romansh

... Therefore, Adam and Eve could not have created natural evil. (Although it might be argued that Adam and Eve were the first to experience moral evil). We know that natural evil is basically a precursor to moral evil. But why did God allow natural evil? ...

Hi trust ... I'll repeat my original post at this forum.

Adam and Eve were not kicked out of the Garden of Eden for becoming good/evil, but for learning of good and evil (starting to think in terms of good and evil).

So metaphorically speaking if we want to get back back into the Garden of Eden, We have to stop thinking in terms of good and evil.

Good and evil are concepts that are meaningless in the natural world! So that brings me to my thread and question is man part of nature? The rest of the Bible (especially the NT) tries to point us away from thinking in tems of good and evil - ie giving up judgement. And yet western society is entrenched in judgement and the parsing of this natural world into good and evil.

We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us - Joseph Campbell

I must admit Campbell has become one of my favourite authors. Here's a quote (from PoM) that for me sums up religion in a nutshell.

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts. has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Not a description of Whitehead's but of my own which arose out of his ideas and others that followed to the extent I have found them useful and within my understanding. See also post #27.

Thanks Dutch, I am more than happy to hear your interpretation rather than some thirdparty's

The progression of my thinking probably visited Emergent Materialism, if I had known the words. In evolution the mind arose out of the brain but the mind is not wholly determined by the brain and has influence on the brain's processes. For me this is a more satisfactory description and explanation of the mind/body relationship.

I don't fully understand what you are saying here. But the word emergent in my book has always lead to an abdication of an explanation. I look forward to a clarification of your position.

All entities are externally and internally related; they influence each other. A complete description of the universe requires observations of both relationships.

I think I understand and I partially agree. But a possible 'error' here (or the original sin) is to think internal and external are somehow fundamentally different and/or separate.

Materialism only observes the external relationships and processes.

That may be your perception but it is certainly not mine.

Consciousness, ideas, experiences of beauty and transcendence are within the scope of internal relationships.

Again this could be a restatement of the original sin. Thinking that the external and internal are somehow separate.

This is the relationship between the One that became two bringing about God becoming and Universe, so that there might be relationship. There is mutual influence A panentheism. I think it is useful to say that God evolved as the universe evolved and that many qualities and values we see as eternal are projections on the past. Love as a quality of relationship may not have existed when One became two. A Christian view might say that the One making room for the Other was the first and continuing sacrifice of love.

Panentheism is a continued embodiment of the separateness. It goes back to whether cause affects God. If it does then it is literally one with me. If not you can keep it.

To speak of two, perhaps, is not to say that there is a separation that can be spoken of meaningfully.

Then perhaps you truly do mean pantheism?

The self is observable between birth and death but after death it can be said that I return to the one self (the internal relationship) and to the elements, popularly star dust, from which the body arose (the external relationship).

Dutch metaphorically speaking when we go we will have left footprints, before we were born we were caused by footprints, We are leaving footprints as we speak. We are footprints.

Universe

I think the limitation is that one believes that the consciousness has to be cast aside to examine the problem. Yes, the mind is a difficult for materialist to explain and so it is often eliminated.

 

I agree that the limits of my physical self, evidence of which is provided by my physical senses, is the skin. But I don't think the mind experiences the world that way. Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a loss of that sense of boundary when she had a severe left brain stroke. When her left brain went silent she experienced the boundarylessness, transcendent experience that seems based in the right brain. Before and during she had a consciousness of self, not limited, it seems to me, by the physical events in her brain.

I did not cast consciousness aside Dutch, I set it aside till to be considered later. Some people like have consciousness in their definition of free will; but for me that excludes my unconscious will. So from my point of view I cannot conflate consciosness and free will.

By the way I did not say that limits of the self is my skin. I question that definition very hard.

Rom,

I used labels as short hand for more complex ideas as you did. I just didn't always understand when those words applied to you or someone else.

I 'know' you were Dutch. I was just ribbing you - a bad habit of mine.

I don't understand how many of the statements can be held the restrictive scientific materialistic frame work, even given the complexity of the brain. How can nature have an imagination? How can the Cosmos have consciousness? How can we know where we came from? How can we long to return? Sagan makes clear that this idea for him is more than the physical "from stardust".

