What isn't a concept.

[Fudo Manu]

I don't mean to be rude, but concepts don't exist. They are merely abstractions that once related to someone else can be shared.

 

Yes, someone can give a name to a concept that doesn't match what that name means to you. So what? One of the first steps in debate is making sure you are talking about the same thing (or "not thing").

Concepts do exist. It is true that the mental integration of abstracted attributes and accidents only exists in the mind, but it still exists. The opposite of to exist is to not exist, to be nothing. It would reason then that for something to have an identity, it must exist. Square circles don't exist, contradictions don't exist because they break the law of identity. A is A, a thing is what it is, and it can't be what it is and what it isn't. Existence is Identity. Certainly concepts have identities, for we can speak of them. If they didn't exist this conversation, and all conversations wouldn't be possible.

[Donnadogsoth]

Concepts do exist. It is true that the mental integration of abstracted attributes and accidents only exists in the mind, but it still exists. The opposite of to exist is to not exist, to be nothing. It would reason then that for something to have an identity, it must exist. Square circles don't exist, contradictions don't exist because they break the law of identity. A is A, a thing is what it is, and it can't be what it is and what it isn't. Existence is Identity. Certainly concepts have identities, for we can speak of them. If they didn't exist this conversation, and all conversations wouldn't be possible.

 

Seconded.

 

I'll add that as per Hegel, abstractions such as Platonic forms as whiteness and transparency are "real" but don't "exist," while concretions such as a salt shaker "exist" but aren't "real."  In other words for clarity's sake it helps to be aware that there are abstractions and there are concretions, the former occupying the dimension behind the eyes and the latter before the eyes.

[shirgall]

Concepts do exist. It is true that the mental integration of abstracted attributes and accidents only exists in the mind, but it still exists. The opposite of to exist is to not exist, to be nothing. It would reason then that for something to have an identity, it must exist. Square circles don't exist, contradictions don't exist because they break the law of identity. A is A, a thing is what it is, and it can't be what it is and what it isn't. Existence is Identity. Certainly concepts have identities, for we can speak of them. If they didn't exist this conversation, and all conversations wouldn't be possible.

 

We can only speak of concepts by identity by relating those concepts to another and assigning that identity to them. The act of communication exists. The concepts don't have existence.

 

In the best possible circumstance I can relate to you the idea of a flat surface supported by legs on which I may place my buttocks in a position of rest and you can grok the concept of "chair" but that is not the same as giving it existence. It just means that a useful categorization of objects has been related to you and if I ask you for a chair, you might produce one of a million different physical things that meet the standard. Yes, it's useful. But the idea of chairs is mental... or if it is physical, we lack the capability of pointing at a particular configuration of neurons and electrical impulses and saying "There it is, THAT is 'chairness'."

 

It is the special ability of brains to hold abstractions and (sentient ones to communicate abstractions) that allows us to consume, replicate, and alter concepts. They are nevertheless ephemeral.

[Fudo Manu]

We can only speak of concepts by identity by relating those concepts to another and assigning that identity to them. The act of communication exists. The concepts don't have existence.

 

No, in the case of this conversation we are speaking of the concepts themselves, apart from the attributes and accidents they connote. We are speaking of them with an identity of their own, namely as the mental integration of those attributes and accidents, in fact man cannot reference a thing apart from its abstracted qualities.

 

It is the special ability of brains to hold abstractions and (sentient ones to communicate abstractions) that allows us to consume, replicate, and alter concepts. They are nevertheless ephemeral.

 

If they don't exist how can it be said that they are ephemeral? If ephemeral means "Lasting for a short time", how is it that something that does not exist, can be said to last?

[shirgall]

No, in the case of this conversation we are speaking of the concepts themselves, apart from the attributes and accidents they connote. We are speaking of them with an identity of their own, namely as the mental integration of those attributes and accidents, in fact man cannot reference a thing apart from its abstracted qualities.

 

 

If they don't exist how can it be said that they are ephemeral? If ephemeral means "Lasting for a short time", how is it that something that does not exist, can be said to last?

