How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

[abelcainsbrother]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about??? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You come out of left field with these accusations... are you sure you are on the right page? talking to the right person???

Ken

It is based on your defense of science.If I was defending the bible you would think I believed it and so I think you believe scientists without verifying. I verify bible teachers to make sure they are right.

[Kenny]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about??? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You come out of left field with these accusations... are you sure you are on the right page? talking to the right person???

Ken

It is based on your defense of science.If I was defending the bible you would think I believed it and so I think you believe scientists without verifying. I verify bible teachers to make sure they are right.

I was not defending science! Kuriuo and I were discussing moral issues; not scientific issues.

K

[abelcainsbrother]

"]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about??? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You come out of left field with these accusations... are you sure you are on the right page? talking to the right person???

Ken

It is based on your defense of science.If I was defending the bible you would think I believed it and so I think you believe scientists without verifying. I verify bible teachers to make sure they are right.

I was not defending science! Kuriuo and I were discussing moral issues; not scientific issues.

K[/quote]

Yes but science and what it says is being brought up in the discussion.You said you were sure they could easily explain it implying it would back it up.

[Kurieuo]

Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!

Please explain what it means to transcend nature. If you can explain what that means and perhaps provide a hypethetical of this happening, I can explain it in a way that it makes sense to you.

Ken

By "nature" I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause.
If you are unfamiliar with these terms, let me know, because we may just need to cut the discussion.

BUT, it's up to you how you wish to define "nature".
If you wish to bundle "consciousness" within what Nature is comprised of, in addition to what is "physical", well then...
you're on much better grounds than someone who says only a physical world exists and that is what they ascribe to Nature.

What do I mean by this?
Well maybe there are actually "particles" of consciousness.
We've got a theory of physical stuff with space-time theorems, molecular understandings and the like.
Maybe a "theory of consciousness" and what such really is in the universe, is still waiting to be discovered.
Because there has been a reluctance (perhaps due to many calling it, what did you say? "Spiritual" -- which they have a strong distaste for), then well, research hasn't really been productive here to say the least has it?

Do you think it would be possible to define within the natural world, physical as well as mental properties that are distinct and yet found together in the "natural" fabric?
We have a lot of theories and the like that describe the physical. Science only appears to be getting started in even acknowledging immaterial consciousness as being possible in the universe. I wonder why?

What the natural world is comprised of is something that you need to ultimately decide.
Unless you turn to Theism, then I don't think that you logically have many options here.
For if you exclude mental properties, saying such a reduced to the physical via some brain state or what-have-you, then you start coming unstuck in some of the ways that we've been seeing. The issue is not with me being smart and trapping you, but because it is a real unavoidable issue.

Consider Nagel's following words:

[T]he historical account would be restricted to purely physical explanations of the origin and evolution of life until the point at which organisms reached the kind of complexity that is associated with consciousness. After that, the history would be both a physical and a mental one, and if the emergent mental element played an independent causal role, and was not merely epiphenomenal, the causal process would cease to be strictly reductive.

Epiphenomenalism says that mental states emerge from a particular physical state, for example, a state of the brain. However, there is a known issue, in that while a physical state might cause a mental state, mental states (which simply emerge from the physical) can't cause physical states. To say another way, if one believes that our mental states are reduced to what is physical then a mental state can't cause a physical state. The communication can obviously only be one way, right?

Nagel is simply pointing out that the moment a mental state plays a causal role, then the causal process ceases being strictly reduced to some physical state.

Let me provide an example of some mental state playing a causal role:

• You make a conscious decision to go and buy some bread. This makes you grab the car keys, get into the car, drive to the local shop believing they'll be open and have bread, pay with money which you know is needed to buy bread and all those mental beliefs that are required in order for you to carry out your "intentions" of just simply buying some bread.

The causal processes required to get some bread from the shop cease being strictly reduced to some physical state. Right? On numerous occasions even.
Our mind just plays such a crucial role in deciding, our beliefs play such an important role, the causal effects from physical to mental to physical to mental over and over -- well it's hard to see how this is really a physical to physical to physical to physical causal phenomena.

So then, you, not me, really need to decide what you believe the world as we have it ("nature") is really comprised of.
And if you choose to turn a blind eye to any issues here, well I'm not going to hassle your thinking further.

All the best, Kurieuo

[Kenny]

Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!

Please explain what it means to transcend nature. If you can explain what that means and perhaps provide a hypethetical of this happening, I can explain it in a way that it makes sense to you.

Ken

By "nature" I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause.
If you are unfamiliar with these terms, let me know, because we may just need to cut the discussion.

