John
Perhaps this topic warrants its own thread. What do you think?
Also, Gadianton, Helen Mar Kimball was fourteen, not fifteen, when Joseph Smith molested her. Richard S. Van Wagoner got that wrong.
Tal's epistemology (and DCP's)
Tal,
Its seems we know so little about how brains work that we are unlikely to settle the question of animals. Part of my feeling that there are more or less symbolic/logical ways of accomplishing behavior is a result of thinking and reading about logic its self and also A.I.. By thought I have had about how would we actually do the design of a spider as opposed to a human. When we set up a connectionist neural network that can "learn", we often don't even know how to describe its function after it ends up having "learned" a certain behavior.
By the way, did you read Dennett's review of Penrose?
At least we agree that inductive reasoning is an especially good way to talk about what humans do--at least given our current knowledge of the brain. I do however, think that inductive reasoning never operate is isolation of other cognitive principals (like in the dice example, it was really important to bring a nasent theoretic frame to the table)
Lets move on.
What should this agreement buy us regarding our assesment of LDS apologetics?
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
I don't think so. Surely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
Its seems we know so little about how brains work that we are unlikely to settle the question of animals. Part of my feeling that there are more or less symbolic/logical ways of accomplishing behavior is a result of thinking and reading about logic its self and also A.I.. By thought I have had about how would we actually do the design of a spider as opposed to a human. When we set up a connectionist neural network that can "learn", we often don't even know how to describe its function after it ends up having "learned" a certain behavior.
By the way, did you read Dennett's review of Penrose?
At least we agree that inductive reasoning is an especially good way to talk about what humans do--at least given our current knowledge of the brain. I do however, think that inductive reasoning never operate is isolation of other cognitive principals (like in the dice example, it was really important to bring a nasent theoretic frame to the table)
Lets move on.
What should this agreement buy us regarding our assesment of LDS apologetics?
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
I don't think so. Surely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Real quick here, sorry tal for derailing, I'll take "johnto" up on other threads should he decide to move the topic there.
I've by no means studied induction on a detailed level. perhaps we do use induction in a meaningful way, my belief is just that because it appears we do, doesn't mean that's the only possible answer.
A related question. We can see induction because we can make mathematical models with explicit rules that use statistical inference to reason. but that's very much on the surface.
Would we say a honeycomb was designed by induction of a bee hive?
If two computer programs solve the same problem that can be read as inductive, one computer is implementing specific rules from a computer language in english, and by reading the code we can see the inductive logic at work, and the other was merely constrained as a system, a neural net or cellular automota and the induction was emergent, are they both using induction? Would the question of intentions apply to the first computer?
i have a thought on face recognition too, but i got ta get out of here..
I've by no means studied induction on a detailed level. perhaps we do use induction in a meaningful way, my belief is just that because it appears we do, doesn't mean that's the only possible answer.
A related question. We can see induction because we can make mathematical models with explicit rules that use statistical inference to reason. but that's very much on the surface.
Would we say a honeycomb was designed by induction of a bee hive?
If two computer programs solve the same problem that can be read as inductive, one computer is implementing specific rules from a computer language in english, and by reading the code we can see the inductive logic at work, and the other was merely constrained as a system, a neural net or cellular automota and the induction was emergent, are they both using induction? Would the question of intentions apply to the first computer?
i have a thought on face recognition too, but i got ta get out of here..
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:
I've by no means studied induction on a detailed level. perhaps we do use induction in a meaningful way, my belief is just that because it appears we do, doesn't mean that's the only possible answer.
A related question. We can see induction because we can make mathematical models with explicit rules that use statistical inference to reason. but that's very much on the surface.
Would we say a honeycomb was designed by induction of a bee hive?
If two computer programs solve the same problem that can be read as inductive, one computer is implementing specific rules from a computer language in english, and by reading the code we can see the inductive logic at work, and the other was merely constrained as a system, a neural net or cellular automota and the induction was emergent, are they both using induction? Would the question of intentions apply to the first computer?
