The theological question of the century

IMO anyway.

Why is reason hereditary?

Most people in the West are materialists now anyway, so they don’t see why this is an issue. It’s not an issue for them. Nature, nurture, or somewhere in between. What’s the problem? As an otherworldly elitist, I dismiss the materialist position. If I cared what peasants thought, I would decide upon it and inform my television studio of the new programming.

Nonmaterialists, on the other hand, are in a bit of a pickle. We can either reject the premise or reject reason as the property which distinguishes man from the animals. I am inclined to the latter. It may be practically true that reason separates man from beast, meaning it is true for all intents and purposes, but it does not appear to be categorically true. I suspect we are, generally, 10 times more reasonable than dolphins. But are we one million times more reasonable? One trillion times? Infinitely?

Materialists continue to scratch their heads here. What’s the problem?

The problem is that Christians distinguish between human and subhuman. There are serious behavioral questions that arise from this. Thus, we find ourselves in the position of Pope Paul III, who had to forbid the enslavement of American Natives by papal bull. (Vox Day’s novel Summa Elvetica is actually an allegory of the Sublimus Dei controversy, substituting elves for Red Indians.) Why then do we allow the enslavement of cattle? The vegans, driven mad by their unsated bacon-lust, are already subverting minds in this realm. It is now common to talk of “ethical” food without irony.

Now, as a TROO THAL, I oppose torturing slaughterhouse animals anyway. I mean, come on guys, WTF, that one is easy. Just kill it without the bullshit. But sometimes we have to paint with broad brushes, as in the case of slavery. It is good to yoke an ox. It is not good to yoke a man. It is wise to eat the body of a dead ox. It is not wise to eat the body of a dead man. So what is a “man”? At present, we can say we know one when we see one. But we are probably entering a pagan age, where slavery will again be common. How do you explain to a modern heathen, who has no concept of pagan virtue, what a “man” is so you can protest his slavery? Without fail, he will describe his slaves as something subhuman- it is the oldest trick in the book.

If we can’t give an answer here, it will not weigh on his conscience. That is just the way humans are; if I pull off a clever argument and my opponent fails to answer, I take this as confirmation of my correctness. Many people will suffer oppression for this. But if we ignore this question until it becomes urgent (as we almost certainly will), then many more people are going to suffer who otherwise wouldn’t have to.

My answer, if it can be flattered with such designation, is that the material world is a projection from the higher dimensions. For some reason, we can only see the shadows we project on the screen. If I punch someone in the spirit world, my shadow also punches his shadow. If my shadow (having some faculty of reason g) is having sex with the shadow of a woman (also having some faculty of reason g), then this produces a baby (having some faculty of reason g).

In physics terms, this can be thought of as a literal projection, like when a 3-D vector is projected onto a 2-D plane. But this raises a number of questions. Kinetic energy is a scalar, whereas momentum has dimensional components x, y, and z. Say we have two particles with the same mass and momentum, but one of them has higher kinetic energy because it is also has a large component of velocity in the higher dimension. Can we observe the effect of that sort of collision.

QUESTIONS. Fuck I dunno man, puff and pass, that’s the rule.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The theological question of the century

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Heaviside has talked about this somewhat. Basic idea is that if you take the brain out of a body and put it in a vat so it’s blind, deaf and dumb, then it is going to think in very different ways. The rest appears to be vocabulary for talking about the spectrum in between.

      Also experience is going to play a role. Euler solved many problems *after* going blind (like the four square problem), presumably doing the mechanical pencil-work in his imagination.

      The studies in the wiki have intuitive results.. (The pendulum one appears stupid at first glance though.) But psychologists have a terrible track record for reproduction of published results, and the effects are pretty small. Many of them could be explained by engagement with the task.

  1. Edenist whackjob says:

    Reason is like a skill. The skill of integrating multiple sensory-motor abilities and mental faculties together in order to re-program oneself and the environment. It’s not a monolithic skill, it’s a progression of more and more difficult feats.

    What are few crucial aspects of reasoning?

    Categories: A simple feat of reason is pointing at a tree and saying “tree”. Then, pointing at another tree and going “tree” again. Simple categorization.

    Causality: Logical progression (A implies B) probably arises from conditioning. A dog might learn that doing a trick leads to getting a treat. Syllogism is just being able to take this mechanism of A-leads-to-B and program it yourself.

    Coherence: “Pick up this type of thing or that type of thing, but not that type of thing”. Pretty sure even ravens can do that.

    A cat can point at an object, emit sounds, have memories, probably categorize things on a limbic level, etc. But it doesn’t get connected very well. Like juggling one ball. Cats probably have a local maximum where they can’t get to more reason. But notice how pet cats are usually smarter than wild ones, in the sense that they can perform more advanced cognitive tasks. Humans provide positive feedback for cognitive uplift.

    Humans are like 9-ball jugglers. Maybe dolphins and monkeys are juggling 3-4 balls. No qualitative difference in number of balls per se, but each added ball requires non-linear increase in brainpower, and unlocks qualitatively different modes via combination.

