Thursday, February 10, 2011
In terms of the mind, everything God-like is already assumed in our principles of thinking, analyzing, and evaluating, and is referenced as a somehow distinct system of exceptionless infallible thought compared to our own error-prone system of thinking. As a universal criterial system, they embody rules for everything including determining which objects of experience are persons. Yet these principles themselves are necessarily treated as an independent unified guidance system, a God of personhood recognition criteria, exempt from the limitations of our imperfect aim at its ideality. It's personal because this system is necessarily the determiner of what is personal. It is therefore a personal being. We function in its image, however approximative. It doesn't *need* any ontological status that might be negated of it, and that precisely because of what it is as a factor that must be constantly reckoned with nonetheless, if not up front then in the background mimicking what it is denying.
by machinephilosophy on Thursday, February 10, 2011