 

I was using ephemeral in the sense that a concepts exist as a brain function when a person (well, entity, since even dogs grasp some concepts) is alive.

 

The brain's ability to extrapolate from experiences to create abstractions and recognize patterns does not create something in objective reality that was not there before. For example, every middle school boy extrapolating that everything longer than it's wide is a penis does not make all of those things penises.

[RichardY]

I wonder if for something to be a concept it must be transcended by the individual. For example, take the concept knife or spear. To borrow from a movie Crocodile Dundee "Thats not a knife, thats a knife".  To a 20 foot giant a   spear would more appropriately be a toothpick to him. Where as something like a forest, collective or government is not transcended, but neither are they a platonic form that are real but do not exist.

 

I'll add that as per Hegel, abstractions such as Platonic forms as whiteness and transparency are "real" but don't "exist," while concretions such as a salt shaker "exist" but aren't "real."  In other words for clarity's sake it helps to be aware that there are abstractions and there are concretions, the former occupying the dimension behind the eyes and the latter before the eyes.

Interesting distinctions. Watched some Youtube videos on Hegel by a guy called Gregory Sadler, seemed quite a grind to become familiar with Hegel's work, but hey maybe there's something there to it despite the horror shows of Communism and National Socialism. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I wonder if for something to be a concept it must be transcended by the individual. For example, take the concept knife or spear. To borrow from a movie Crocodile Dundee "Thats not a knife, thats a knife".  To a 20 foot giant a   spear would more appropriately be a toothpick to him. Where as something like a forest, collective or government is not transcended, but neither are they a platonic form that are real but do not exist.

 

Interesting distinctions. Watched some Youtube videos on Hegel by a guy called Gregory Sadler, seemed quite a grind to become familiar with Hegel's work, but hey maybe there's something there to it despite the horror shows of Communism and National Socialism. 

 

A knife, spear, toothpick, forest, collective, and government are all associated with mental pictures, regardless of one's size.  I doubt it is possible to think of any of them without a mental picture of some kind.  Granted, as with math, an individual's picture-processing may be so quick and short-handed that the original pictures (as for government) hardly figure, but the point is some kind of "picturing" is necessary for thought.

[RichardY]

Collective, the mental I picture I get is a green laser beam coming out of a borg cube, also kind of think of Communists charging into Finland. But why not just say people instead of collective?

 

Government, George Bush screwing Bin laden or visa versa can't really remember from a joke Internet Picture I saw 15 years ago or so at Xmas or new years eve party. But also a smiling Tony Blair moving his hand, also think of houses of parliament. Other pictures also come to mind.

 

A spear or toothpick I could see as being potentially different to other people depending on perspective. The image is kind of the same though except the spear could be iron tipped as a preference.

 

If a concept is associated with a mental picture I wonder if God is a concept? The mental picture I used to think of was moving stars, but also kind of a void like a black hole.

[Donnadogsoth]

Collective, the mental I picture I get is a green laser beam coming out of a borg cube, also kind of think of Communists charging into Finland. But why not just say people instead of collective?

 

Government, George Bush screwing Bin laden or visa versa can't really remember from a joke Internet Picture I saw 15 years ago or so at Xmas or new years eve party. But also a smiling Tony Blair moving his hand, also think of houses of parliament. Other pictures also come to mind.

 

A spear or toothpick I could see as being potentially different to other people depending on perspective. The image is kind of the same though except the spear could be iron tipped as a preference.

 

If a concept is associated with a mental picture I wonder if God is a concept? The mental picture I used to think of was moving stars, but also kind of a void like a black hole.

 

God is a very peculiar concept because he's, strictly speaking, beyond the categories.  Any name we give to the Infinite is going to be inadequate and so we have to accept that our nomenclature will be inadequate.  There can be greater and lesser degrees of accuracy but total accuracy is impossible.  Our mental picture for God is going to be a placeholder like a RESERVED sign at a place at a table.  Personally, my mental picture for the word "God" is a white amorphous expanse.