    Sense of time is one of these mental faculties that can probably be considered a qualitative watermark between species. Probably a few species other than humans have it. Like all non-verbal brain modes, this is unfathomable at the linguistic level. But one might try to recall what it was like to be a toddler. There was maybe some sense of the passage of time, but not much. Maybe an elephant is like that, but with different instincts. There might be a sense that it’s morning now and it’s going-to-be-afternoon and night later.

    Having a model of the world in your head is probably uniquely human. But not all humans have that, I think. For a lot of people, they are walking IN the model already, having the world in your head makes no sense. Probably gives quicker reflexes and more enjoyment of life too. At extreme end of “world in your head” people become dissociated, like floating brains. Ever notice how smart people point at things in the air when discussing? They are grasping their inner world. They are often clumsy too, because of living in two realities. Melon intelligence, then, would be being-in-the-flesh-model but using cognition to spar with it. Like an athlete who does different forms of karate strikes or tennis serves.

    Ethical reasoning is another uniquely human thing. Still, I wonder, if it truly is. Introemote “guilt” or “shame” and notice how it has a more primal feel to it than doing logic or something. Probably exists in animal form, then. I propose that ethical reasoning comes from a high capacity for feeling guilt coupled with a strong meta-cognitive ability. You can see that you are a part of a whole, and your tribal guilt feelings kick in when you act too selfishly (rather than simply as a cue for breaking learned taboos).

    • Edenist whackjob says:

      Point of all this: it’s tricky to draw a line.

      High end of non-humans might juggle 4 balls while low end of humans juggle 7. Still, what happens if someone closes that gap?

      One kind of needs a theory where the human soul is unique by design (ie human souls have a different flavor to them) – otherwise one runs into problems delineating where the gestalt of humanity arises on an analog spectrum.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        Capacity for religion. That’s uniquely human, I’m pretty sure. And it’s not one of those things, like having a model or being a moral philosopher, that only big-skulled weirdoes have. Even simple people have religion.

        What is the essence of having-religion-capacity? Perceiving that there might be a force “out there”, and that there is such a thing as a soul.

        Maybe dolphins are the upper end of where you can still be happy without spirituality… modern humans who are atheists seem to have a constant deficit for their will-to-live-function. Animals and humans alike have the will to survive, but humans have one more step on the need pyramid. If animals get put in a cage, their upper stage is denied. If Man denies God, his upper stage is denied.

        I’m not super-religious or anything, I just see it as obvious that people have a need for it.

      • Edenist whackjob says:

        Why does atheist man get depressed? Because his will-to-live function cannot answer the question “why?”

        For an animal, this can happen too, if the environment is not conducive to life. Animals can get depressed. But their needs CAN always be fulfilled by the environment.

        For Man, the environment is at some point never enough.

        So that’s the key! Man is the animal that conquers his environment so thoroughly that the limbic pre-verbal question of “why?” can not be answered anymore! Hence the grasp for something more out there! And why answering it with verbals is always unsatisfying.

  2. Heaviside says:

    “Nietzsche declares that man’s essential nature is not yet determined — it has neither been found nor been secured. This is why Nietzsche says: “Man is the as yet undetermined animal.” The statement sounds strange. Yet it only puts into words what Western thought has thought of man from the beginning. Man is the rational animal. Through reason, man raises himself above the animal, but so that he must constantly look down upon the animal, subject it, master it. If we call animal characteristics “sensual,” and take reason as non-sensual or supra-sensual, then man — the rational animal — appears as the sensual supra-sensual being. If we follow tradition and call the sensual “physical,” then reason, the supra-sensual, is what goes beyond the sensual, the physical; in Greek, “beyond” is meta; meta ta physika means beyond the physical,the sensual; the supra-sensual, in passing beyond the physical, is the metaphysical. Man conceived as the rational animal is the physical exceeding the physical; in short-in the nature of man as the rational animal, there is gathered the passing from the physical to the non-physical, the supra-physical: thus man himself is the metaphysical. But since for Nietzsche neither man’s physical, sensual side — his body, nor man’s non-sensual side–his reason, have been adequately conceived in their essential nature, man, in the prevailing definition, remains the as yet unconceived and so far undetermined animal. Modern anthropology, which exploits Nietzsche’s writings as eagerly as does psychoanalysis, has completely misunderstood that statement, and totally failed to recognize its implications. Man is the as yet undetermined animal; the rational animal has not yet been brought into its full nature. In order to determine the nature of man so far, man as he has been must first of all be carried beyond himself.”

  3. Koanic says:

    The genus Homo is human by divine touch, gifted with spirit – consciousness.

    Alternatively, it is simply a spectrum, and the genus Homo the arbitrary but appropriate dividing line for law and morality.

    Biblically, spilt blood cries out for vengeance, for man was made in the image of God.

    “It is not good to yoke a man.”

    Wrong. Natural slaves exist; liberating them outside an hunter gather environment is wrongbad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s