And I Thought Riskas Was Powerful Against Mormonism!!!

[_honorentheos]

When LDS teachings refer to intelligences it describes something in their own class from spirit or matter, and has the exact same problem to overcome given intelligences inform spirit bodies of refined matter which in turn influence more coarse material mortal bodies as well as resurrected bodies of matter.

Then we get into the area of trying to define 'light and truth' and whether or not truth...along with light...is an operational form factor of the universe and comports a basis/foundation to the creation of spirit beings. I can only question...rather than surmise...how there might be levels of progression from intelligent matter infused with light and truth and how spirit matter might result and/or evolve from that. But I do believe in an evolving universe and that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that we are intertwined with its 'purpose'...even at a subatomic/quantum level.

But who knows?

As for me, I can only hope. It just doesn't make sense to me to discard the possibility of life after death.

Regards,
MG

That's fine if that's your hope. But you are squarely faced with the problem identified in the OP. If you want to further argue that "light and truth" are immaterial something-somethings that have agency, identity, accountability since they can be judged and are sortable by God as described in Abraham your may make that broad statement. But it isn't an answer to Carrol's argument as presented in the OP. It's simply your saying you don't agree that it's a problem because, well, you don't like the implications.

Here's a question for you - what happens at the point when you fall asleep when you are not aware of anything at all, not conscious not aware you are you. Where do "you" go in that moment if you are more than your biological functions? Or when subjected to general anesthesia? Where is MG or the eternal intelligence that is the homunculi piloting MG at that moment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... yu7v7nWzfo

[_mentalgymnast]

You have a set belief or hope...

I won't quibble with that. But it came after a LONG period...years...of introspection, thinking, feeling, reading, etc.

Sorry that I default to an overuse of winkies. I should probably scale back on that. I just think they are kind of cool.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

You have a set belief or hope...

I won't quibble with that. But it came after a LONG period...years...of introspection, thinking, feeling, reading, etc.

Sorry that I default to an overuse of winkies. I should probably scale back on that. I just think they are kind of cool.

Regards,
MG

So, to be clear we have come from:

Initial position: Mormonism is not affected by the argument in the OP

to

Current position: MG has a hope or belief in an afterlife that MG is not willing to give up.

[_mentalgymnast]

[You're] simply your saying you don't agree [with Carroll] that it's a problem because, well, you don't like the implications.

It's not that "simple". I've already expressed some thoughts in this thread that lead me to the preliminary conclusion...or hope...that there is something more than nothing beyond death. That, in turn, leads me to looking at D&C 88 as being a better source text for the mind/body/soul/spirit, than the source text Carroll is reading off of as he's making his arguments during his presentations.

But to each his own. I'm sure he has a ready and willing audience.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

[You're] simply your saying you don't agree [with Carroll] that it's a problem because, well, you don't like the implications.

It's not that "simple". I've already expressed some thoughts in this thread that lead me to the preliminary conclusion...or hope...that there is something more than nothing beyond death. That, in turn, leads me to looking at D&C 88 as being a better source text for the mind/body/soul/spirit, than the source text Carroll is reading off of as he's making his arguments during his presentations.

But to each his own. I'm sure he has a ready and willing audience.

Regards,
MG

Again, you have arrived at a conclusion - an ending of the thinking on the subject - that is founded on what you have so far described as hope and belief. This is contrasted with far more than just Carroll's argument in the OP. If the evidence is strongly in favor of biological explanations for consciousness, for your sense of being you, you are not engaging with this evidence or engaging people on this thread with an argument. You're just saying you don't like the argument or it's implications.

Again, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... yu7v7nWzfo

Where does MG go when your consciousness "isn't" while your body is alive such as during general anesthesia?

[_mentalgymnast]

So, to be clear we have come from:

Initial position: Mormonism is not affected by the argument in the OP

to

Current position: MG has a hope or belief in an afterlife that MG is not willing to give up.

Honor, I find it interesting that you find it necessary to wriggle and jiggle to move me to a position of illogicality. And I understand, I think, why you would feel it necessary to do so.