The brain also has a habit of anthropomorphizing various things, from ships and cars, to animals, to a kilo or so slightly sloppy proteins that reside in our skulls. You have have a sincere and strong belief in your experience, which is fair enough. I do not. Did you read Blackmore's Am I Conscious Now? My take on it either everything is conscious (to varying degrees or nothing is, it is all a wonderful illusion. As opposed to delusion).

These seem to fit the category mysticism for me. To me it seems obvious that a scientific materialism falls short in providing an explanation of these feelings and intuitions.

Personally I think that you confuse that Sagan is comfortable in speaking in metaphor with being a mystic. I suspect Sagan fully understood where he was treading. His wikipedia page describes him as having a naturalistic view. For me naturalism and materialism overlap.

What does it mean to say "we long to return" scientifically? How can we say "the Cosmos comes to know itself"? without referring to something other than a materialist world many scientists say is the boundary of nature. I think Alfred North whitehead's ideas about all entities being related externally and internally offers a more complete explanation.

Dutch

Dutch - can you, in your own words, using a few bullet points describe Whitehead's position means for you.

Thanks - rom

So are compatiblists materialists and see the mind is determined by the brain or are you the materialist?

We disprove a materialistic view every day. even by considering the question.

I can't speak for compatibilists in general, but yes I would describe compatibilists like Dennett as materialists.

Am I a materialist? For a forum where labels are not important ....

But to answer your question - materialism and physicalism I find to be better descriptions of my perceptions than some of the alternatives.

And disproving materialism you will have to provide a better example than me asking questions. This as a disproof is a complete non sequitur for me.

I am not quite sure how a compatiblist's approach to freewill explains how they would respond to the mind/body question or how that makes them a pluralist with regard to a the mind body problem.

 

Dutch

There are many flavours of compatibilism - I suppose as there are for many worldviews. I'm hesitant to speak for compatibilists, so I will just give my impressions:

1) To all intents and purposes determinism is true

2) Free will is still possible

3) Whether the mind and body a separate is irrelevant for some compatibilists, the mind is still determined by the brain.

To my mind compatibilists somehow redefine freewill; Dennett the most eloquent of the modern compatibilists gives an example of golfer who missed a short put, proved he could otherwise be repeating the put ten times and sinking it nine times. Does not work for me, but what the heck.

I never said being a compatibilst makes one a pluralist. I just said the pluralists I have spoken to were compatibilists.

here is a compatibilist view It's long but not everyone's cup of tea.

Computers don't make choices any more than my brother did.

I'm not sure this is true. I can't speak for your brother, but I see when I set up a complex spreadsheet, my computer produces all sorts of choices based on its inputs.

Rom,

What is a pluralist's response to the mind/body question?

 

Dutch

Depends on the pluralist. Most that I have spoken to are compatibilists (a none answer for me) and a hint of libertarianism.

I find the psychological argument against free will lacking since I spent many hours with counselors who hoped I would see that I had a choice to interpret generously and not suspiciously, to react appropriately and not over react. My counselors assumed that I had some, limited, but useful, free will.

Dutch this is not my argument but Schopehauer"s. So you can will what you will? I think not. Here is Strawson's take on this:

http://www.naturalis...n_interview.htm

My brother, a psychologist, committed suicide 5 years ago and at his memorial service I asked my sister, who was very close to him and a counselor as well, when was the last time he had the opportunity to change the course of his life.

My empathy goes out to you Dutch.

free will is not about making choices - we all clearly do that. Then again so does my computer.

It is about can we freely will what we want to to want - so to speak.

There are not two but three general ways to approach the mind/body problem. Materialist, Dualist and Panexperientialist. The Materialist often jettisons the consciousness as a worthwhile issue or struggles to explain the evolution of the mind and consciousness from no-mind. A dualist observes two different realms, the mental and physical. She is faced with explaining how the two interact.

 

dutch

There are many ways to have a worldview. Pluralism in all its forms. Various forms of monism, physicalism come to mind.

I tend to lean to a flavour of monsim.

And regarding our expereinces - here is an interesting take

http://www.susanblac...n/question1.htm

I'm on the road at the moment

Will give my reply in a few days

Have fun

rom

Perhaps belief in cause and effect is nothing more than support of an illusion? The illusion that there is a separate, self existent self.

For me a belief in cause and effect points me to a lack of belief that there is a separate self.