[EclecticIdealist]

God is a very peculiar concept because he's, strictly speaking, beyond the categories.  ...  Personally, my mental picture for the word "God" is a white amorphous expanse.

Sounds exactly like a "blank out" from rationality.

[Donnadogsoth]

Sounds exactly like a "blank out" from rationality.

 

Seriously, though, you believe in a Totality, don't you?  You believe in a sum-of-all-things that will always escape human understanding?  We could call that the Totality.  And despite being on Terra for several hundred thousand years, there's a good chance homo sapiens still doesn't understand very much about the Universe it lives in.  So, in large measure, we are defined by our ignorance, not by our knowledge.  Homo ignarus.  So what, I ask, is the practical difference between a Totality which we are massively ignorant of, and a God which we are massively ignorant of?  The same ever-receding comprehension is there, whether we view the origin of all as being natural or super-natural.

[EclecticIdealist]

Seriously, though, you believe in a Totality, don't you?

 

I don't believe in undefined concepts ambiguously referenced by words I am familiar with which quite possibly mean something different to me than their author intends. Define totality in clear, distinct, unambiguous terms and you'll get an answer.

 

You believe in a sum-of-all-things that will always escape human understanding?

 

No. the term "always" is a problem, as well as what is precisely meant by the term "sum-of-all-things".

 

We could call that the Totality.

 

We could call "sum-of-all-things that will always escape human understanding" the totality and I'd still not know what precisely you're referencing.

 

And despite being on Terra for several hundred thousand years, there's a good chance homo sapiens still doesn't understand very much about the Universe it lives in.

 

If by several hundred thousand you mean approx. 200,000 by the most current guesses for homo sapien, but for a few million if you mean our ancestors homo (something or other), sure. We know quite a bit, but what we do know may be relatively little in comparison to what there is to know about the physical sciences. We certainly know a likely inconsequential amount about the history of life and intelligent civilizations for even our own galaxy, much less the "known universe".

 

So, in large measure, we are defined by our ignorance, not by our knowledge.  Homo ignarus.

 

If you prefer to look at humans as relatively ignorant compared to the vast amount of potential knowledge to be had, you could categorize humans in such a way, but it would seem like a rather self-deprecating and ignorant (in the other sense of the word) thing to do.

 

So what, I ask, is the practical difference between a Totality which we are massively ignorant of, and a God which we are massively ignorant of?

 

If you make no distinctions between the two, I suppose you could then refer to them by the same term as you would be referring to a single thing, not two separate things. However, when you start inventing things about that vast unknowable thing without warrant, and you start suggesting that people accept what you and others attribute to that vast unknowable thing as truth, and you use such supposed knowledge or a pretended relationship with such a thing in order to manipulate and control others, not necessarily through the direct application of force, but through psychological manipulation, then you've stopped being benign in your beliefs and your "teachings" and started down the road to being hostile towards the liberty and ultimate prosperity and happiness of my fellow beings, and I take exception to that. Let ignorance of the unknown be unfettered by superstitious nonsense and make believe and you'll have no quarrel from me. Attempt to pass superstition, no matter how carefully crafted with logic and reason based on false premises and you make of me your enemy.

 

The same ever-receding comprehension is there, whether we view the origin of all as being natural or super-natural.

 

No, it's not. If time has taught us anything, it is that the natural invariably supplants the super-natural as the mind is allowed to be free to discover the truth, unfettered by the bonds of superstition and the fear of reprisals for upsetting the power structure of the ruling elite. That power structure is built on the twin pillars of superstition - the superstitious belief in the necessity of the state and a superstitious belief in the necessity of religion.

[Donnadogsoth]

Let me rephrase the question: do you believe in a totality of truth? That is, do you believe that we can measure truth out, saying that this is a truth (“water is composed of dihydrogen oxide”) and that that is a truth (“electrons have a negative charge”) and all the other things we have discovered are truths, and that this forms a collection of truths we know, to which we can add a collection of truths we do not yet know, and this combined collection forms that which we can rightly call a “totality of truth.” Do you believe that?