BUT, it's up to you how you wish to define "nature".
If you wish to bundle "consciousness" within what Nature is comprised of, in addition to what is "physical", well then...
you're on much better grounds than someone who says only a physical world exists and that is what they ascribe to Nature.

What do I mean by this?
Well maybe there are actually "particles" of consciousness.
We've got a theory of physical stuff with space-time theorems, molecular understandings and the like.
Maybe a "theory of consciousness" and what such really is in the universe, is still waiting to be discovered.
Because there has been a reluctance (perhaps due to many calling it, what did you say? "Spiritual" -- which they have a strong distaste for), then well, research hasn't really been productive here to say the least has it?

Do you think it would be possible to define within the natural world, physical as well as mental properties that are distinct and yet found together in the "natural" fabric?
We have a lot of theories and the like that describe the physical. Science only appears to be getting started in even acknowledging immaterial consciousness as being possible in the universe. I wonder why?

What the natural world is comprised of is something that you need to ultimately decide.
Unless you turn to Theism, then I don't think that you logically have many options here.
For if you exclude mental properties, saying such a reduced to the physical via some brain state or what-have-you, then you start coming unstuck in some of the ways that we've been seeing. The issue is not with me being smart and trapping you, but because it is a real unavoidable issue.

Consider Nagel's following words:

[T]he historical account would be restricted to purely physical explanations of the origin and evolution of life until the point at which organisms reached the kind of complexity that is associated with consciousness. After that, the history would be both a physical and a mental one, and if the emergent mental element played an independent causal role, and was not merely epiphenomenal, the causal process would cease to be strictly reductive.

Epiphenomenalism says that mental states emerge from a particular physical state, for example, a state of the brain. However, there is a known issue, in that while a physical state might cause a mental state, mental states (which simply emerge from the physical) can't cause physical states. To say another way, if one believes that our mental states are reduced to what is physical then a mental state can't cause a physical state. The communication can obviously only be one way, right?

Nagel is simply pointing out that the moment a mental state plays a causal role, then the causal process ceases being strictly reduced to some physical state.

Let me provide an example of some mental state playing a causal role:

• You make a conscious decision to go and buy some bread. This makes you grab the car keys, get into the car, drive to the local shop believing they'll be open and have bread, pay with money which you know is needed to buy bread and all those mental beliefs that are required in order for you to carry out your "intentions" of just simply buying some bread.

The causal processes required to get some bread from the shop cease being strictly reduced to some physical state. Right? On numerous occasions even.
Our mind just plays such a crucial role in deciding, our beliefs play such an important role, the causal effects from physical to mental to physical to mental over and over -- well it's hard to see how this is really a physical to physical to physical to physical causal phenomena.

So then, you, not me, really need to decide what you believe the world as we have it ("nature") is really comprised of.
And if you choose to turn a blind eye to any issues here, well I'm not going to hassle your thinking further.

All the best, Kurieuo

Thanks for the explanation. I looked up the definition of “Nature” and it gives several definitions
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
some definitions include humans, some of the definitions do not. When you asked
“are humans above the natural order? in other words, can/do we transcend nature…?”

I was using the definition of nature that includes humans; obviously you were not.
So to answer your question in the context of which you were asking it, I will have to let go of my first response that we do not transcend nature; obviously we do.

Ken

[Kenny]

Yes but science and what it says is being brought up in the discussion.You said you were sure they could easily explain it implying it would back it up.

Go back and read our conversations. We are not discussing science; we are discussing transcending nature. If you want to discuss science; fine! But science is not a part of our current converation.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

By "nature" I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause.
If you are unfamiliar with these terms, let me know, because we may just need to cut the discussion.

BUT, it's up to you how you wish to define "nature".
If you wish to bundle "consciousness" within what Nature is comprised of, in addition to what is "physical", well then...
you're on much better grounds than someone who says only a physical world exists and that is what they ascribe to Nature.

What do I mean by this?
Well maybe there are actually "particles" of consciousness.
We've got a theory of physical stuff with space-time theorems, molecular understandings and the like.
Maybe a "theory of consciousness" and what such really is in the universe, is still waiting to be discovered.
Because there has been a reluctance (perhaps due to many calling it, what did you say? "Spiritual" -- which they have a strong distaste for), then well, research hasn't really been productive here to say the least has it?

Do you think it would be possible to define within the natural world, physical as well as mental properties that are distinct and yet found together in the "natural" fabric?
We have a lot of theories and the like that describe the physical. Science only appears to be getting started in even acknowledging immaterial consciousness as being possible in the universe. I wonder why?

What the natural world is comprised of is something that you need to ultimately decide.
Unless you turn to Theism, then I don't think that you logically have many options here.
For if you exclude mental properties, saying such a reduced to the physical via some brain state or what-have-you, then you start coming unstuck in some of the ways that we've been seeing. The issue is not with me being smart and trapping you, but because it is a real unavoidable issue.

