Anthropomorphism

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:51 am

I start to think it is not such a bad idea to give God a human face. At least you can hold him to account, talk face to face and ask for explanations. What is the alternative? A non-anthropomorphic ever morphing inkblot that only mystics understand? Doesn't look good.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:47 am

Parodite wrote:I start to think it is not such a bad idea to give God a human face. At least you can hold him to account, talk face to face and ask for explanations. What is the alternative? A non-anthropomorphic ever morphing inkblot that only mystics understand? Doesn't look good.

Actually, anthropomorphism is holding you back here. Think of God existing outside of time and pulling the development of creation into what we perceive as the future instead of our anthropomorphic view of past-generated accretions.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:44 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:I start to think it is not such a bad idea to give God a human face. At least you can hold him to account, talk face to face and ask for explanations. What is the alternative? A non-anthropomorphic ever morphing inkblot that only mystics understand? Doesn't look good.

Actually, anthropomorphism is holding you back here. Think of God existing outside of time and pulling the development of creation into what we perceive as the future instead of our anthropomorphic view of past-generated accretions.


This type of divine inkblot operating from behind the veil I find too spooky.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:09 pm

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:I start to think it is not such a bad idea to give God a human face. At least you can hold him to account, talk face to face and ask for explanations. What is the alternative? A non-anthropomorphic ever morphing inkblot that only mystics understand? Doesn't look good.

Actually, anthropomorphism is holding you back here. Think of God existing outside of time and pulling the development of creation into what we perceive as the future instead of our anthropomorphic view of past-generated accretions.


This type of divine inkblot operating from behind the veil I find too spooky.

No spookier than an acorn genetically pre-programmed to become an oak tree. Maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist. A Rorschach test should explain your fear of inkblots :D
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:29 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:This type of divine inkblot operating from behind the veil I find too spooky.

No spookier than an acorn genetically pre-programmed to become an oak tree. Maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist. A Rorschach test should explain your fear of inkblots :D

Lol excellent advice! I have always suspected Dr. Rorschach being the evil genius behind everything. He even employs psychiatrists. Scary.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Simple Minded » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:17 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:I start to think it is not such a bad idea to give God a human face. At least you can hold him to account, talk face to face and ask for explanations. What is the alternative? A non-anthropomorphic ever morphing inkblot that only mystics understand? Doesn't look good.

Actually, anthropomorphism is holding you back here. Think of God existing outside of time and pulling the development of creation into what we perceive as the future instead of our anthropomorphic view of past-generated accretions.


This type of divine inkblot operating from behind the veil I find too spooky.

No spookier than an acorn genetically pre-programmed to become an oak tree. Maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist. A Rorschach test should explain your fear of inkblots :D


People only fear the inkblots that don't self-identify with our preferred assessments.

Those are the bad inkblots, the rest are OK.

Personally, I find those who group ID inkblots to be bigoted and small minded.......

Every reasonable person knows there are two types of inkblots.... those who agree with our rationalized projections, and those who don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP81Je7APoQ
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby manolo » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:00 pm

Simple Minded wrote:Every reasonable person knows there are two types of inkblots.... those who agree with our rationalized projections, and those who don't.


SM,

I try to imagine a world in which I can't rationalise or project, but it doesn't come.

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Simple Minded » Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:00 am

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Every reasonable person knows there are two types of inkblots.... those who agree with our rationalized projections, and those who don't.


SM,

I try to imagine a world in which I can't rationalise or project, but it doesn't come.

Alex.


Congrats. You have killed 1,000's of years of debate and speculation, by correctly pointing out that humans can only consider stuff from a human perspective.

Cats know better. :P

Trademark that sentence, and send it to the Nobel committee. They owe you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP81Je7APoQ
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:17 am

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Every reasonable person knows there are two types of inkblots.... those who agree with our rationalized projections, and those who don't.


SM,

I try to imagine a world in which I can't rationalise or project, but it doesn't come.

Alex.

Of course. Any experience for most of us requires the application our own contexts, and such frames are a collection of templates, concepts, and understandings derived from our past prehensions applied to present encounters. Without the ability to introduce previously derived contexts, people become like the confused and frightened dementia patients whose deficient memory deprives him or her of the capacity for any experiential coherence.

I would not confuse that with what happens to mystics who open their minds and hearts to the divine presence though. In these blessed encounters, the context in experience is not derived from the individual’s memories but from a numinous presence that embraces them in that instant. They submit to a frame not their own, a frame that cannot be described but only can be acted upon with charity and kindness in that moment.

Without the gift of such grace the loss of the capacity to “rationalize or project” is truly bewildering and terrifying. Like a really bad LSD trip.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Simple Minded » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:52 am

kmich wrote:
Of course. Any experience for most of us requires the application our own contexts, and such frames are a collection of templates, concepts, and understandings derived from our past prehensions applied to present encounters. Without the ability to introduce previously derived contexts, people become like the confused and frightened dementia patients whose deficient memory deprives him or her of the capacity for any experiential coherence.