 

On homo ignorans:  Au contraire, we advance when we realise what we are ignorant of, not when we rest on our knowledge. Science in particular purports to be the ongoing, systematic effort to punch holes in our presumptions of knowledge.

 

Please answer my question on the totality of truth, which is relevant here, before I reply to the rump of your post.

[EclecticIdealist]

Let me rephrase the question: do you believe in a totality of truth? That is, do you believe that we can measure truth out, saying that this is a truth (“water is composed of dihydrogen oxide”) and that that is a truth (“electrons have a negative charge”) and all the other things we have discovered are truths, and that this forms a collection of truths we know, to which we can add a collection of truths we do not yet know, and this combined collection forms that which we can rightly call a “totality of truth.” Do you believe that?

 

Yes. I believe there is such a thing as objective truth, and that conceptually, there is a sum totality of truth that can be known. I thought I'd made that clear, but as that doesn't seem to be the case, I hope this has.

 

On homo ignorans:  Au contraire, we advance when we realise what we are ignorant of, not when we rest on our knowledge. Science in particular purports to be the ongoing, systematic effort to punch holes in our presumptions of knowledge.

 

I agree that it is a general tendency and actually rational position to refrain from the further pursuit of knowledge on a topic if we believe there is nothing more to be learned. This is one of the problems I have with most religion (not all) which tends to make declarations limiting the scope and breadth of knowledge to be learned until some rebel pushes the envelope opening up a whole new frontier of knowledge to be discovered.

 

[RichardY]

do you believe that we can measure truth out, saying that this is a truth (“water is composed of dihydrogen oxide”) and that that is a truth (“electrons have a negative charge”) and all the other things we have discovered are truths.

I think you raise another interesting point, something I have thought about. To elaborate further what I think you are getting at are instances of "true", to use an example of my own, is logic "true" to an electronic computer, I would say no, something is present/exists or it does not, i.e an electrical charge is there or it is not.

 

and all the other things we have discovered are truths, and that this forms a collection of truths we know, to which we can add a collection of truths we do not yet know, and this combined collection forms that which we can rightly call a “totality of truth.” Do you believe that?

My answer is no, not in that form.

 

On homo ignorans:  Au contraire, we advance when we realise what we are ignorant of, not when we rest on our knowledge. Science in particular purports to be the ongoing, systematic effort to punch holes in our presumptions of knowledge.

An important concept? perhaps experience? World Spirit? Holy Spirit? Will to Power? Mysticism? Transcendence? Nihilism? Astrology? to me, but I think to everybody in someway.

 

do you believe in a totality of truth?

As a potentiality, actuality or both? Or something else....  maybe in the only way that really matters.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

I think you raise another interesting point, something I have thought about. To elaborate further what I think you are getting at are instances of 

"true", to use an example of my own, is logic "true" to an electronic computer, I would say no, something is present/exists or it does not, i.e an electrical charge is there or it is not.

 

A computer is an abiotic entity, which has as I see it little relevance to knowledge. What does a toaster know?

 

 

 

and all the other things we have discovered are truths, and that this forms a collection of truths we know, to which we can add a collection of truths we do not yet know, and this combined collection forms that which we can rightly call a “totality of truth.” Do you believe that?

My answer is no, not in that form.

 

Then in what form? How can anyone take issue with the idea that there is knowledge known and knowledge unknown and together they form the totality of knowledge?

 

 

 

An important concept? perhaps experience? World Spirit? Holy Spirit? Will to Power? Mysticism? Transcendence? Nihilism? Astrology? to me, but I think to everybody in someway.

 

I believe the answering concept is metaphor.

 

 

do you believe in a totality of truth?

As a potentiality, actuality or both? Or something else....  maybe in the only way that really matters.

 

Potential to us, actual to God.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes. I believe there is such a thing as objective truth, and that conceptually, there is a sum totality of truth that can be known. I thought I'd mad

 

 

 

I agree that it is a general tendency and actually [ir]rational position to refrain from the further pursuit of knowledge on a topic if we believe there is nothing more to be learned. This is one of the problems I have with most religion (not all) which tends to make declarations limiting the scope and breadth of knowledge to be learned until some rebel pushes the envelope opening up a whole new frontier of knowledge to be discovered.