I have a thought on face recognition too, but I got ta get out of here..
Exactly my thoughts. Well put.
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
oops, accidental re-post, delete
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Hi Tarski
Yes, perhaps a review is an order. A few points:
1.) Mormon epistemology: On page five of this thread, I posted a number of quotes from LDS General Authorities representative of Mormonism's view of the possibility of (to use Hinckley's phrase) "sure and certain knowledge". These quotes are supported by innumerable other authoritative statements, made over 177 years, claiming that men can know through the power of the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is all it claims. And because of all those prophetic and apostolic statements, and the many LDS scriptures they are based on, I regard the implication that testimony meeting rhetoric is a forgivable overstatement of Mormonism's position on this totally unevidenced, totally unconvincing, and unjustiably condescending.
The fact is that the very lesson manuals published by the church, which all those supposedly less-enlightened members have just finished learning and teaching out of prior to testimony meeting, all iterate the very same conception of knowledge that those members express in testimony meeting, as of course do GA talks, scriptures, hymns, primary songs, everything. In other words, if rank-and-file members are "overstating" something, then so too have all of Mormonism's most authoritative sources, because their messages are identical. There is no way around this. All the unenlightened are doing is repeating exactly what sources they credit have told them (I suggest that their belief is the real difference between them and the "enlightened").
As it happens, it is not extraordinary that a certain class of Mormons regards themselves as having an enlightened view of some idea or doctrine or other, even when their view is blatantly contradicted by the religion's most authoritative voices, over and over. That is just the way things go. There is no statement so blunt or clear, that there are not hundreds of members who immediately start thinking like a Dialogue or Sunstone contributor, immediately inventing - or arguing to themselves for the inclusion of - "nuances" and "exceptions" when absolutely none have been expressed by the authorities, and even where such nuances and exceptions have been explicitly ruled out by the authoritative source.
Take loyalty to the prophet, for example. Gordon B. Hinckley, in his 2003 GC talk of the same name, could not have made it clearer that members are under obligation to obey the edicts of the prophet, even when those edicts cross over into politics, and even where those edicts are wrong, and would continue to facilitate murder, corruption, graft, racketeering, bribery, gang activity, etc. (Hinckley uses the prohibition example). Hinckley could not have made it clearer: as a member, it's not your job to evaluate the wisdom of an edict, or even notice how totally stupid or destructive it is; you cannot, in righteousness, decline to obey the prophet: your duty is to obey whatever he says and remain loyal to the church/prophet.
That was the Mormon prophet speaking, from the General Conference pulpit. Yet, probably on this very thread there are folks thinking, "Tal always has to put things in such an extreme way"...as though it were I who delivered Gordon B. Hinckley's talk. (His talk is on www.lds.org. People can read it for themselves if they want). But to his credit, he could not have been clearer. So, what should I think when a sitting prophet says, "X equals Y, no exceptions", and then someone comes along and says, "there ARE exceptions in Mormonism - and if you don't think so, you're a fundamentalist"? I think that, barring some spectacular explanation as to why we should presume, say, Hinckley to have meant just the opposite of what he said, I must conclude that there is something that that person cannot or will not acknowledge about Mormonism. His squeamishness says nothing about how Mormonism's most authoritative scriptural and apostolic voices explain Mormonism - which I might add, on the point of the knowledge (capital K)-imparting powers of the Holy Ghost, are all unanimous. (Nor should this even be surprising, for what "one true religion" out there doesn't make such epistemic claims? There is ALWAYS some explanation for "how it can be known that X is the only one true way").
So...while I have some sympathy as a human being for doubt about how certain our knowledge should ever be presumed to be, the possible justification of such doubt has no bearing on the particular question of whether Mormon apologetic arguments which rely on skeptical epistemic arguments, such as those contained in the virtually incredulist/irrationalist philosophies of guys like Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, actually undermine the very religion they are attempting to defend. Of course, they do undermine Mormonism....not least by making its best apologists sound like extraordinarily poor thinkers; for there is no way to reconcile the view that "under no circumstance can we ever presume to have knowledge" with the view that "under some circumstances, we definitely can presume to have knowledge". "A" does not equal "not A"; and any argument which requires us to believe it does, I suggest, is the essence of incoherence: like Mormon apologetic arguments based on skepticism.