As with Philo, I wish you well in your agnostic and/or atheistic path and know that you have your own reasons/rationales to do so. And I know that you feel a need to defend your position from the vantage point of being an observable and/or 'what can be seen' materialist and relying on the available logic/reason which you possess. There is NOTHING wrong with that. And believe it or not, I think I understand...in my limited way...where you're coming from.

I just happen to believe there's more to the picture...and I'm happy to simply agree to disagree and move on.

Just be kind to animals and don't squash bugs needlessly.

(is that a derail...oopsy?)

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Where does MG go when your consciousness "isn't" while your body is alive such as during general anesthesia?

I know MG's consciousness doesn't have to go take a pee.

Regards,
MG

[_DoubtingThomas]

For many, that is the "best" course to take.

Regards,
MG

Best course? How is lacking knowledge a course? I am undecided, I take no position on the existence of god or gods.

Why do you believe in god? Is there a reason other than wishful thinking?

[_honorentheos]

So, to be clear we have come from:

Initial position: Mormonism is not affected by the argument in the OP

to

Current position: MG has a hope or belief in an afterlife that MG is not willing to give up.

Honor, I find it interesting that you find it necessary to wriggle and jiggle to move me to a position of illogicality. And I understand, I think, why you would feel it necessary to do so.

As with Philo, I wish you well in your agnostic and/or atheistic path and know that you have your own reasons/rationales to do so. And I know that you feel a need to defend your position from the vantage point of being an observable and/or 'what can be seen' materialist and relying on the available logic/reason which you possess. There is NOTHING wrong with that. And believe it or not, I think I understand...in my limited way...where you're coming from.

I just happen to believe there's more to the picture...and I'm happy to simply agree to disagree and move on.

Just be kind to animals and don't squash bugs needlessly.

(is that a derail...oopsy?)

Regards,
MG

To be clear then, you maintain that Mormonism does not need to be concerned with the argument Carroll makes because spirit is a finer form of matter? That this negates the point he made despite it still applying to intelligences or invention of zilbot particles undetected but inexplicable in quantum field theory?

[_Lemmie]

Interestingly, there just happens to be a recent conversation about consciousness over at Sic et Non.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... hesis.html

Gemli cleans house as usual. It's really interesting how this one went down though. Fast forward to this statement:

"The fact is, no one knows how the brain produces consciousness"

No. The real fact is, no one knows that the brain produces consciousness. Materialistic reductionists, such as your good self, believe that it does - as an article of utterly evidence-free faith - but your belief is not the least bit "scientific." It is entirely, and only, ideological.

An astounding claim! One would think the fact that consciousness paces brain function might count as evidence that the brain produces consciousness. For instance, if a person is asleep or in a coma, or otherwise, unconscious, the brain behaves differently than it does when a person is conscious. What Kiwi57 may have meant is that no one knows that the brain fully accounts for cosciousness -- the brain might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness. He elaborates:

reductionistic materialists go beyond the evidence every time they insist that nothing can exist if they can't weigh or measure it.

In other words, something else in addition to - or heaven forbid Kiwi is not so deluded, entirely in place of - the brain, an immaterial something, accounts for consciousness. The blogs author chimes in on this point:

kiwi57 has it right, gemli. Listen and learn.

But this is where it's really interesting, because Gemli, in the same paragraph where he declared that no-one knows how the brain produces consciousness, anticipated the Mopologist response with examples such as:

Just because a shot of medicinal molecules can reduce psychotic symptoms doesn't mean that psychosis doesn't have a supernatural component.

This precisely nails the blog author's and Kiwi57's position that something beyond the material -- supernatural -- contributes to consciouss behavior as a yet-to-be-discovered component, in addition to or perhaps fully in place of the brain. Yet, Kiwi57's response to the above quote was:

Gem, please tell us: what did that poor straw man ever do to you, that you have to beat him up so mercilessly?

The straw man that Kiwi57 complains about is his own stated position a couple lines down, that is backed up by the blog author's righteous indignation!! The apologists themselves are creating the straw man!!

Really crazy stuff, and once again, a great example of Gemli owning the entire comment section.

Thank you for the reminder, Gadianton, Gemli is truly a pleasure to read and this set of comments did not fail to please.

If Jesus can be in a cracker, then anything is possible.