Here is a personal essay I wrote a few years ago:

http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/freewill.htm

Hope you enjoy

rom

It is usually a Materialist that asks such a question. How does a Materialist answer the mind/body. What, where is the mind? How is it related to the brain? Answers to the mind/brain can lead back to fuller understanding of the boundaries of creation.

You have been discussing this with quality philosophers then. Well I can't speak for anyone else's mind but my mind is firmly entrenched in the physical. I am pretty sure before I had a body I did not have a mind - or at least what I perceive as a mind now. I suppose my outlook on this and similar issues is quite monistic. ( As opposed to pluralistic or dualistic).

And yes I do have a scientific background. Wherever I look I see cause and effect (at least in the macro world). If you have an uncaused phenomenon you would like to discuss I'm happy to oblige.

In my view, just as the ear, itself cannot hear and the eye, itself cannot see, the mind cannot "know" what is beyond itself. However, that is not to say that the mind cannot subjectively experience that which is beyond itself. All that we experience is manifested from that which we cannot see. Therefore God cannot be known by the thinking mind but rather subjectively experienced as reality. It seems to me that Life itself/God/ reality is to be experienced rather than conceptualized. There is little we can say of God without speaking in error.

Joseph

Here is a slightly camp but fun view of what is doing the knowing. I have to admit it is a favourite of mine.

I believe we are all at different places in our journey and as a consequence romansh, I suspect we all have slightly different views about what God is. We all view our world through our own lens of experience and therefore our opinions about God will reflect that. For me God is a creative "force" of nature that is both part of nature in that it permiates everything in the universe, and creative from within nature by permitting our universe to evolve through process according to the laws of nature. In doing so, God is evolving with us. So my answer to your question romansh is that nothing is outside of nature.

Not only are we in different places we can only walk the path we are currently on.

it, to me, can not be said that God is subject to anything, natural or otherwise. God being beyond such a concept of mans duality in thinking.

This brings out the agnostic in me. If it is beyond our concept of dualistic thought, how can we say god is, is not or perhaps something else with respect to being subject to anything, nevermind cause and effect?

Dutch - you had set of attributes ascribed to god in your last post. Just reading Joseph's last post pointing to a transcendent aspect to god. What's your position on this how do we know god is or is not subject to cause and effect?

Even a fundamentalist will suggest my heathen beliefs will cause god to have me placed in some fiery furnace for eternity. ( I do understand it is not anyone's position here, but it does illustrate some interpretations of god respond to cause and effect).

rom

Yes man is part of nature and no there is nothing man can do that is unnatural.

Joseph

Nothing is outside nature.

Dutch

I agree whole heartedly with both of these statements. It seems to me that things must be this way.

Dutch let me explore a little further your statement here.

In your model Nothing is outside nature, would god fall into this category? In that, is god subject to cause and effect just like the rest of creation?

And for me, I would say any illness (physical or mental) that motivates 'unnatural' behavior.

George

Interesting - we'll see what the other pundits think of this.

'Unnatural' is something that promotes 'unnatural' behaviour.

Is unnatural related to the category moral?

Dutch

Dutch

Is that what unnatural means for you - immoral?

I will try avoid defining the words for you, feel free to use your own interpretation

Humans can behave in ways that are unnatural for humans. This is usually considered a psychological aberration or mental illness.

And for you George, mental illness you define as unnatural. Is this any illness (for example a tumour affecting one's behaviour) or just specifically psychological mental illnesses?

Is man part of nature; is so is there anything he can do that is unnatural?

comment:

I have started this thread in the past on other fora and it can be quite divisive,

So be forwarned.

For the record my position is yes and no.

Dear Bishop Spong,

You state in one of your books that if we as humans are created in the image and likeness of God, then God must be a two sided coin. God/Satan, Jesus/Judas, good/evil, etc. Am I reading you correctly?

Hi Rob

Speaking as a devout agnostic, I don't quite see it the same way as you. I like Joseph Cambell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden Story - Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining a knowledge of good and evil. So to get back into the Garden of Eden (metaphorically speaking) we have to give up thinking in dualities: ie no more Jesus/Judas, God/Satan.

Ditto for man and God. This is what was meant when Christ said "I and my Father are one". We too should endeavour to be Christlike. Be one with God and not merely have the holy spirit in us.