Lumenos' Manifesto

From Lumeniki

Jump to: navigation, search

(You can put your perceptions in this article. For example, if you have a criticism of MuchVariation you can put a subheading in the MuchVariation section, entitled "Criticism" and put your criticism there. You could also use footnotes to say, for example, that you like an idea or that something's confusing. Or just use the talk page.)

The following are some suggested: hypotheses, perceptions, or systems of Lumenos.


[edit] Ontology (scope of this manifesto)

These are some ontological questions addressed by Lumenosity:

  • Is the order present in the world evidence of gods (or aliens)? (See Origins) Is there any other physical evidence of supernatural (or alien) miracles, etc? (See philosophy of religion)
  • What is the basic nature of the minds of sentient organisms? (philosophy of mind)

[edit] Origins

Here are a few theotheses regarding gods/aliens as explanations for Origins or miracles:

[edit] Philosophy of mind

Here are some ontological systems within the philosophy of mind (these are responses to the mind-body problem):

  • materialism (atheistic, monist)
  • mind-body monism (doesn't address the issue of gods, a neologism of Lumenos)
  • mind-body dualism (doesn't address the issue of gods)
  • idealism (doesn't address the issue of gods)

Not sure what phenomena these ideas are meant to explain but they may be relevant to the philosophy of mind:

[edit] Ontology (Lumenos' ideas)

[edit] MuchVariation

MuchVariation is a naturalistic hypothesis that attempts to explain why some seemingly improbable events (a fine-tuned universe, abiogenesis, and parts of evolution) were not unlikely, due to there being so many universes. MuchVariation attributes the appearance of this improbability, to observer selection bias.

To Lumenos, the biggest gap in "naturalistic" hypotheses seemed to be parts of evolutionary theory involving irreducible complexity that was not necessary for "the observer's" existence. (MuchVariation seemed to adequately explain any "improbable" complexity that caused "the observer" to exist.) Lumenos was agnostic regarding whether or not this irreducible complexity exists but thought that others probably "know" (or happen to believe the truth).

[edit] The supernatural

The biggest problem with theistic explanations seemed to be that they attempt to explain mysterious things by claiming they were done by an almighty invisible person. There seem to be many other explanations, most of which will probably sound to the theist as absurd as theism sounds to the atheist. The least extraordinary explanations seem to be naturalistic, although some may consider explanations like abiogenesis to be as extraordinary as spontaneous generation. And in the philosophy of mind, the zombie hypothetical seems to refute physicalism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To Lumenos, it seemed extraordinary evidence (for both abiogenesis/evolution or any supernatural phenomena) was lacking, but not impossible. Therefore it was permissible to speculate on the implications of the existence of gogs or the possibility that the physical world came about naturalistically. Besides, it can involve thought experiments that explain philosophical issues applicable to the "real" world (the known world).

Gods of the gaps describes the lumenati pantheon.

Would the existence of an omnibenevolent god be consistent with the world we see?

[edit] The difference between evidence of gods and minds

" The subjective experience of sentience seems to imply that other organisms may be sentient, particularly those you descend from and who seem most similar to you. (That vaguely seems like it might be based on inductive reasoning.) (An alternative view is known as solipsism.) Although I consider myself dualist, it does not seem to me that the subjective experience of sentience implies an experiencer/controller could exist without a body. Lumenos 08:57, 25 February 2008 (CST) "

[edit] The mind-body problem

See the mind-body problem.

[edit] Lumenos' value system

Lumenos is/was attempting to build a basis for a rational society in this way:

  • sentience - Sentientism is the foundation
  • benefit defined - Consequism is built on Sentientism
  • reason - rational consequism is built on Consequism
  • morality - broad morality is built on rational consequism (its meaning in terms of Altruistic Morality should be explained)
  • law (this is not developed yet)- broad morality and simply finding mutual interests is the basis for a variety of Social Contracts: eg Utilitarian Social Contract, Republic Social Contract

[edit] Sentientism

Sentientism makes an argument both against secular nihilism and the theothesis that without a God, life is without any meaning or purpose. That sentience gives a person's existence a meaning regardless of its origin or any other external fact. The meaning of life is expressed in the philosophy of consequism.

[edit] Consequism

Consequism is similar to consequentialism but represents various "value systems" rather than a typical "normative ethical theory" which were thought (by Lumenos) to be moralistic fallacies or favoritisms. However, ethical consequism does claim that there is some degree of moral realism and does make some normative ethical claims.

Rationalist consequism makes claims as to what is rational and sane.

[edit] Halist mysticism

Halist mysticism is a consequist mythosis wherein there is a hierarchy of four essential consequences with a mystical "spiritual" benefit being supreme.

[edit] Free will, determinism, and criminology

Free will is a quandary for Lumenos. Whether the experiencer/controller actually has "control", remains a mysterious and possibly ambiguous question.

Sentientism seemed to assume nothing more than subjective experience and subjective knowledge, which are considered to be passive, and therefore are not necessarily threatened by determinism. On the other hand, choice may be active, so the question arises of whether the person controls the brain or the brain controls the person. Unlike sentience, person-control could be an illusion if person-control implies that the laws of physics are not in control. Perhaps nowhere is the conflict between objective theories and subjective perceptions so stark. Is the perception of control merely an illusion? If so, what does this imply? Does it really matter? Can Sentientism form a basis for all necessary values or morality without addressing free will?

Personal tools

דומיין בעברית  דומיין  דומין  תוכנה לניהול  קשרי לקוחות  CRM, ניהול קשרי לקוחות  דומין בעברית  פורומים  ספרדית  גיבוי