 

We are agreed here.

 

I can imagine nothing more philosophically benign than to distinguish between man and beast. It is this crucial difference which I must underscore in my argument. Man is distinguished by his mind which contains the potential, unique to the world, of, through suitable provocation, discovering universal physical principles and related artistic and moral principles.

 

This mind is associated with, but not contracted to, the human brain. To the degree man thinks using his brain, he is a beast, incapable of intellect and free will, as all beasts are so incapable. To the degree man thinks using his mind, he is human.

 

The directive of behaviour towards beasts in close company is training. A beast has nothing but a brain, not a mind in human terms at all but just a brain, and the brain learns through training.

 

The directive of behaviour towards humans is provocation. A mind cannot be taught anything, but can be provoked into realisations of principle, whether physical, artistic, or moral. No beast can ever discover the principle of universal gravitation, or the idea of the Sublime.

 

I raise all this to highlight man's mind as being unique in the world, possibly in the Universe, uniquely constituted as to be the master of that Universe, at least in principle, through the discovery of those principles which govern all sensory input and interaction.

 

Thus, we are gods. Not God, but gods. And our mind, containing all knowledge as seen if through a carnival glass mirror, therefore contains the totality of Truth. And therefore we are made in the image of that Totality, and it is the Archetype of us. But given we are conscious, it would be imperfect without consciousness, incapable of stamping its image on us, and so it is, and that makes it God.

 

It may be that the pillar of the State can be replaced by sufficient, free, principled, and ligamented organisation that imitates its functionality, but the pillar of Religion, to the degree it is faulty, will never be replaced except by profoundly understanding what I have written above, and what others have written similarly. The elites train our brains and deny that our minds exist, and we believe them and become malleable beasts in their service, on their farms, and on their tables.

[EclecticIdealist]

We are agreed here.

 

No, apparently we are not. It is improper to alter by adding a prefix to a key word thus changing the meaning of a word and sentence in order to suggest one is in agreement with another. It is perfectly rational to stop seeking further knowledge on a subject when one believes such knowledge to be complete. It is irrational to continue seeking additional knowledge on a subject believed to be complete.

 

I can imagine nothing more philosophically benign than to distinguish between man and beast. It is this crucial difference which I must underscore in my argument. Man is distinguished by his mind which contains the potential, unique to the world, of, through suitable provocation, discovering universal physical principles and related artistic and moral principles.

 

It is only our own presumptive arrogance which causes certain human beings to suppose that man alone is capable of discovering universal physical principles as well as aesthetic and ethical or moral sentiments and principles. Indeed, if our primate and other mammalian studies show us anything of potentially monumental import, it is that human beings are not the only species on this planet capable of and indeed actually engaging in ethical and moral behavior.

 

This mind is associated with, but not contracted to, the human brain. To the degree man thinks using his brain, he is a beast, incapable of intellect and free will, as all beasts are so incapable. To the degree man thinks using his mind, he is human.

 

There is absolutely no evidence indicating a distinction between the mind and the brain with regard to thinking or human thought. The thinking is not only indistinguishable, there is no falsifiable evidence to demonstrate the thinking of the mind and the thinking of the brain are two separate phenomena.

 

The directive of behaviour towards beasts in close company is training. A beast has nothing but a brain, not a mind in human terms at all but just a brain, and the brain learns through training.

 

There is no evidence suggesting animals do not have minds every bit as much as humans do, only less complex.

 

The directive of behaviour towards humans is provocation. A mind cannot be taught anything, but can be provoked into realisations of principle, whether physical, artistic, or moral. No beast can ever discover the principle of universal gravitation, or the idea of the Sublime.

 

If we take the ability to provoke the thinking of individuals to realisations of principle, there are a great many human beings which must be properly regarded as nothing more than beasts, and a few non-human beings as human, even though they may not be capable of discovering the principle of universal gravitation. (It should be noted that such a principle was not discovered or proposed until the 1600s) and given our inability to discern the thoughts of other animals to any significant degree, we can hardly be certain they do not, nor are they capable of comprehending gradations of thought.