I would not confuse that with what happens to mystics who open their minds and hearts to the divine presence though. In these blessed encounters, the context in experience is not derived from the individual’s memories but from a numinous presence that embraces them in that instant. They submit to a frame not their own, a frame that cannot be described but only can be acted upon with charity and kindness in that moment.

Without the gift of such grace the loss of the capacity to “rationalize or project” is truly bewildering and terrifying. Like a really bad LSD trip.


Kmich,

Very well put. One can only explain what is in one's personal experience, and it can only be expected to be understood by one's with similar experience. Even if both criteria are met, language is still very limited.

I would expect that most people have had premonitions, or other psychic experiences. Whether one is terrified, denies the event, or just accepts it as part of life/human capability is entirely up to the individual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP81Je7APoQ
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:26 pm

kmich wrote:I would not confuse that with what happens to mystics who open their minds and hearts to the divine presence though. In these blessed encounters, the context in experience is not derived from the individual’s memories but from a numinous presence that embraces them in that instant. They submit to a frame not their own, a frame that cannot be described but only can be acted upon with charity and kindness in that moment.


How do you know this to be the case?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:04 pm

Parodite wrote:
kmich wrote:I would not confuse that with what happens to mystics who open their minds and hearts to the divine presence though. In these blessed encounters, the context in experience is not derived from the individual’s memories but from a numinous presence that embraces them in that instant. They submit to a frame not their own, a frame that cannot be described but only can be acted upon with charity and kindness in that moment.


How do you know this to be the case?


From my own experiences with a few people in my life and some of my own encounters. I have accepted this as being true, but since my understandings are mere objects of faith that can only imperfectly signify the divine, doubt is woven into the fabric of my relations with them.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:15 pm

kmich wrote:
Parodite wrote:
kmich wrote:I would not confuse that with what happens to mystics who open their minds and hearts to the divine presence though. In these blessed encounters, the context in experience is not derived from the individual’s memories but from a numinous presence that embraces them in that instant. They submit to a frame not their own, a frame that cannot be described but only can be acted upon with charity and kindness in that moment.


How do you know this to be the case?


From my own experiences with a few people in my life and some of my own encounters. I have accepted this as being true, but since my understandings are mere objects of faith that can only imperfectly signify the divine, doubt is woven into the fabric of my relations with them.

The argument from beauty. An emotion so similar as to be considered identical shared by people experiencing different stimuli at different times permits the inference that there is a non-material cause.

If you read mystics it's the same thing. Centuries of similar recorded responses to related but different stimuli allows the logical inference that there is a non-material source.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:01 pm

kmich wrote:From my own experiences with a few people in my life and some of my own encounters. I have accepted this as being true, but since my understandings are mere objects of faith that can only imperfectly signify the divine, doubt is woven into the fabric of my relations with them.


Fair enough. Can't imagine what life would be without doubt. Inklings...
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:03 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:The argument from beauty. An emotion so similar as to be considered identical shared by people experiencing different stimuli at different times permits the inference that there is a non-material cause.

If you read mystics it's the same thing. Centuries of similar recorded responses to related but different stimuli allows the logical inference that there is a non-material source.


This would need some more drilling and definitional precision.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:34 pm

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:The argument from beauty. An emotion so similar as to be considered identical shared by people experiencing different stimuli at different times permits the inference that there is a non-material cause.

If you read mystics it's the same thing. Centuries of similar recorded responses to related but different stimuli allows the logical inference that there is a non-material source.


This would need some more drilling and definitional precision.

It's been drilled and defined since Plato.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby kmich » Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:31 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:The argument from beauty. An emotion so similar as to be considered identical shared by people experiencing different stimuli at different times permits the inference that there is a non-material cause.

If you read mystics it's the same thing. Centuries of similar recorded responses to related but different stimuli allows the logical inference that there is a non-material source.


This would need some more drilling and definitional precision.

It's been drilled and defined since Plato.

Yes, I am sure that is all true. I have minimal theological education, so I will defer to NH on the formalities of this issue.

Nevertheless, I believe Hume was correct when he affirmed that such matter as “material” or “immaterial” are no more than conventions by which we qualify our sensations and experiences for our own uses, and not essences that exist within the objects we are presented with.

I have always failed to see the relevance of such matters in faith, at least in the process of actually living. Devotions and contemplation have always seemed more relevant to me than our theological, epistemological, and metaphysical musings.

Still, no matter what object or belief I have had about “God,” my world, or any object I have held sacred, it has, in time, been shown as empty and irrelevant. The changes of life and the constant confrontation with its random cruelty and meaninglessness has ripped up any Platonic fancies and favored devotions I may have favored. The challenge of faith to me has not been to resolve such challenges but to be willing to take them into my own heart in a deep and abiding trust. "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me..."
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:22 am

kmich wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:The argument from beauty. An emotion so similar as to be considered identical shared by people experiencing different stimuli at different times permits the inference that there is a non-material cause.

