Post Reply
Page 52 of 54  •  Prev 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Meaning - from the very beginning
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 3:22PM #511
Namchuck
Posts: 11,806

Mar 6, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 1:45AM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 11:31PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 6:26PM, Wendyness wrote:

While "what" provokes  compassion in a human may not be "universal", the feeling of compassion is "universal".  



Please explain how?


Any properly socialized child up to about age 5 will be compassionate and empathetic.  See any preschool thru kindergarten class.  After that other socialization forces may come into play that will instill a feeling of superiority and the inferiority of others.  If you think I am talking about religion you are correct.  Children in religious societies are taught that they are bad and need the help of God to counter this badness.  And they act out.  As I have selected a society away from the religious in general, the people in my society have avoided these feelings of inferiority, and therefore are compassionate and empathetic as adults.  They are not stupid, they recognize that not all people are compassionate and empathetic, but it is surprisingly easy to avoid those that aren't.  


 


 




 


My religion never told me "I" was bad, it told me that murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc....I was never told in a Sunday school class as a child that "I" was bad, I was taught that God loved me. I was taught that there are moral boundaries, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, and I still believe that having these moral boundaries is a good thing.  I don't believe killing is a good thing, I don't believe that coveting your neighbor's wife is a good thing, I believe that honoring your mother and father is a good thing.  I believe that loving your neighbor as you would love yourself is a good thing.  I don't know what kind of religion you were exposed to on a regular basis as a child,  I am sorry that you had such a "bad" experience, I, however had a "good" experience.  My life is a living example of that.  




So, your religion does not include the idea that man is a fallen creature who, as a consequence, is an innate sinner destined to eternal torment if not redeemed?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 4:36PM #512
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,080

Mar 6, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Wendyness wrote:

My religion never told me "I" was bad, it told me that murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc....I was never told in a Sunday school class as a child that "I" was bad, I was taught that God loved me. I was taught that there are moral boundaries... 


Which is why you never lost the compassion and empathy you were brought up with as a child.  There are many fine religions in the world that bring out the compassion and empathy is naturally occurring in that most social of animals, the human.  If you are not aware of religions that teach the depraved sinfulness of their believers I congratulate you on the wise choice of your parents to protect you from such believers.  I too was so protected but due to curiosity and probably cussedness did not avoid such friends but tried to understand their beliefs.  It was useful as I  could justify a lack of compassion and empathy to certain people who acted out their "depraved sinfulness"  Of course there are bad people without a religious excuse, but many behaviors that I find extremely dysfunctional, viewing women as brood mare property, and hatred of "non-chosen people" seem to be strongly tied to certain religions.   


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 5:31PM #513
Wendyness
Posts: 3,012

Mar 6, 2010 -- 3:22PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 1:45AM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 11:31PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 6:26PM, Wendyness wrote:

While "what" provokes  compassion in a human may not be "universal", the feeling of compassion is "universal".  



Please explain how?


Any properly socialized child up to about age 5 will be compassionate and empathetic.  See any preschool thru kindergarten class.  After that other socialization forces may come into play that will instill a feeling of superiority and the inferiority of others.  If you think I am talking about religion you are correct.  Children in religious societies are taught that they are bad and need the help of God to counter this badness.  And they act out.  As I have selected a society away from the religious in general, the people in my society have avoided these feelings of inferiority, and therefore are compassionate and empathetic as adults.  They are not stupid, they recognize that not all people are compassionate and empathetic, but it is surprisingly easy to avoid those that aren't.  


 


 




 


My religion never told me "I" was bad, it told me that murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc....I was never told in a Sunday school class as a child that "I" was bad, I was taught that God loved me. I was taught that there are moral boundaries, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, and I still believe that having these moral boundaries is a good thing.  I don't believe killing is a good thing, I don't believe that coveting your neighbor's wife is a good thing, I believe that honoring your mother and father is a good thing.  I believe that loving your neighbor as you would love yourself is a good thing.  I don't know what kind of religion you were exposed to on a regular basis as a child,  I am sorry that you had such a "bad" experience, I, however had a "good" experience.  My life is a living example of that.  




So, your religion does not include the idea that man is a fallen creature who, as a consequence, is an innate sinner destined to eternal torment if not redeemed?




 


My religion sets up boundaries to protect me from making poor choices, choices that may ultimately destroy me as a human being, such as killing, stealing, dishonesty, laziness, etc, which ultimately harm others, but truly harm me.  Life is about choices.  My religion teaches me compassion, wisdom, justice, self-reflection, awareness of my own dark nature (capacity to sin) and ultimately LOVE , which have all been incredibly enriching to my life and I am grateful for the teachings.  I don't give a lick about a "future" life after I am dead, but in case there is a so called "life" after I am dead, I am ready to take that journey too, I have no fear of nothingness or eternity.  