Consider Nagel's following words:

[T]he historical account would be restricted to purely physical explanations of the origin and evolution of life until the point at which organisms reached the kind of complexity that is associated with consciousness. After that, the history would be both a physical and a mental one, and if the emergent mental element played an independent causal role, and was not merely epiphenomenal, the causal process would cease to be strictly reductive.

Epiphenomenalism says that mental states emerge from a particular physical state, for example, a state of the brain. However, there is a known issue, in that while a physical state might cause a mental state, mental states (which simply emerge from the physical) can't cause physical states. To say another way, if one believes that our mental states are reduced to what is physical then a mental state can't cause a physical state. The communication can obviously only be one way, right?

Nagel is simply pointing out that the moment a mental state plays a causal role, then the causal process ceases being strictly reduced to some physical state.

Let me provide an example of some mental state playing a causal role:

• You make a conscious decision to go and buy some bread. This makes you grab the car keys, get into the car, drive to the local shop believing they'll be open and have bread, pay with money which you know is needed to buy bread and all those mental beliefs that are required in order for you to carry out your "intentions" of just simply buying some bread.

The causal processes required to get some bread from the shop cease being strictly reduced to some physical state. Right? On numerous occasions even.
Our mind just plays such a crucial role in deciding, our beliefs play such an important role, the causal effects from physical to mental to physical to mental over and over -- well it's hard to see how this is really a physical to physical to physical to physical causal phenomena.

So then, you, not me, really need to decide what you believe the world as we have it ("nature") is really comprised of.
And if you choose to turn a blind eye to any issues here, well I'm not going to hassle your thinking further.

All the best, Kurieuo

Thanks for the explanation. I looked up the definition of “Nature” and it gives several definitions
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
some definitions include humans, some of the definitions do not. When you asked
“are humans above the natural order? in other words, can/do we transcend nature…?”

I was using the definition of nature that includes humans; obviously you were not.
So to answer your question in the context of which you were asking it, I will have to let go of my first response that we do not transcend nature; obviously we do.

Ken

As I said, "By nature I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause."
So that would conform to your definition #1 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature ALTHOUGH...

whether or not humans are included in that is something that needs to be decided, which is why I ask it in my first question.
So let me re-phrase that first question to make it more clear, since what is "natural" obviously contains some ambiguity.

• Do you believe everything in the world is physical/has a root cause that is ultimately physical, or do human beings transcend the physical world?

If you believe humans do not transcend the physical order, then our intelligence, consciousness, morality does not transcend nature as you'd like it to either.

[Kenny]

By "nature" I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause.
If you are unfamiliar with these terms, let me know, because we may just need to cut the discussion.

BUT, it's up to you how you wish to define "nature".
If you wish to bundle "consciousness" within what Nature is comprised of, in addition to what is "physical", well then...
you're on much better grounds than someone who says only a physical world exists and that is what they ascribe to Nature.

What do I mean by this?
Well maybe there are actually "particles" of consciousness.
We've got a theory of physical stuff with space-time theorems, molecular understandings and the like.
Maybe a "theory of consciousness" and what such really is in the universe, is still waiting to be discovered.
Because there has been a reluctance (perhaps due to many calling it, what did you say? "Spiritual" -- which they have a strong distaste for), then well, research hasn't really been productive here to say the least has it?

Do you think it would be possible to define within the natural world, physical as well as mental properties that are distinct and yet found together in the "natural" fabric?
We have a lot of theories and the like that describe the physical. Science only appears to be getting started in even acknowledging immaterial consciousness as being possible in the universe. I wonder why?

What the natural world is comprised of is something that you need to ultimately decide.
Unless you turn to Theism, then I don't think that you logically have many options here.
For if you exclude mental properties, saying such a reduced to the physical via some brain state or what-have-you, then you start coming unstuck in some of the ways that we've been seeing. The issue is not with me being smart and trapping you, but because it is a real unavoidable issue.

Consider Nagel's following words:

[T]he historical account would be restricted to purely physical explanations of the origin and evolution of life until the point at which organisms reached the kind of complexity that is associated with consciousness. After that, the history would be both a physical and a mental one, and if the emergent mental element played an independent causal role, and was not merely epiphenomenal, the causal process would cease to be strictly reductive.

Epiphenomenalism says that mental states emerge from a particular physical state, for example, a state of the brain. However, there is a known issue, in that while a physical state might cause a mental state, mental states (which simply emerge from the physical) can't cause physical states. To say another way, if one believes that our mental states are reduced to what is physical then a mental state can't cause a physical state. The communication can obviously only be one way, right?