If you read mystics it's the same thing. Centuries of similar recorded responses to related but different stimuli allows the logical inference that there is a non-material source.


This would need some more drilling and definitional precision.

It's been drilled and defined since Plato.

Yes, I am sure that is all true. I have minimal theological education, so I will defer to NH on the formalities of this issue.

Nevertheless, I believe Hume was correct when he affirmed that such matter as “material” or “immaterial” are no more than conventions by which we qualify our sensations and experiences for our own uses, and not essences that exist within the objects we are presented with.

I have always failed to see the relevance of such matters in faith, at least in the process of actually living. Devotions and contemplation have always seemed more relevant to me than our theological, epistemological, and metaphysical musings.

Still, no matter what object or belief I have had about “God,” my world, or any object I have held sacred, it has, in time, been shown as empty and irrelevant. The changes of life and the constant confrontation with its random cruelty and meaninglessness has ripped up any Platonic fancies and favored devotions I may have favored. The challenge of faith to me has not been to resolve such challenges but to be willing to take them into my own heart in a deep and abiding trust. "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me..."


Logic only applies to material existence, so discrimiation is helpful. In any event, Skinner and Pavlov provide stronger counters to the argument from beauty than Hume.

The central issue in the relationship between anthropomorphism and faith is *do we create a god in our image, or vice versa*? The argument from beauty does not prove the latter position but it does provide significant support.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:21 am

kmich wrote:Nevertheless, I believe Hume was correct when he affirmed that such matter as “material” or “immaterial” are no more than conventions by which we qualify our sensations and experiences for our own uses, and not essences that exist within the objects we are presented with.


I think what Hume said there is also affirmed by contemporary science and what every high school kid learns: all experience arises in the human body-brain and is as such a property of human body-brain process.

Simplest example: the color green of a plant out there in the garden is a visual experience that arises in the human brain and is as such a property the human brain process and not of the plant itself as it exists independent of the representation that arises in the brain. In fact "the physical world out there" as we know and experience it to be, included the sensation of space and time, as well as the experience of our inner private world "in here" with feelings, moods, thoughts... are all primarily properties of human body-brain process. What is true for the color green is true for everything "out there".

I have always failed to see the relevance of such matters in faith, at least in the process of actually living. Devotions and contemplation have always seemed more relevant to me than our theological, epistemological, and metaphysical musings.


I'm not sure what is more relevant. I can see that different activities have different relevance; going out for shopping is a different activity than musing conceptual things. Meaning arises from differences and "we can not capture the wind with our hands". (tm quote, that always stuck my mind when I read it as a kid, of a native american chief reacting to the mind-set of the newcumber white man from Europe who wants to own/possess that what cannot be owned etc).
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby manolo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:09 am

Parodite wrote:I think what Hume said there is also affirmed by contemporary science and what every high school kid learns: all experience arises in the human body-brain and is as such a property of human body-brain process.


Parodite,

Do animals have experience?

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:16 pm

Do animals have experience?

With me they do. I majored in animal husbandry until they caught me at it.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:53 pm

manolo wrote:
Parodite wrote:I think what Hume said there is also affirmed by contemporary science and what every high school kid learns: all experience arises in the human body-brain and is as such a property of human body-brain process.


Parodite,

Do animals have experience?

Alex.


Tend to think so yes. Especially experiences of mammals might be very similar to our own. Minus conceptual thought which is likely to be much less complex. I don't think other animals reflect as much as we do on our experiences, or their grammar of thought is very different from our own. No conceptual hell for them. :P

What do you think about it, what it is like to be a bat and stuff? I don't think bats have much thought about what it is like to be a bat. Kinda cliff hanger.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:57 pm

Actually, a cave hanger.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Parodite » Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:11 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Actually, a cave hanger.


Yes :)
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anthropomorphism

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:00 am

noddy wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Off the wall question here, but can rationalism be considered anthropomorphic? If the measure of all things is human sense data, logic and perception; when does it if it does happen, that the human becomes conflated with the universal. Rationality may not merge the physical with the metaphysical, but when it rules it out what is left but the human - and isn't that anthropormorphic?......'>........


not really, or atleast, if thats true, then all words are back to meaningless ;)

our limitations are many, our ability to rationalise is limited to those limitations (boom tish) but the rules of maths and logic and pure rational systems are independendant of them, even if we arent

those rules could (will?) go on to develop super computers with super sensors that breakthrough all our human feebleness, maths and logic have a structural life of their own, already the most advanced computer systems are beyond the grok of any one human, the layers upon layers of structured logic are too much for a single persons puny brain to hold all the infomation at once.



spengler likes using music for this problem space, its a nice blend of the maths and the bits that dont quite fit in the maths :)


Using a disembodied logic system to create a conscious is not at all obvious, it's hard to see how that would work. Logic and reason can only mean things to creatures that need them..... by definition they would have to be subjective........'>......
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest