider these to be true descriptions of basic ontological distinctions:

I) Inorganic
A) Physical

II) Organic
A) Physical
1) Body
2) Population
B) Mental
1) Mind
a) Non-Linguistic & Non-Rational
b) Linguistic & Rational
2) Culture

Also, I view the notion of Information as a general level (Metaphysical) extension of the Platonic/Aristotelian concepts of Form/Four Causes (motivated by a qualitative, not quantitative, description of Shannon & Weaver's MTC).

So, I think that the general concept of Information can be applied to (or translated into) descriptions provided by the various Sciences (e.g., Mathematical Information, Semantic Information, Physical Information, Biological Information, etc). Semiosis may also be expressed in terms of Information, as I did here.

For the most part, you and @Daemon use the word "information" in its colloquial sense, where I would use the phrase "semantic information".

That is being very simplistic. But it emphasises that the interpretation of a sign isn’t really about some kind of attentional mental effort. It is about meaningful habits of reaction. It is about learnt patterns of rational response - rational meaning it could be written out as an if/then kind of program in the extreme case. A set of switches organise to do useful work in the world. — apokrisis

Nice segue to equivocation and metaphor; the great hope of a new physicalism.

I think language is crucial as (1) the medium of philosophy itself and (2) an apparent site of collision of 'mind' and 'matter.' But 'mind' and 'matter' are themselves tokens in this 'raging white-water,' so philosophical language is a fairy trying to catch its own tale. — lll

Well stated, and I agree.

That was a good (articulate) summary.

I'm very much in agreement with what you say here, but did I satisfactorily respond to your challenge to "explain sign evaluation in terms of electrochemical impulses"? — Daemon

No.
Observations and unproven assertions are not explanations.

I've concluded that you are more interested in protecting your position, than in:
1) Accepting the fact that different levels of abstraction require different descriptions.
2) Exploring the possibility of a metaphysics which unifies the Sciences.

So, we are probably done here.

Further to this:

The paper lays out and important area of research, but unfortunately it's not what I was hoping for, which is an explanation of why meaning can't be physical. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A human author encodes semantic data (thoughts and/or emotions) in their mind into a physical form (linguistic code), such as speech sound (spoken human language) or script (written human language) suitable for transmission (energy propagation) and/or conveyance through a physical medium or channel to other people.

When conveyed linguistic code is received (a message heard or read) and decoded (comprehended) it becomes semantic information in another person's mind.

I reject the notion that physical code is intrinsically semantic (contains meaning), because meaning can only be assigned by a mind (interpretation), and acquired by a mind (comprehension).

For example, after the end of ancient Egyptian civilisation, and before the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nobody knew what Egyptian hieroglyphs meant.

Communication requires that informer and informee have an intersubjective knowledge of the code used in a message.

And how does perception take place? It's those electrochemical impulses (not information) travelling along the optic nerve, for example. And what causes any resulting behaviour? More electrochemical impulses. — Daemon

Correct.
So, please explain sign evaluation in terms of electrochemical impulses.

How does the semantic information reach our minds? — Daemon

Upon perception and/or intent, by evaluation of a sign.

In our brains the work is done by electrochemical impulses, ion exchanges and so on, and not by "information". — Daemon

In our minds, semantic information affects behaviour (e.g., modelling and communication).

So I would see biosemiosis as a hybrid of hierarchy theory and Peircean semiotics. — apokrisis

Peirce was an objective idealist, so invoking his name (ad nauseam) in support of any kind of physicalism is misrepresentation.

I would say what generally binds biosemiosis is the belief that symbols deserve their own science. — apokrisis

A symbol is a particular associated with intersubjective meaning. And a signal is a particular that causes and/or controls action (cf., Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001. Signs: An Introduction To Semiotics. Canada: University of Toronto Press).

Calling a signal a symbol is also misrepresentation.

Or biological scientists showing that they see life and mind as the same essential kind of mechanism.

And Peirce saw semiosis as the logic organising the Cosmos. — apokrisis

Science may be true or false (just because that's the nature of verbal and mathematical language), whereas; awareness is always true.

It is uncontroversial that it happens from physical processes. Those who dispute that are properly marginalized. — hypercin

Inductive evidence in terms of physiological correlates, and criterial evidence in terms of observed behaviour, establish that mind exists, and the relations which obtain between body, mind, and behaviour.

Corporeal and mental events are mutually dependent, but incommensurable because:
1) Corporeal and mental data are accessed at different levels of abstraction.
2) While neuroscience provides evidence of correlation between mental activity and neurophysiology, it does not provide evidence of causation.

For example, neural activation patterns can be predicted given thought, but thought cannot be predicted from neural activation patterns.
cf. Jing Wang, Vladimir L. Cherkassky, and Marcel Adam Just. 2017. Predicting the Brain Activation Pattern Associated With the Propositional Content of a Sentence: Modeling Neural Representations of Events and States. Human Brain Mapping 38:4865-4881 (2017).

So, does neurophysiology cause mental activity, or does mental activity cause neurophysiology? Properly marginalise me if you like.

I think that the:
1) Process of informing, is becoming (particular definition acquisition).
2) Product of informing, is information (particular definition).

And that in both cases it is the effect of Aristotle's Four Causes (material, formal, efficient, and final).

Semiosis doesn't seem like the sort of thing that could produce a mind. Semiosis seems like a product of the mind. — Daemon

Correct. To attribute semiosis to anything other than a mind is category error. So, terms like "biosemiosis" are misnomers.

And using the word "information" in a variety of descriptions at different levels of abstraction, without providing a unifying general definition, is equivocation.

If you think "information" does something in addition to what the biochemistry/electrical currents/electrochemical impulses do, can you say what it is? — Daemon

I don't think information does something in addition to what any physical or mental process does.

I think information is the process and/or product of informing, or providing particular definition (a definite, delimited, condition to a particular), so; it is a general description of any process which imparts, and/or product which has, form.

Quote reputable data from a reputable source if you want to debate the issue. And quote where the data contradicts anything I've said. Don't send me to conspiracy/pseudoscience sites unless it's to inform me that you're a nutjob not worth engaging with.

[Category: "CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE" — Baden

Fair enough.
Being concerned with science fact (as opposed to science fiction), you will no doubt be interested in the comments of these 12 experts from the original media sources linked in this spurious article.
After:
1) Searching each source on medibiasfactcheck to ascertain bias, and
2) Actually listening to, or reading, said comments,
Please don't forget to quote anything which has not been accurately reproduced in said spurious article.
I admit that the videos could be deepfakes.

Try the first two for starters:
1) Sucharit Bhakdi
2) Wolfgang Wodarg

You will recall your main contention: "we don't have time to faff about."

According to the foregoing expert testimony, this panic, and the extraordinary public measures being introduced, are unfounded (have no justification in medical fact).

So now perhaps you could explain to me how these medical experts have it so wrong? I assumed that your familiarity with the relevant raw data, graphs, calculations, and the models current projections are based on, qualified you to render an informed opinion in this regard. My mistake if that is not the case.

Who is spreading pseudoscience here? Could it be these 12 experts? Neil Ferguson? You? Me?

Also, you will recall how Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany "disappeared" their intellectual elite. So it's no surprise to me that only a few forum members are concerned about the possibility of authoritarianism or fascism arising from emergency legislation.

What distinguishes conspiracy theory from conspiracy fact, and who makes that determination? I will have a good laugh when The Philosophy Forum "disappears" comments/members which/who contradict official narratives.

Anyhow, whether it's a month or a year or somewhere in between, it's in the near future and we don't have time to faff about. — Baden

Perhaps you could you explain to me how these medical experts (commenting four days ago) have it so wrong?

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. — Benjamin Franklin

You can only laugh - if it wasn't so utterly stupid: a conspiracy made by stupid people for other stupid people. — StreetlightX

Compelling argument if you're stupid.

If you say so.

Which is another reason why I'm voting for Gordon Brown, and not you: he's much more subtle.

He's empirically right. — Baden

And he's historically wrong.
Emergency powers are never rescinded.

@NOS4A2 is correct: you bought it, you own it.

More of the same; impressive.

'Authoritarianism' is a fantasy boogyman here dangled by idiots like you for other idiots to suck on, so the old, sick and poor can get fucked harder than they already are. — StreetlightX

Compelling argument if you're an idiot.

I don't know, who profits? — unenlightened

If you don't know, I'm definitely not voting for you.
At least Gordon knows who profits.

Who profits?
Most of us have been played.

Sorry, I'm voting for Gordon Brown.
Former UK Prime Minister Calls For Global Government to Fight Coronavirus

Prove it wrong LOGICALLY rather than just engage in ad hominem attack - if you can. Prove the virus did not originate in the US. I’d love to hear a good argument. — Amore

With such types (i.e., head in the sand, ignorance is bliss, fragile psyche, don't confuse me with the facts, snowflake, conspiracy denier, etc.), it's far more entertaining to wait for the branch they are sitting on to snap.
Francis Boyle Interview

Thinking a bit further about this issue, I want to bring up empathy. — Shawn

Too late; I did that here.

How much does empathy factor into treating one's self in a good manner? What is it about empathy that would lead one to conclude that they ought to be empathetic towards themselves? — Shawn

Read some of these and try to come up with some intelligent questions.

Successful psyop.
Legislation granting emergency powers.
Currency reset.
Most people are slow on the uptake.

Right.
There is no compelling medical case for taking extraordinary public measures.
So, what is the political agenda?

As much as I hate my own negativity, it seems like even after Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, that we continue on perpetuating this theme of self-enrichment, even manifest in this thread! — Shawn

This is Theology, not Ethics.

Does it require willpower to entertain self-love? — Shawn

The application of the Golden Rule becomes an automatic process, arising from empathy, which begins to develop at 3 years of age (Borke, 1971). Intersubjectivity and empathy result from the operation of the mirror mechanism (experience of others' acts, including simultaneous exteroception and interoception, and the activation of common and/or associated mental representations) (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2005).

So, you are correct: there is no regard for the welfare of others without regard for the welfare of self.

If you have no love (regard for the welfare) of self, you die. This kind of love has nothing to do with emotion, and is cultivated by the experience and practice of neurologically typical human beings.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonsense

Hence the better method, also proclaimed by Jesus, is "To love your neighbour before your self", then "To love your self". — Antidote

According to The Lost Teachings of Atlantis?

But you can really, Unselfishly Love your self. — Antidote

Nonsense.

If psychopaths love themselves, how do they implement the Golden Rule?

"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Matthew 22.39

"Love" translated from Koine Greek agapao(v): to regard the welfare of.

Jesus is said to have claimed that one ought not treat others in a manner that they would not treat themselves. I believe that such a sentiment cannot arise without self-love. — Shawn

What prevents self-haters from treating others as themselves?

Self-love requires one to be consistent and have a high self-esteem. — Shawn

Consistent with regard to what?
Self-esteem, as in: favourable regard of self, self-respect, or recognition of self-worth. Yes.
High self-esteem, as in: inordinate or exaggerated regard of self. No.

So, my question is twofold.
1. Is self-love possible without negative and highly selfish traits arising?
2. If so how does one go about doing this? — Shawn

Primary question:
What is self-love (in the context of what "Jesus is said to have claimed")?

True; but, what else is there apart from one's image of one's self? — Shawn

Selfhood
Self Evaluation
Self Efficacy
Self Concept Discrepancies
Self Knowledge (Neisser, 1988)
Extended Self (James, 1890)
Dialogical Self (Hermans & Kempen, 1992)

One way to look at it: when you don't love someone, you're indifferent to their actions--you don't care if they do bad shit. — jamalrob

I don't love serial killers, and I'm not indifferent to their actions.