 

I raise all this to highlight man's mind as being unique in the world, possibly in the Universe, uniquely constituted as to be the master of that Universe, at least in principle, through the discovery of those principles which govern all sensory input and interaction.

 

I believe your conclusion to be unfounded on any empirical evidence or rationality.

 

Thus, we are gods. Not God, but gods. And our mind, containing all knowledge as seen if through a carnival glass mirror, therefore contains the totality of Truth. And therefore we are made in the image of that Totality, and it is the Archetype of us. But given we are conscious, it would be imperfect without consciousness, incapable of stamping its image on us, and so it is, and that makes it God.

 

No evidence that any individual human mind contains all knowledge, even if in an imperfect or distorted form. Nothing more than gratuitous romanticizing of fantasy and superstitious religious belief.

 

It may be that the pillar of the State can be replaced by sufficient, free, principled, and ligamented organisation that imitates its functionality, but the pillar of Religion, to the degree it is faulty, will never be replaced except by profoundly understanding what I have written above, and what others have written similarly.

 

If such is the case, then authors such as George Lucas, J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, and others offer an equivalent substitute for religion.

 

The elites train our brains and deny that our minds exist, and we believe them and become malleable beasts in their service, on their farms, and on their tables.

 

These "elites" exist  in the realms of the state, religion and the private corporate sector.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

I agree that it is a general tendency and actually [ir]rational position to refrain from the further pursuit of knowledge on a topic if we believe there is nothing more to be learned. This is one of the problems I have with most religion (not all) which tends to make declarations limiting the scope and breadth of knowledge to be learned until some rebel pushes the envelope opening up a whole new frontier of knowledge to be discovered.

 

I'm sorry, I thought that was a typo, which I corrected. So you believe we should be complacent when we think we know it all. I disagree. There are always paradoxes hidden like mice in the walls of our theorem-lattices, which we do well to ferret out. Remember how the patent office was supposed to be closing soon in the late 1800's, because everything had already been invented? So with our knowledge. Complacency means a lack of imagination and the crustiness of old age.

 

 

 

It is only our own presumptive arrogance which causes certain human beings to suppose that man alone is capable of discovering universal physical principles as well as aesthetic and ethical or moral sentiments and principles. Indeed, if our primate and other mammalian studies show us anything of potentially monumental import, it is that human beings are not the only species on this planet capable of and indeed actually engaging in ethical and moral behavior.

 

Find me any non-human capable of doubling the square, and I will give it a blue ribbon and honourary membership in the human race.

 

If we stand from the point of neurology, we won't see anything different between beasts and humans than some extra brain tissue. The difference is in potential. There is no known principled limit to human knowledge, only the practical limits imposed by time, space, stamina, culture, etc.., just as there is no known principled limit to the growth of the economy in terms of power over nature. Human mind, human civilisation, power to know, power over nature, these are the important things to remember when dealing with the human race, and if we believe that, then we are de facto believing in Genesis 1:27 and 1:28. That is the power of the human mind.

 

In modern parlance, the beast has a mind of a kind, but it is limited and unprincipled, lacking intellect as such, and free will as such. Again, if you can find an ape that can discover the principle of gravitation, or can comprehend Shakespeare, bring it forth! And the fact that most human beings have been bestialised throughout history you should see as a testament to the powers of the historical forces of the elites to subjugate man, not as evidence that man and beast overlap in potential.

 

 

 

If such is the case, then authors such as George Lucas, J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, and others offer an equivalent substitute for religion.

 

Tolkien is a very narrow gateway into Catholicism. But none of the filmmakers or authors you list describe and defend man's mind as I have above. Better look to the Classical music of Europe for a wider gateway into the kind of thinking that characterises man's angelic mind, as opposed to his bestial brain.

[EclecticIdealist]

So you believe we should be complacent when we think we know it all. I disagree. There are always paradoxes hidden like mice in the walls of our theorem-lattices, which we do well to ferret out. Remember how the patent office was supposed to be closing soon in the late 1800's, because everything had already been invented? So with our knowledge. Complacency means a lack of imagination and the crustiness of old age.

 

I said it was a general tendency and rational; however, with experience comes greater knowledge and wisdom which informs us of the boundaries and limits of knowledge and where there is more to be learned. When our belief changes about the extent of our knowledge in an area vs the extent of knowledge to be learned, then it becomes rational to pursue further knowledge in that area. Reason does not pursue irrationality. When one comes to a wall that is believed to be impenetrable, it is irrational to believe there is a way through it. When one discovers a crack in the wall with a breeze coming through it, one's belief is altered by knowledge and one may rationally pursue a means through the wall once thought to be impenetrable.

 

Find me any non-human capable of doubling the square, and I will give it a blue ribbon and honourary membership in the human race.

 

Surely the ability to think abstractly about shapes and sizes to such a degree is not requisite for membership in the human race. Otherwise, one must consider most children under the age of 6 and all but a handful under the age of 2 or perhaps 3 to be nothing more than beasts. Spatial perceptual Intelligence is a matter of degree. Many primates have demonstrated a measure of spatial-perceptual intelligence, not to that degree (as far as I know), but certainly a rudimentary degree on part with very young children. 

 

If we stand from the point of neurology, we won't see anything different between beasts and humans than some extra brain tissue. The difference is in potential. There is no known principled limit to human knowledge, only the practical limits imposed by time, space, stamina, culture, etc.., just as there is no known principled limit to the growth of the economy in terms of power over nature.

 

So gorillas and other primates are limited by insurmountable physiological constraints, but all humans are capable of performing at super-genius level in every aspect of mental endeavor, if only we had more time, space, stamina, and the proper culture to nourish us, eh?

 

Human mind, human civilisation, power to know, power over nature, these are the important things to remember when dealing with the human race, and if we believe that, then we are de facto believing in Genesis 1:27 and 1:28. That is the power of the human mind.

 

Or the story has it precisely backwards and we have simply created the Gods in our own images and after our own likenesses, male and female; originally with all the human personalities, virtues, and vices; but as time went by, the priests of one particular God raised theirs above all others to be the Supreme or Father God. Later, they did away with the pantheon of Gods by making them lesser deities or demi-gods and finally simply angels or celestial beings who served the supreme god. Given the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of such a god or gods, which is the more probable scenario?

 

In modern parlance, the beast has a mind of a kind, but it is limited and unprincipled, lacking intellect as such, and free will as such. Again, if you can find an ape that can discover the principle of gravitation, or can comprehend Shakespeare, bring it forth! And the fact that most human beings have been bestialised throughout history you should see as a testament to the powers of the historical forces of the elites to subjugate man, not as evidence that man and beast overlap in potential.

 

Anyone at all familiar with dogs, cats, and various other domesticated animals experientially knows that such animals have limited, principled, minds with free will. To suggest that human beings are unique "creations" in the image and likeness of God, and not merely the most intellectually developed species of animal on the planet is to give into mythology and superstition over observation and rational thought. That human beings throughout history have been brutalized by their fellow humans and treated as chattel slaves and even as low as livestock does nothing to suggest that human beings are being "beastialized" from a higher non-animal state. Supposing such to be the case only opens the door to classifying some humans as being more beastly and less human, rather, and invites the abuse of animals as being less than sentient creatures deserving of our kindness and consideration, even if we ultimately consume them as food.

 

Tolkien is a very narrow gateway into Catholicism. But none of the filmmakers or authors you list describe and defend man's mind as I have above. Better look to the Classical music of Europe for a wider gateway into the kind of thinking that characterises man's angelic mind, as opposed to his bestial brain.

 

While Tolkien was no doubt influenced by Christianity, and perhaps Catholicism in particular, he was alo influenced by other pagan literature as were Lucas, Rowling, and a host of others. Christianity is derivative of Judaism which is derivative of more ancient Middle Eastern religions which were either derived from or evolved along-side Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions, as well as possibly south asian religions, many of which borrowing and adapting myths and making them their own. The most resilient memes are those which mutate and adapt to their host cultures as Christianity very effectively did.