In short, any Mormon apologetic argument which denies the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge" (Hinckley's GC words), is a non-starter. It itself is irreconcilable with Mormon doctrine; it is like Van Hale's Book of Mormon "apologetics", which begin with his admission that he doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is historical: DOA.
2.) Something like inductive reasoning, pace Popper, appears to be used by humans and animals;
3.) An adequate account of knowledge has to steer away fundamentally from the assumptions and conclusions of Popper and Kuhn.
Yes, perhaps a review is an order. A few points:
1.) Mormon epistemology: On page five of this thread, I posted a number of quotes from LDS General Authorities representative of Mormonism's view of the possibility of (to use Hinckley's phrase) "sure and certain knowledge". These quotes are supported by innumerable other authoritative statements, made over 177 years, claiming that men can know through the power of the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is all it claims. And because of all those prophetic and apostolic statements, and the many LDS scriptures they are based on, I regard the implication that testimony meeting rhetoric is a forgivable overstatement of Mormonism's position on this totally unevidenced, totally unconvincing, and unjustiably condescending.
The fact is that the very lesson manuals published by the church, which all those supposedly less-enlightened members have just finished learning and teaching out of prior to testimony meeting, all iterate the very same conception of knowledge that those members express in testimony meeting, as of course do GA talks, scriptures, hymns, primary songs, everything. In other words, if rank-and-file members are "overstating" something, then so too have all of Mormonism's most authoritative sources, because their messages are identical. There is no way around this. All the unenlightened are doing is repeating exactly what sources they credit have told them (I suggest that their belief is the real difference between them and the "enlightened").
As it happens, it is not extraordinary that a certain class of Mormons regards themselves as having an enlightened view of some idea or doctrine or other, even when their view is blatantly contradicted by the religion's most authoritative voices, over and over. That is just the way things go. There is no statement so blunt or clear, that there are not hundreds of members who immediately start thinking like a Dialogue or Sunstone contributor, immediately inventing - or arguing to themselves for the inclusion of - "nuances" and "exceptions" when absolutely none have been expressed by the authorities, and even where such nuances and exceptions have been explicitly ruled out by the authoritative source.
Take loyalty to the prophet, for example. Gordon B. Hinckley, in his 2003 GC talk of the same name, could not have made it clearer that members are under obligation to obey the edicts of the prophet, even when those edicts cross over into politics, and even where those edicts are wrong, and would continue to facilitate murder, corruption, graft, racketeering, bribery, gang activity, etc. (Hinckley uses the prohibition example). Hinckley could not have made it clearer: as a member, it's not your job to evaluate the wisdom of an edict, or even notice how totally stupid or destructive it is; you cannot, in righteousness, decline to obey the prophet: your duty is to obey whatever he says and remain loyal to the church/prophet.
That was the Mormon prophet speaking, from the General Conference pulpit. Yet, probably on this very thread there are folks thinking, "Tal always has to put things in such an extreme way"...as though it were I who delivered Gordon B. Hinckley's talk. (His talk is on www.lds.org. People can read it for themselves if they want). But to his credit, he could not have been clearer. So, what should I think when a sitting prophet says, "X equals Y, no exceptions", and then someone comes along and says, "there ARE exceptions in Mormonism - and if you don't think so, you're a fundamentalist"? I think that, barring some spectacular explanation as to why we should presume, say, Hinckley to have meant just the opposite of what he said, I must conclude that there is something that that person cannot or will not acknowledge about Mormonism. His squeamishness says nothing about how Mormonism's most authoritative scriptural and apostolic voices explain Mormonism - which I might add, on the point of the knowledge (capital K)-imparting powers of the Holy Ghost, are all unanimous. (Nor should this even be surprising, for what "one true religion" out there doesn't make such epistemic claims? There is ALWAYS some explanation for "how it can be known that X is the only one true way").
