Why the vision argument is a very good one!

[Edwardo Piet]

We are hidden. It's really quite simple.  

Hidden from what?

Look at your phone or computer or something complex, yet, you use it simply.    We are in a way very complex and we have layers and layers to who we are. This is true regardless if God exists or not. If a soul exists or not. 

Yes.

Before we knew anything about nerves, we were able to move our hands.

Yes.

You don't know what goes behind every single action of yours, you don't have an exact proper assessment to who you are or in fact, to any of your states and hence any of your actions.

Yes.

This is because the details are abstracted.   The personality and how it's generated is abstracted from you.

Could you clarify this? In a sense I would say the personality is me.

When you talk of 'me' do you mean my identity/ personality, my 'self' as a conscious subject or myself as a biological human?

Keep this in mind. You don't know the details. You get some sort of fuzzy image. The thing is let's say you wear glasses and you see something fuzzy, it doesn't mean there isn't an actual accurate reality to it. The thing is you yourself are an accurate reality. 

Yes if we are talking about my self as a conscious subject.

You are. Whatever you are and whatever generates you, generates an accurate reality. But you aren't a reality that is divorced from perception. Perception and you go hand to hand.

This is the most sensible thing I've ever seen you say. If 'I' is refereed to my self as a conscious subject then yes, 'I' and my perception go hand in hand and I cannot be divorced from it.

Like sea is made out of water,  your "personhood" is made out of vision.

Well, it depends what you mean by vision. And surely vision is just one example of what it means to experience reality as a conscious subject?

Even when you do an action for the future, you project before you do it, a vision of you doing it, then put to play.

Sometimes at least. Sometimes actions are carried out by habit while our consciousness is focused on something else but yes, sometimes we consciously think of the future. Or rather, what we think the future will be.

And when you think of your past self at a given time, you project images of who you through perception.

Ah yes I see what you are saying. We agree here too. Basically what you are saying, it seems, is that even when we think of 'the future' or 'the past' we are actually merely imagining possible futures or imagining what we remember the past to be, and we are doing this all in the past and merely experiencing the images of conscious perception in our own minds.

 
Now the proposition is you don't have all the details of what makes you: you. This is true again regardless if God exists or not.

Yes.

We aren't given the knowledge of the self but a little in both ways.  There is so much to what generates us, and we don't get it.

Yes.

Yet remember, whatever we sense of ourselves is through some sort of image and vision.

Well again, that's one example. Vision is one of many ways to experience reality as a self. But yes it is an example.

I propose a long with our non-complete and sometimes totally misguided perception of ourselves

I don't think our conscious perception can be misguided. What we seem to see is what we seem to see. But of course, what we seem to see may not be what is actually there, but that cannot be applied to the seeming itself. What seems to be the case seems to be the case, even if it isn't the case.

,  there is to be an accurate maintaining vison of who we are in accurate way. That is just as you can't exist without vision in some sense, the accurate detail who you are has to have an accurate vision.

In some sense we can't exist without perception. We can exist without vision, otherwise all people who were born completely blind would be philosophical zombies.

Now I propose because your actions are in reality detailed ways that we don't perceive all the details, something that maintains who we are has to know these details, and know exactly what value we ought to get through our actions.

How does this follow?

That is it knows the subtle fine accurate details of every good deed and every evil deed. That which makes us inherit our actions knows us inside out, and must know our circumstances.

Again, how does this follow?

The subconscious I propose cannot be that, because, it didn't have access to all the details more then you or anything like that.   It doesn't know all the details to asses your situation either.  It sees through a fuzzy vision as well, but can't be the maintainer of the accurate you.

How does it follow that anyone or anything needs to know the cause of our actions?

I propose further that only the best and perfect judgment can perceive you accurately.

Can't imperfect judgement perceive oneself imperfectly accurately but nevertheless very accurately? Why should a such thing as perfect judgement exist? Why is judgement necessary for perception?

Any imperfection with respect to the judgment would make you inaccurate. 

Inaccurate about the implications of what one perceives, at least to an extent. But what one 100% seems to perceive one 100% seems to perceive, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate one's judgement is. A crazy person with the worst judgement in the world may look at the sun and falsely conclude that the sun was in fact a giant hamburger in the sky, but the crazy person would still accurately perceive the sun, they would conclude with a delusion but they wouldn't be experiencing an illusion.

It perceives things exactly how they are.

Aren't accurate perception and accurate judgement two very different things?

Now if you deny their is an exact accurate you, I will propose this. What are you estimating? And on what grounds?  If you say it's good enough and close enough to what you are, you are saying there is an accurate you, you just don't know it.

Yes there is an absolute truth to the matter that we do not always succeed at perceiving... but why should there be an absolute mind that knows all these truths?

In fact, it's non-sense to say there is no accurate you.

Yes.

  It's the foremost thing we witness and know,  we may doubt the existence of the whole world, but not that we exist.

Yes! Once again an example of something you are saying that actually makes a great deal of sense.

What you are is then a fundamental starting point.

Yes.

Yet who we are is the greatest mystery. No one can possibly know what and who we are, but the absolute being. 

What absolute being? Why do you think one is necessary? Why do you seem to think that truth implies knowledge? How so?

In what sense is who we are the greatest mystery? Did we not simply evolve from matter? Did not our consciousness simply evolve too? Is our consciousness not simply a matter of matter?

In fact, if you really reflect, you really mirror that self and see the light it exists by, you see that you exists through vision of God.

Why do you think I see this? I see my conscious experience. That is all I see. And I don't define any of it as God or Godly. How could anyone possibly see God? Isn't God by definition something you have to take on faith that is wholly beyond experience?

You can't be divorced from the vision of God.

I can't be divorced from my conscious experience... while I'm still me. Even when I die and I lose my consciousness, presumably, 'I' am no longer there, but a dead body is. If by 'I' we mean my self, my consciousness.

How in any way does my conscious experience have anything at all to do with God?

There is nothing ambiguous about this.

Is there anything clear about it? What do you even mean by God?

You do an action, you forget it, it doesn't mean it's gone.

Isn't the past gone by definition?

Not part of you. God records it and maintains your value accurately.

How? When? How do you know? What is God? Where? How is an action I've done not gone?

Neither can a biological brain do it neither can the highest of all beings do it aside from God, it's only God the most High, that sees your personhood with perfect judgment and you can't accurately exist without perfect judgement and you accurately exist.

Why is perfect judgement or knowledge or a perfect mind or a God necessary for perfect truth? I believe in perfect truth, but I don't necessarily believe in any of those other things.

QED:  God has been absolutely proven.

How can God be proven when you haven't even defined it?

[Mystic]

I will get back to you pocaras, but I wanted to ask Jo something: Do you believe the personhood of a person has a type of beauty?

[The Industrial Atheist]

The first part makes some sense. But just because we want something to exist that could understand everything about us doesn't mean it does. Although I'm fine that it doesn't.
Or at least I've seen convincing evidence that it doesn't and none that it does.

[Whateverist]

I will get back to you pocaras, but I wanted to ask Jo something: Do you believe the personhood of a person has a type of beauty?

Objection!  Irrelevant.

[LadyForCamus]

I will get back to you pocaras, but I wanted to ask Jo something: Do you believe the personhood of a person has a type of beauty?

Objection!  Irrelevant.

Sustained, because pizza roles!  Motion to dismiss, your honor.

[robvalue]

Sustained again! Subjective quality.

That's weird, we have two judges. Maybe I'm not a judge at all and I just wandered into the courtroom. I guess I'll find out soon enough.

[ignoramus]

CASE DISMISSED!
This case is hereby ruled unlawful and invalid due to the OP's vexatious perjuring history.

[robvalue]

The judge is eating lettuce and also the case notes. Kangaroo court!

[Angrboda]

I will get back to you pocaras, but I wanted to ask Jo something: Do you believe the personhood of a person has a type of beauty?

I don't know, MK. Personhood is both a political and a mental concept, whereas beauty, aural and visual, tends to be biological in origin. However, due to our capacity to abstract and such, concepts can have a habit of straying from their roots. I don't consider abstract institutions normally to be the object of aesthetic pleasure, yet I find the American system of government beautiful. I'd have to see more on what you mean by personhood and in what sense beauty, and give it some thought. It would help to know in what sense you mean it, as its very easy to equivocate about such things if one isn't clear. If by personhood you mean personality, then I'd give a qualified yes; if you mean something else by personhood, you'd have to explain what you mean by it. Why do you ask?

ETA: After some thought (listening to music), it occurs to me that aural beauty may be more linguistically based than purely biological (if one can make that distinction), so between aural and visual and linguistic beauty, there is great potential for blurring of the lines. As language operates more or less at the subconscious level (away from introspection), its influences are hard to survey.

[Edwardo Piet]

ETA: After some thought (listening to music), it occurs to me that aural beauty may be more linguistically based than purely biological (if one can make that distinction), so between aural and visual and linguistic beauty, there is great potential for blurring of the lines.  As language operates more or less at the subconscious level (away from introspection), its influences are hard to survey.

You're not the only great mind who has believed that music was unique among the arts:

Schopenhauer believed that what gives arts such as literature and sculpture their value was the extent to which they incorporated pure perceptions. But, being concerned with human forms (at least in Schopenhauer's day) and human emotions, these art forms were inferior to music, which being a direct manifestation of will, was to Schopenhauer's mind the highest form of art. Schopenhauer's philosophy of music was influential in the works of Richard Wagner. Wagner was an enthusiastic reader of Schopenhauer, and recommended the reading of Schopenhauer to his friends. His published works on music theory changed over time, and became more aligned with Schopenhauer's thought, over the course of his life. Schopenhauer had stated that music was more important than libretto in opera. Music is, according to Schopenhauer, an immediate expression of will, the basic reality of the experienced world. Libretto is merely a linguistic representation of transient phenomena. Wagner emphasized music over libretto in his later works after reading Schopenhauer's aesthetic doctrine.

Although Schopenhauer did indeed take it to a rather hyperbolic level!