And in this life, I am redeemed by LOVE.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 5:33PM #514
Don't_Be_Captious
Posts: 1,035

Mar 4, 2010 -- 11:37AM, newchurchguy wrote:


(1) Self subjective viewpoint vs objective external facts  -- this is a constant sorting used in the "minds" (information processing) of all living things



e.g., living things, with sufficient consciousness -- e.g. almost certainly mostly if not only vertebrates with nervous systems with at least proto-brains -- have to sort out "ego" from "reality?"  This is a fundamental trait, endowed by evolution, clearly:  The instinctual ability to sort out Idealism (aka Solipsism) from Realism.


This makes sense from a purely materialistic, naturalistic, evolutionary point of view:  RNA et al "need" (holy Intentional Stance, Batman!) to reproduce, thus to survive to reproduce, thus to "have a keen awareness" (holy Intentional Stance, Batman!) not only of "Self" (and do selfish things, like eat, fight, fuck, etc.), but also to be able to stay alive in the external environment, in order to do all these things long enough to at least be able to reproduce.


Duh.


 


(2) Living things will survival


Assuming that's not a grammatical error, See my immediately preceding response.  Duh.  Again, it goes back to the Selfish Gene.  The gene doesn't even really "care" (holy Intentional Stance, Batman!) if the collection of genes known as the "person" or the "parrot" or the "octopus" or the "amoeba" actually survives; it only "cares" (holy Intentional Stance, Batman!) if it successfully gets other material in the environment to become ribonucleic-enough like itself to make more copies of itself.  THIS is "will to survival," nothing else.


 


(3) Living things will data acquisition


Not all living things, or at least to WILDLY varying degrees of complexity & sophistication.  Amoebae "acquire data," but completely blindly & stupidly & utterly unconsciously.


YOU make the category mistake of taking the Intentional Stance too literally here:  The amoeba doesn't "will" data acquisition.  It simply operates as a remarkably sophisticatedly complex stupid tiny robot.  That it appears to "will" the urge to flagellate itself away from predatory bacteria & towards food microorganisms, is a classic example of the human tendency to attribute Intentionalism to phenomena.


 


(4) Living things use meaning to tie 1, 2 and 3 together.


At a very metaphorical level that most people understand, yes.  But I see here where you make the kinds of enormous intellectual mistakes you make.


Robots use "meaning" to "tie 1, 2, & 3 together," if you program them to, at the most basic, survive & reproduce.  This doesn't mean they understand a damn thing, or that they're conscious.


 


 


 


Further - the initial posts asserts meaning, in its potential state, starts as an information object that is true detectable probability for a goal state.   Hence, meaning started as soon as physical interaction began and entropy began to increase.


So "meaning" is akin to potential energy?  What's the counterpart to kinetic energy, then?  I assume it's probably something like "activity here & now" or something like that.


Meaning - Potential Energy - Abstract projection


Current (physical; real) Activity - Kinetic Energy - Concrete reality


But that's obviously the strange thing about Potential Energy, isn't it?  That the account of PE actually WORKS so well in physics, to the point that physicists talk about "force fields" as if they're concrete, real phenomena, because, even though they're actually abstract projections, they clearly operate deterministically on concrete physical phenomena.


So this seems to be what you're saying about "meaning."


I'm not impressed.  I still don't see why what you're talking about here isn't Occam's Razor-ized via parsimony to simply a linguistic description (in this case, the language of physics) of observed phenomena.  No need to introduce "information realism" or whatever you call it these days into the fine, metaphysically simple philosophy of Material Monist Realism that suffices perfectly well to explain everything.


 


 


 


When living things understood that life is evolving - the information object became actualized as MUTUAL INFORMATION.  (formal definition)


This really makes no sense.


 


 


"Meaning," as you seem to be discussing it here (though, obviously, you shift & pick & choose what you're talking about, whenever one aspect of your conversation becomes patently exposed as bullshit), is nothing other than learning & memory in brains, that evolved in many animals in order to both remember what happened in the past (also via evolved instinct) and also to predict what will happen in the future in their environment, as this is a wildly successful strategy for life to give it the best chance to survive long enough to reproduce its own organismal RNA.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 7:23PM #515
Namchuck
Posts: 11,806

Mar 6, 2010 -- 5:31PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 3:22PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 11:41AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 1:45AM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 11:31PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 6:26PM, Wendyness wrote:

While "what" provokes  compassion in a human may not be "universal", the feeling of compassion is "universal".  



Please explain how?


