Syamsu

First I want to say that I do critical understanding. What is right is kept, what is wrong is thrown out, and there is no getting along of contradictory points of view. Creationism in the way I explain it here, is the structure of creationist theory, without specifics of the variables of who created what when. Just as like there is gravity theory on the one hand, and there is the application of gravity to a variable like the planet Mercury, on the other hand. The structure of creationist theory: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Basically what that means is that what is subjective creates what is objective, by choosing. subjective means : identified with a chosen opinion objective means : identified with a model of it choose means : to make one of alternative possible futures the present spiritual means : the substance of a creator material means : the substance of a creation These definitions are all supposed to be consistent with the logic used in ordinary common discourse with those words. I can go left or right, I choose left, I go left. Which shows that logic of choosing in common discourse is to make one of alternative possible futures the present. The definition of choosing is the most critical part of creationism, upon which it all hinges. It is also the most controversial and difficult part. The correct definition of choosing is to explain it in terms of spontaneity. In the same moment that left is chosen, the possibility of choosing right is negated. That this happens at the same time is what makes decisions to be spontaneous. Including considered decisions. You can consider all you want about an issue, in the end the decision can still turn out one way or another in the moment of decision. It is very important that choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, because that spontaneity is required in order for the concept of subjectivity to function. But people like to conceive of choosing in terms of a process of figuring out the best or optimal option. Because of psychological pressure to do their best, not because the logic of that works out. I would guess that is the main way people would define choosing, when asked about it. And academic sources also usually define choosing in terms of what is best. But then the actual logic used in common discourse, is generally on the side of creationism. This problem that people like to define choosing in terms of what is best, is the only reason that creationism is not currently taught in school in the lesson on fact and opinion. Because otherwise the logic of creationism is very simple and straightforward, the evidence for it directly available in the logic used in common discourse. There are 3 issues here: 1. the logic of choosing (I can go left or right, I choose left, I go left) 2. the logic of selection (as like how a chesscomputer may calculate a move) 3. the moral imperative to do your best And so what happens is that under the psychological pressure to do your best, people mix up the moral imperative to do your best, with the barebone logic of choosing, and then they end up conceiving of choosing as it being a selection procedure. You can easily see this is an error, in a thought experiment about someone choosing to rob a bank or not. If we take the definition of "choose" as can be found on google, which is: choose (verb): pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives then applying this definition, if this person chose to rob the bank, then google would say he tried his best. If this person chose not to rob the bank, then again google would say that he tried his best. Google simply says that everyone who chooses does their best, by definition. While of course correct is, someone chooses to rob a bank, and then afterwards we can choose a judgment whether or not this person was doing their best. To distinguish selection from choosing, then you must pay mind to the time aspect of it. In selection, as like when a chesscomputer calculates a move, the options are in the present, where they are being evaluated. While with choosing, the possibilities are in the future, anticipated from the present. Choosing creates the information of which way the decision turns out in the moment. Selection does not create information. The result of the calculation of the chesscomputer can be predicted with 100 percent accuracy in advance. While definitions like that of google are blatantly in error, still it persists very strongly to conceive of choosing in terms of what is best. Which results in these same people not having a functional concept of subjectivity. That people in general, and academics especially, do not have a functional concept of subjectivity, is I believe, a very real and serious problem in the world. Because it results in bad personal opinions, which then results in catastrophe. So paradoxically, the people who think they are doing their best, are most likely the people who are judged evil. Although of course it is not wrong to do your best, it is only wrong to define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best. The explanation for how subjectivity and objectivity works was actually already provided above, but I will give some examples of the logic. To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is chosen in spontaneous expression of emotion. The opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks, on the part of the person who chose the opinion. So it means that emotions belong in category 1, because emotions are on the side of doing the choosing. Emotions belong to a decison maker. The love for the way the painting looks is categorized in category 1. It was identified with a chosen opinion. That the opinion was chosen, means it would also have been logically valid to choose a different opinion, because in a decision there are alternatives available. Like to say that the painting is ugly. Which shows that it is a mistake to view this in terms of the principle of cause and effect, that there is in fact this love for the way the painting looks, which love then forces the person to say that the painting is beautiful, in it's effects. Instead it must be interpreted in terms of the principle of possibility and decision. There are the alternative possible futures available to say the painting is beautiful and to say it is ugly, and then a decision makes one of those alternatives the present. Of course words are objective things, you can see them. So the expressed opinion is an objective thing. But the objectively seen word "beautiful" refers to what is subjective. Another example, to say Trump is a nice man. The opinion is chosen, in expression of emotion, and the opinion identifies the personal character of Trump. Personal character also belongs in category 1. Personal character also belongs to a person as them being a decision-maker. Trump is of course a very controversial figure. Which also shows that to say that he is a nice man, says something about the personal character of Trump, but it also says something about the personal character of the person who chose that opinion. In choosing the opinion, the personal character of the person choosing the opinion is expressed. This kind of logic where both the personal character of the person expressing the opinion is identified, as well as the personal character of the person who the opinion was about, more clearly shows the error in ideas that objectify personal character as some kind of brain process. Emotions and personal character may have some objective aspects attached to them, while remaining essentially subjective. For example you can make objective requirements about the organization of decisionmaking processes, in order for emotions to apply. So then you might state as fact that a very simple organization of decisionmaking processes found in nature somewhere, are not by emotion, because the objective requirement of organization has not been met. While of course the spirit in which those decisions are made is by logic still subjective. The "spirit" is the general name for all what is subjective. So all what is subjective is by definition also spiritual. It is required for efficient reasoning to have a single name for the substance of a creator (spiritual), as well it is required to have a single name for the substance of a creation (material). The spirit chooses and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion, is a sufficient explanation for how subjectivity works. It is saying that only what is subjective can choose, and that what is subjective is identified with a chosen opinion. The logic of fact is very simple, and not so controversial. Example, to say there is a glass on the table. These words provide a model in the mind of a supposed glass that is on a supposed table. If the model in the mind matches with what is being modelled, if there actually is a glass on the table, then the statment of fact is valid. The model itself in the mind is also a creation and objective, just the same as what is being modelled is. The substance of both the model and what is modelled, is material by definition. Which again, that naming is just required for efficient reasoning. What things in the mind are actually physically made out of, I don't know. Creationism says that the logic of fact applies to creations. And it works out for each object in the universe, that the logic of possiblity and decision can be applied to it. So according to creationism there were the possibllities of the planet Mercury coming to be, or it not coming to be, and it was decided that it came to be. And if this sounds odd to you, then you must remember that the correct definition of choosing is in terms of spontaneity. So that choosing does not neccessarily require a brain, it only requires one of alternative possible futures being made the present, in the moment of decision. And there may of course be many decisions involved in the creation of the planet Mercury as it is, decisions going in all sorts of directions. If this all seems very long, actually you could have all derived it from the simple creationist conceptual scheme with the definitions. And for a large part understanding creationism is about dealing with the error of conceiving of choosing in terms of what is best, is what makes the explanation long. Creationism itself is exceedingly simple. As said, the logic of subjectivity is sufficiently explained by the phrase that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. And the logic of objectivity is just modelling of creations in the mind. The concepts of fact and opinion are the fundamentals for reasoning, and so only a creationist is a person of reason. But to be a person of reason says nothing much about someone's moral character, because evil opinions are just as well logically valid opinions.