New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

Why is your opinion overconfident? Because, even from an atheistic, transhumanist viewpoint, there are likely to be Post-human life forms (extraterrestrial ones) that have a far greater intellect than us.

Could you provide some support for this comment that atheists and transhumanists think it is likely there are post-human ETs?

Dawkins says it plainly in the book God Delusion.

And see Dawkins' comments in the interview with Ben Stein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

And of course, Stein takes him out of context.

Dawkins would never accept the Mormon interpretation of God, but then, Dawkins takes the Mormon interpretation of God out of context, failing to understand that the Mormon Interpretation of God is precisely what Dawkins is suggesting. As the Mormon Interpretation of God is a fundamental Transhumanist one. Mormons are fundamentally atheist Transhumanists, rejecting the Trinitarian god. We believe in a being that evolved to become what he is, an extraterrestrial intelligence that is part of an extraterrestrial society, that is trying to get us to rise up and become part of that society. This is the grand irony and delusion of the God Delusion, because Dawkins is describing precisely what Mormons believe. Mormons are therefore atheist rationalists that simply believe by religious means what Transhumanists have come to understand by rationalist philosophical means. We are not crazy just because the extraterrestrial intelligence suggested by Dawkins decided to communicate with us and give us laws that enable us to eventually defy death and become part of an extraterrestrial, universal society.

This is also the irony of when Mormons leave Mormonism and become atheists. Because they are already atheists. These people just become denialists of the Mormon version of atheism. Yet Mormons already deny all irrational, magical and superstitious versions of God. So, it is a fundamental mistake for people to leave Mormonism and claim that they are atheist afterward. Perhaps they are leaving Mormonism as a Church, but if they adhere to any kind of scientific Transhumanism, then they are just moving from one version of Transhumanism to another. And so, perhaps they reject his laws and his gospel, but the rationality of Transhumanism is self-evident.

It just so happens that the word God in Mormonism describes the beings of the very society of extraterrestrials that Dawkins and the rest of the Transhumanists are suggesting. This is fundamentally what is behind the movie Prometheus and Insterstellar. Varying versions of the Transhumanist vision of God, which everyone fails to notice that Mormons believe in through religious means.

[_Themis]

You are talking about classic dual entendre, or putting a hidden meaning in a text. That is not what I said at all. That's not what I claimed at all. I said that these are characters that are being used in a derivative creation. In other words, the KEP is the translation of a derivative work that is not the Sensen Papyrus, but that used Sensen characters in a creative way. If you create a mash-up or cut-up of stuff from a magazine, you have created a derivative work using things that came from that magazine. It is not the magazine now, even though you have created a derivative work. The KEP is a translation of an ancient derivative work.


that's not what I said. I'm saying that the characters were lifted from the Sensen Papyrus and used in a new hybrid document where they were mapped to Abrahamic content.

Lets see if I understand what you are thinking. You seem to be suggesting that there is a separate document containing hieroglyphs and all three facsimiles that we do not have today. Is that right?

You also seem to be suggesting that this document has different hieroglyphs and iconography in which information is assigned to particular hieroglyphs and pictures that make up the Book of Abraham story. Is this correct?

[_Lemmie]

So, an academic would never suggest ancient substitution, yet academics use it all the time. High school math teachers use it all the time. Computer Scientists and Physicists use it all the time. In your mind, its irrational to suggest the principle of substitution as an explanation, in the same way that Latin characters in our alphabet are used as variables in algebra. It must only be literalistic usage of Egyptian characters. It cannot be artistic use of Egyptian characters. The Egyptians were too stupid to understand the fundamentals of character substitution, when the Jews and other ancients used it in iconotropy.

So, mathematics is irrational in its use of alphabetical characters for substitution for numbers? Yet algebra is the root of many things in science, physics equations being just one of the things variables are used in.

I've been trying to understand your thought process here. I don't think you are understanding why, in math, characters 'substitute for numbers'. You're confusing the simple term 'substitute' for its different use in your theory.

When an algebra equation contains, for example, an x and a y, it is to define a relationship between the starting x and the resulting y that holds, even as x changes values. For example, when I say y =20x, I am predicting that I will observe ordered pairs (x, y) where the y value is twenty times the x value. Say x is the numbers of hours I work, and the pattern is that I am paid $20 per hour. Then, given y =20x, if I 'substitute' in 40 for the x, I expect to get y = 800, or to be paid $800 for my work.

So the term 'substitution' in mathematical relationships is in no way the same as the 'substitution' you describe where a character now takes on a different definition, based on the log or key or whatever substitution process you define. You are not utilizing the mathematical definition of substitution, where all possible values of a variable can be 'substituted' into an equation to make a prediction based on a starting condition and a rule.

It seems more like you are using the term 'substitute' to mean a one-time replacement, something very different from the mathematical use of the term.

[_Maksutov]

Yet Mormons already deny all irrational, magical and superstitious versions of God.

[Guest]

I've been trying to understand your thought process here. I don't think you are understanding why, in math, characters 'substitute for numbers'. You're confusing the simple term 'substitute' for its different use in your theory.

When an algebra equation contains, for example, an x and a y, it is to define a relationship between the starting x and the resulting y that holds, even as x changes values. For example, when I say y =20x, I am predicting that I will observe ordered pairs (x, y) where the y value is twenty times the x value. Say x is the numbers of hours I work, and the pattern is that I am paid $20 per hour. Then, given y =20x, if I 'substitute' in 40 for the x, I expect to get y = 800, or to be paid $800 for my work.

So the term 'substitution' in mathematical relationships is in no way the same as the 'substitution' you describe where a character now takes on a different definition, based on the log or key or whatever substitution process you define. You are not utilizing the mathematical definition of substitution, where all possible values of a variable can be 'substituted' into an equation to make a prediction based on a starting condition and a rule.

It seems more like you are using the term 'substitute' to mean a one-time replacement, something very different from the mathematical use of the term.

You are taking the imperfect analogy of algebra and other types of substitutions too far. I give the types of substitutions in algebra with a very narrowly-defined purpose, as an example to try to get people's minds to work, to get them to understand what I am saying by using the word substitution. You are going far beyond the purpose of the analogy to try to defeat the analogy.

When I say in algebra that you use a variable in a simple equation like x = 2 + 2, then you know that x is a substitute for 4. By way of the analogy, then I am saying that the value of 4 has been assigned to the variable. You have taken an imperfect analogy too far and now you are trying to apply further mathmatical principles to find fault with an imperfect analogy. Notwithstanding that you have gone down a slippery slope fallacy with your analysis, my usage of an imperfect analogy still stands in that I'm trying to point out to people that in algebra, you have an assignment of value to a symbol. To try to use further mathematical arguements to invalidate an imperfect analogy is to strain at at a gnat to try to invalidate the point. You are taking this too far.

A closer analogy, but still an imperfect one is, as I said, a legend, were symbols on a legend on a map are assigned meanings for usage in the map in particular. If you use those symbols outside of that map for something else, then the symbol may no longer have the same meaning. It is an assignment of value or meaning in the legend. Please see the spirit of what I'm saying instead of trying to strain too much about what I'm saying.

Another close analogy (but still imperfect) is in computer programming where a variable as a symbol becomes a place-holder for a complex object in memory. And when I say a complex object, I mean a representation of something tangible in the real world. In object oriented programming, if I have a thing in memory that is representative of a "car", then I have properties of it that track mileage, that track speed, that track how much fuel it has, etc. And all of these are properties stored inside memory that are assigned to a variable, which is a symbol like X. And so, please don't strain too much at imperfect analogies. Just recognize that the purpose of analogies is to try to show people what something is by using things they are already familiar with. You don't have to go so far with the analogy that you think that you can drive down the slippery slope to invalidate it.

[_EdGoble]

Yet Mormons already deny all irrational, magical and superstitious versions of God.

Notwithstanding you will continue to make fun of it, but the Mormon description of a being that is a member of an already-known species (i.e. man), and that this man is a fully-formed and fully mature member of that species, and has sired more of his species and is trying to get them to also fully mature, is certainly less irrational than a space blob without body parts or passions. And notwithstanding your laughing, being a member of the large and spacious building that you are, this is in perfect harmony with Transhumanist descriptions of Post-Humanity.

[_EdGoble]

Lets see if I understand what you are thinking. You seem to be suggesting that there is a separate document containing hieroglyphs and all three facsimiles that we do not have today. Is that right?

You also seem to be suggesting that this document has different hieroglyphs and iconography in which information is assigned to particular hieroglyphs and pictures that make up the Book of Abraham story. Is this correct?

You are getting closer. I am suggesting that in ancient times there was a separate document from the Sensen Papyrus and Hypocephalus. And this separate document employed characters/hieroglyphs/iconography from the Sensen Papyrus, vignettes and Hypocephalus in creative ways, where specialized meaning assignments were made to pictures, and those specialized meaning assignments to those characters and pictures make up parts of the Abrahamic story and Abrahamic concepts. Yes. And so, this ancient document serves as a sort of key for meaning assignments, something akin to code-tables in a code-book, where symbols have meaning assignments for a code. And when I say code, I don't mean that things were somehow hidden or encrypted in this thing, or meanings jammed in to the symbols. In other words, the symbols don't do a whole lot to know what was meant by the symbols. To know what was meant by them, you must have the key to know. I mean that it is something akin to a simple substitution cipher. Google substitution cipher if you want and you will see what I mean.

That is what I'm suggesting. And I'm suggesting that Joseph Smith never had his hands on this document, but that some of the documents in the KEP are reconstructions in the English language of parts of this ancient document. If you would like to try to restate it again, I can see how close we are getting now to a meeting of the minds to where perhaps you at least understand the basics of what I am saying, not that you necessarily agree with it.

Another analogy is what William Schryver suggested: A modern code table for the KEP. Where meaning assignments were made to Egyptian hieroglyphs. What I am saying is not too far from what William Schryver was suggesting. William Schryver was suggesting that W. W. Phelps made up a modern day code-table using Egypian hieroglyphs. I'm saying an ancient Egyptian person did it instead, an ancient Egyptian from the time of Alexandria, the time of the Greco-Roman era, and that Joseph Smith was reconstructing what this person did in English. Furthermore, I'm suggesting that in Egyptian, there are actual, rational linkages between the assignments of value and the Egyptological meanings of the hieroglyphs that were chosen for these assignments.

In other words, this ancient person took an already existing set of concepts and content (i.e. an ancient version of the Book of Abraham), and created a cut-up/collage/mix-up using Sensen papyrus material to creatively decorate this already existing material. So, when I say that it is a "collage" or "cut-up" or hybrid, I am saying that it used Sensen papyrus characters to decorate a document that contained Abrahamic material. that's like you take a letter or word from a magazine and use it to create a collage or cut-up creation for your own personal message to someone. That is yet another imperfect analogy, but it serves well enough to try to get people to comprehend.

Does this make any sense to you, or in other words, can you comprehend the proposal? I'm not asking if you agree. But can you at least understand the proposal? Can you understand the concept, and how it differs from the typical supercryptogram theory?

[_SteelHead]

The razor has died, beaten, mangled, and rejected.

Between this and the translation of the Book of Mormon by a comitee of jacobian authors.......

Parsimony be damned.

[Guest]

The razor has died, beaten, mangled, and rejected.

Between this and the translation of the Book of Mormon by a comitee of jacobian authors.......

Parsimony be damned.

Really? Parsimony? Parsimony on who's terms? The critics' terms, or the faithful theorist's terms?

Parsimony on the faithful theorist's terms means that to be parsimonious, it must be the best explanation to fit the forensic evidence and still preserves historicity of the claim of the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham, that Abraham penned the text, but that something else occurred in history to include Sensen characters in the mix. This theory provides for all of those requirements in the most concise way.

For the critic, it means historicity and faithful explanation be darned, and Joseph Smith must be a fraud so, he couldn't translate. On the faithful side, my explanation is the most parsimonious there is. It doesn't matter that you reject it in the sense that you did not value what I valued to begin with, and we have already been around that merrygoround in this thread. So, parsimony depends on the subjectivity of eye of the beholder, depending on who's values we are speaking of, and who's set of rules of evidence we are talking about.

Just because you insist that Joseph Smith was a fraud doesn't mean it is so for the faithful theorist. That is just your subjective perception, and therefore, your interpretation of the evidence, along with your own subjective take on parsimony will rule in your own noggin.

[Guest]

You seem to be working from a conclusion, seems backwards.

Your solution is the most parsimonious?

I think you do not understand the word.