[Donnadogsoth]

I said it was a general tendency and rational; however, with experience comes greater knowledge and wisdom which informs us of the boundaries and limits of knowledge and where there is more to be learned. When our belief changes about the extent of our knowledge in an area vs the extent of knowledge to be learned, then it becomes rational to pursue further knowledge in that area. Reason does not pursue irrationality. When one comes to a wall that is believed to be impenetrable, it is irrational to believe there is a way through it. When one discovers a crack in the wall with a breeze coming through it, one's belief is altered by knowledge and one may rationally pursue a means through the wall once thought to be impenetrable.

 

If you're talking about discoveries of principle, then yes, a principle is a principle, and if we've discovered that that's great, but no finite set of principles perfectly describes the Universe, and so there will always be a need for inquisition, and there's no telling where inspiration will come from.

 

 

 

Surely the ability to think abstractly about shapes and sizes to such a degree is not requisite for membership in the human race. Otherwise, one must consider most children under the age of 6 and all but a handful under the age of 2 or perhaps 3 to be nothing more than beasts. Spatial perceptual Intelligence is a matter of degree. Many primates have demonstrated a measure of spatial-perceptual intelligence, not to that degree (as far as I know), but certainly a rudimentary degree on part with very young children. 

 

I gave you the simplest mathematical principle I know of, if you can find me any non-human capable of grasping it I will declare them human. Humans are not beasts simply by virtue of their potential. That toddlers haven't unfolded their potential yet doesn't mean it isn't there, or they are somehow not human. That beasts will never grasp the doubling of the square no matter how much they are trained defines their inferior potential.

 

 

 

So gorillas and other primates are limited by insurmountable physiological constraints, but all humans are capable of performing at super-genius level in every aspect of mental endeavor, if only we had more time, space, stamina, and the proper culture to nourish us, eh?

 

Yes. A human working at the maximum mental capacity is capable of discovering any principle of Nature.

 

 

 

Or the story has it precisely backwards and we have simply created the Gods in our own images and after our own likenesses, male and female; originally with all the human personalities, virtues, and vices; but as time went by, the priests of one particular God raised theirs above all others to be the Supreme or Father God. Later, they did away with the pantheon of Gods by making them lesser deities or demi-gods and finally simply angels or celestial beings who served the supreme god. Given the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of such a god or gods, which is the more probable scenario?

 

As I've explained elsewhere, we are made in the image of the Totality of Truth. Such an image is conscious, we are conscious, ergo that which has It's image stamped on us is must be conscious too, in a way. And that makes it a God. The conventional Atheist anti-religious narrative is weak tea.

 

 

 

Anyone at all familiar with dogs, cats, and various other domesticated animals experientially knows that such animals have limited, principled, minds with free will. To suggest that human beings are unique "creations" in the image and likeness of God, and not merely the most intellectually developed species of animal on the planet is to give into mythology and superstition over observation and rational thought. That human beings throughout history have been brutalized by their fellow humans and treated as chattel slaves and even as low as livestock does nothing to suggest that human beings are being "beastialized" from a higher non-animal state. Supposing such to be the case only opens the door to classifying some humans as being more beastly and less human, rather, and invites the abuse of animals as being less than sentient creatures deserving of our kindness and consideration, even if we ultimately consume them as food.

 

Should animals be tried for crimes? They have free will according to you so they should be culpable for their crimes.

 

All cultures are equal in promoting the development of the higher mental faculties?

 

 

 

While Tolkien was no doubt influenced by Christianity, and perhaps Catholicism in particular, he was alo influenced by other pagan literature as were Lucas, Rowling, and a host of others. Christianity is derivative of Judaism which is derivative of more ancient Middle Eastern religions which were either derived from or evolved along-side Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions, as well as possibly south asian religions, many of which borrowing and adapting myths and making them their own. The most resilient memes are those which mutate and adapt to their host cultures as Christianity very effectively did.

 

Which memes told the original Christians to die for something they knew was a lie?