Any properly socialized child up to about age 5 will be compassionate and empathetic.  See any preschool thru kindergarten class.  After that other socialization forces may come into play that will instill a feeling of superiority and the inferiority of others.  If you think I am talking about religion you are correct.  Children in religious societies are taught that they are bad and need the help of God to counter this badness.  And they act out.  As I have selected a society away from the religious in general, the people in my society have avoided these feelings of inferiority, and therefore are compassionate and empathetic as adults.  They are not stupid, they recognize that not all people are compassionate and empathetic, but it is surprisingly easy to avoid those that aren't.  


 


 




 


My religion never told me "I" was bad, it told me that murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc....I was never told in a Sunday school class as a child that "I" was bad, I was taught that God loved me. I was taught that there are moral boundaries, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, and I still believe that having these moral boundaries is a good thing.  I don't believe killing is a good thing, I don't believe that coveting your neighbor's wife is a good thing, I believe that honoring your mother and father is a good thing.  I believe that loving your neighbor as you would love yourself is a good thing.  I don't know what kind of religion you were exposed to on a regular basis as a child,  I am sorry that you had such a "bad" experience, I, however had a "good" experience.  My life is a living example of that.  




So, your religion does not include the idea that man is a fallen creature who, as a consequence, is an innate sinner destined to eternal torment if not redeemed?




 


My religion sets up boundaries to protect me from making poor choices, choices that may ultimately destroy me as a human being, such as killing, stealing, dishonesty, laziness, etc, which ultimately harm others, but truly harm me.  Life is about choices.  My religion teaches me compassion, wisdom, justice, self-reflection, awareness of my own dark nature (capacity to sin) and ultimately LOVE , which have all been incredibly enriching to my life and I am grateful for the teachings.  I don't give a lick about a "future" life after I am dead, but in case there is a so called "life" after I am dead, I am ready to take that journey too, I have no fear of nothingness or eternity.  


And in this life, I am redeemed by LOVE.




 


Very articulate and moving response, Wendyness!


One of the best that I've read on B'net for a long time.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 7:38PM #516
Wendyness
Posts: 3,012

Namchuck,


Thank you for your compliment. 


Most sincerely,


Wendy

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 1:56AM #517
Namchuck
Posts: 11,806

Mar 6, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Wendyness wrote:


Namchuck,


Thank you for your compliment. 


Most sincerely,


Wendy




 


You're welcome! It was a splendid post.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 10:21AM #518
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,642

Mar 5, 2010 -- 11:41PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 11:31PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 6:26PM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 3:49PM, Namchuck wrote:


I'm all for compassion, but to claim that it is "universal" is simply insupportable.




While "what" provokes  compassion in a human may not be "universal", the feeling of compassion is "universal".  


 




Please explain how?




For the same reason that the word "love" has universal meaning.  How we love, what we love, where we love, why we love may come from different sources , however, the feeling of love is "universal".  Do you believe any feelings are universal? Hatred is certainly a feeling that is  "universal".  The feeling of love that a mother has for a child is "universal".




Wendy, it is a joy to read your posts - ncg

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 10:32AM #519
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,642

Mar 6, 2010 -- 5:33PM, Don't_Be_Captious wrote:


Mar 4, 2010 -- 11:37AM, newchurchguy wrote:


(4) Living things use meaning to tie 1, 2 and 3 together.


At a very metaphorical level that most people understand, yes.  But I see here where you make the kinds of enormous intellectual mistakes you make. --- I don't mean it as metaphor at all, but as phenomenal information processing. - ncg


Further - the initial posts asserts meaning, in its potential state, starts as an information object that is true detectable probability for a goal state.   Hence, meaning started as soon as physical interaction began and entropy began to increase.


So "meaning" is akin to potential energy?  What's the counterpart to kinetic energy, then?  I assume it's probably something like "activity here & now" or something like that.


Meaning - Potential Energy - Abstract projection


Current (physical; real) Activity - Kinetic Energy - Concrete reality


But that's obviously the strange thing about Potential Energy, isn't it? 



DBC - there is nothing strange about potential energy or in how it is used in physical measurements such as the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches.  You don't seem to express a contextual background on the issues. that would enable you to acknowledge the point I am making - that the universe came into existence with a real pathway for living things to evolve.  And further that there is a self-same pathway to understand how to plan for goal states from logical analysis of information.  Hence, meaning is there, objectively, from the beginning.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2010 - 11:06AM #520
Faustus5
Posts: 2,023

Mar 7, 2010 -- 10:32AM, newchurchguy wrote:

 Hence, meaning is there, objectively, from the beginning.




In Newchurchguy-speak, perhaps.  Not in English.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 52 of 54  •  Prev 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook