Why the vision argument is a very good one!

[pocaracas]

What I may have agreed is that the neural pathways don't have the concept of value in them... but, as with most of our mental activities, on a highly abstracted way, they (some of them, at least) contribute to what we consider to be the attribute of value towards a particular thing, towards ourselves and towards other people.



I will agree that this highly abstracted mental state of value attribution is present in most humans, if not all.

The issue is not that our brains don't contribute to value, even if they didn't, I would not be assuming in the argument it's impossible. Rather I am saying the detail exact measured you is beyond the capability of the brain. The brain can only generate an estimate of who you are, yet who you are must exist in accurate manner.  But that manner is not physical thing, it's value is linked with perception, and so you exist through perception of perceiver. I further argued that the exact value can only be given by a perfect absolute judge who knows this exactly as they are. 

Your brain for example, doesn't know every single angle of measurement to your actions. It has an estimate.

You may argue the existence of such an exact value all you want, but I don't see it. All I see is value attributed by people, towards other people.... by people towards the self.... by people towards other things (like money, food, land...).
Each person has their own way of attributing value to those things and people.

But, on the whole, we've evolved mechanisms that impose upon us some value towards all other humans. Because we've been living in a society for millions of years, those of us who attribute no value to others have been deemed psychopaths and mostly eliminated from the gene pool by not being allowed to breed or even survive until breeding age.

Since most of us, the non-psychopaths among us, implicitly agree upon some measure of human value, a measure that we have no immediate grasp upon its origin, we are forgiven to come to see that value as something thrust upon us by an outside influence... something absolute, that can only come from an absolute entity. I get it. I disagree, but I get why people go in that direction.

I agree that, as a society, we've come to agree, even if implicitly, upon some larger than zero value of any other human beings.
This societal agreement can be viewed, from the individual's point of view, as a value seemingly imposed by an outside influence. In other words, human value can seem to be objective; it can feel to be objective; it can feel like you have no choice upon the matter, as if it had been imposed unto you, unto me, unto everyone!
But has it really been imposed?

I think love is impossible, misguided or guided, to exist without firm belief in objective value. Let me know if you disagree and I will explain why.

Love is probably the strongest bonding emotion that a human feels. That bonding leads to attributing more value towards the loved "object" than to anything else. Again, relative... not absolute.

I think the example of money is a very good one, as it is one that is well known to be of human origin. There is no actual outer influence upon it, just humans.
Is the value of money imposed unto you, me and everyone? Or is it controlled almost imperceptibly by all of us?

Do we need a divine influence to account for "value"?
Or is our brain enough?

This is somewhat circular to go this route.   Money is not an accurate value, it's a relative thing with an objective application, and it's value emerges from an objective value of human life, which people subjectively try to estimate and in my view are constantly underestimating and belittling.  That is why there is concept of justice linked to money and paying fair wages.  This is why poverty has to be combatted. 

Money's value is tied with the value of human life?...
I thought it was mostly tied with the labor required to produce things...

We need a divine influence to account for value, more than that, we need the divine's value itself being given to us, eternal light mixed with temporal light.  

Human value is not determined by majority view of humans or some sort of poll, humans ought to realize human value and dignity.

The thing is when you estimate who or other human values of who they are, their detailed beauty, their traits, the image, that is an estimate of something, but that something is beyond our vision. We can't know a person like the Absolute only possible perfect Judge.  If we judge, we will do so ignorantly. No one can know the most evilest or the most good and all between but God.

This proves God because our knowledge of who we are is contingent upon that being existing. We assume beyond the estimate image and blurry vision of our subconscious and conscious, is a real accurate us.

That doesn't prove anything, MK. Sorry.
It's based on an assertion that's not an axiom, nor is it demonstrated that the assertion is true.
You have done nothing to even attempt to shake away my view that human value is relative, or subjective, to the human population.

When I was discussing details, I was not merely mentioning them to say you have to know physical stuff, and everything, I'm saying the brain doesn't even know how it physically runs, let alone, all the psychological components that factor to an action for judgment. 

The brain kinda knows. I'd wager there's no individual neuron that knows anything, but the collection of neurons... or the various collections work in tandem to produce our awareness, our abstractions, our thoughts.

It's not more knowledgeable then us. In fact, nothing can know, if you think about it, this system where we receive our actions upon our necks, is not some easy system. It takes not only the Creator to perceive, but we have to some sort of link that we get a degree of vision from the absolute, or else, our actions would have little meaning and good and evil will become practically non-sense at so many levels.

I agree that it's not an easy system to understand.
But let's not throw the towel and draw upon a potentially inexistent divine entity for the capabilities that we find in our minds.

Good and evil are perceptions we have of our actions... or the actions of others. Those actions are good if they lead to an increased happiness, and evil if they lead to an increased suffering.

What I mean by that is that if you become lost in sight and vision of what good and evil is, there still has to be a proof and vision of good and evil as is, with you, for you to be accountable to return.

That word of truth and light, is God's King, who is with every human though they may not perceive.

Or it's a system we developed as a way to survive in society.... to want to better that society.

It seems to me that the religious philosopher/apologist is constantly forgetting the important aspect that "society" has had in the development of our species (and many others!!). They always argue from the point of view of the individual, bereft of any societal pressure, influence, or input. That can only lead to a wrong conclusion.

Look into other mammalian societies and try to discover what they do that is clearly a mental state produced by societal influences. I saw a TED talk some time ago... let me see if I can get it:

---

Enjoy

---