Nagel is simply pointing out that the moment a mental state plays a causal role, then the causal process ceases being strictly reduced to some physical state.

Let me provide an example of some mental state playing a causal role:

• You make a conscious decision to go and buy some bread. This makes you grab the car keys, get into the car, drive to the local shop believing they'll be open and have bread, pay with money which you know is needed to buy bread and all those mental beliefs that are required in order for you to carry out your "intentions" of just simply buying some bread.

The causal processes required to get some bread from the shop cease being strictly reduced to some physical state. Right? On numerous occasions even.
Our mind just plays such a crucial role in deciding, our beliefs play such an important role, the causal effects from physical to mental to physical to mental over and over -- well it's hard to see how this is really a physical to physical to physical to physical causal phenomena.

So then, you, not me, really need to decide what you believe the world as we have it ("nature") is really comprised of.
And if you choose to turn a blind eye to any issues here, well I'm not going to hassle your thinking further.

All the best, Kurieuo

Thanks for the explanation. I looked up the definition of “Nature” and it gives several definitions
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
some definitions include humans, some of the definitions do not. When you asked
“are humans above the natural order? in other words, can/do we transcend nature…?”

I was using the definition of nature that includes humans; obviously you were not.
So to answer your question in the context of which you were asking it, I will have to let go of my first response that we do not transcend nature; obviously we do.

Ken

As I said, "By nature I was using it within its most often understood context, a materialist sense that everything that exists is physical or has a physical cause."
So that would conform to your definition #1 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature ALTHOUGH...

whether or not humans are included in that is something that needs to be decided, which is why I ask it in my first question.
So let me re-phrase that first question to make it more clear, since what is "natural" obviously contains some ambiguity.

• Do you believe everything in the world is physical/has a root cause that is ultimately physical, or do human beings transcend the physical world?

I do not believe human beings transcend the physical world.

If you believe humans do not transcend the physical order, then our intelligence, consciousness, morality does not transcend nature as you'd like it to either.

I think that depends on how nature is defined. If humans are not a part of nature, then I will disagree. If humans ARE a part of nature, then I will agree. Our intelligence, consciousness, and morality doesn't transcend humans.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Since you say humans do not transcend the physical world, then one thing for sure is that humans on your view do not transcend nature.
And so all my original points at the beginning after you answered my questions apply.

[Kurieuo]

This is where you're back to again.

Kurieuo: Are humans above the [physical] order? In other words, can/do we transcend [the natural physical order...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond [physical order].

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

SO, there still seems to be an inconsistency that I no longer really care about your thoughts on (sorry).
That inconsistency surrounds, unless we transcend [the natural physical order], then how can be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend [the natural physical order] (since such can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend [the natural physical order] any more than say a lion).

[Kenny]

This is where you're back to again.

Kurieuo: Are humans above the [physical] order? In other words, can/do we transcend [the natural physical order...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond [physical order].

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

SO, there still seems to be an inconsistency that I no longer really care about your thoughts on (sorry).
That inconsistency surrounds, unless we transcend [the natural physical order], then how can be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend [the natural physical order] (since such can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend [the natural physical order] any more than say a lion).

How is it possible to transcend yourself? Humans are a part of the physical order; we sit on top of it. Humans have made ourselves accountable for moral wrong, but we have not made lions accountable for moral wrong.

Ken

[RickD]

Ken wrote:
How is it possible to transcend yourself? Humans are a part of the physical order; we sit on top of it. Humans have made ourselves accountable for moral wrong, but we have not made lions accountable for moral wrong.

Ken, is there a part of humans that transcends nature? In other words, if nature is everything physical that exists, is there anything about a person that isn't physical? That's what is meant by "transcends nature". It means exists beyond what's physical.

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
How is it possible to transcend yourself? Humans are a part of the physical order; we sit on top of it. Humans have made ourselves accountable for moral wrong, but we have not made lions accountable for moral wrong.

Ken, is there a part of humans that transcends nature? In other words, if nature is everything physical that exists, is there anything about a person that isn't physical? That's what is meant by "transcends nature". It means exists beyond what's physical.

Imagination, wishes, ideas, make-believe, thoughts, etc. are not physical; but they are not real either. They can only become real when they inspire action, and those actions cannot transcend the physical. I would say there is nothing real that can transcend the physical; but a strong imagination can. The imagination is a non-physical part of a person

Ken

[Kurieuo]

It is interesting that thoughts and ideas can inspire mere atoms and molecules.

[Kenny]

It is interesting that thoughts and ideas can inspire mere atoms and molecules.

I agree! But only when those thoughts and ideas originate from those atoms and molecules.

Ken