So...while I have some sympathy as a human being for doubt about how certain our knowledge should ever be presumed to be, the possible justification of such doubt has no bearing on the particular question of whether Mormon apologetic arguments which rely on skeptical epistemic arguments, such as those contained in the virtually incredulist/irrationalist philosophies of guys like Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, actually undermine the very religion they are attempting to defend. Of course, they do undermine Mormonism....not least by making its best apologists sound like extraordinarily poor thinkers; for there is no way to reconcile the view that "under no circumstance can we ever presume to have knowledge" with the view that "under some circumstances, we definitely can presume to have knowledge". "A" does not equal "not A"; and any argument which requires us to believe it does, I suggest, is the essence of incoherence: like Mormon apologetic arguments based on skepticism.
In short, any Mormon apologetic argument which denies the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge" (Hinckley's GC words), is a non-starter. It itself is irreconcilable with Mormon doctrine; it is like Van Hale's Book of Mormon "apologetics", which begin with his admission that he doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is historical: DOA.
2.) Something like inductive reasoning, pace Popper, appears to be used by humans and animals;
3.) An adequate account of knowledge has to steer away fundamentally from the assumptions and conclusions of Popper and Kuhn.
What should this agreement buy us regarding our assesment of LDS apologetics?
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
I don't think so. Surely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
I don't think so. Surely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Tarski
It all depends on what you include as "Mormon thought". Broadly speaking, there is dispute on EVERY point of Mormonism in "Mormon thought", if by that we only mean "the thought of some Mormons". If by it, you mean Mormon doctrine, no - there is no dispute that I know of in its most authoritative sources; a spectrum of belief is contemplated, but the end point (on the side opposite to total doubt) of that spectrum is the "sure and certain knowledge" spoken of by Hinckley, McConkie, etc. If you don't buy this, would you be so kind as to list a few authoritative sources stating in effect that "we can never have sure and certain knowledge, not even through the Holy Ghost"? If you can't produce them, then I think we are obligated to take the innumerable statements to the contrary at their word.
By the way, to repeat what I said earlier - there is no logical conflict between contemplating a spectrum of faith and an ideal end state of "sure and certain knowledge". I think you are confusing things. It is perfectly logical to say, "some people only see through the glass darkly, while others have the 'sure and certain knowledge' which the Holy Ghost can give us". The question is, do Mormonism's most authoritative sources contemplate the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge"? Obviously they do. That's the point.
Maybe, that a true "Mormon apologetics" appears to be an impossibility...There seems to be no apologetic argument which, if logically extended, does not come back to bite Mormonism, and hard, right where it is vulnerable.
---I think that, say, the belief that "we can never know if we know that Mormonism is all it claims" is not compatible with 177 years worth of statements to the contrary. Don't you?
---I was as certain as I thought I could ever get about anything...
Surely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
It all depends on what you include as "Mormon thought". Broadly speaking, there is dispute on EVERY point of Mormonism in "Mormon thought", if by that we only mean "the thought of some Mormons". If by it, you mean Mormon doctrine, no - there is no dispute that I know of in its most authoritative sources; a spectrum of belief is contemplated, but the end point (on the side opposite to total doubt) of that spectrum is the "sure and certain knowledge" spoken of by Hinckley, McConkie, etc. If you don't buy this, would you be so kind as to list a few authoritative sources stating in effect that "we can never have sure and certain knowledge, not even through the Holy Ghost"? If you can't produce them, then I think we are obligated to take the innumerable statements to the contrary at their word.
By the way, to repeat what I said earlier - there is no logical conflict between contemplating a spectrum of faith and an ideal end state of "sure and certain knowledge". I think you are confusing things. It is perfectly logical to say, "some people only see through the glass darkly, while others have the 'sure and certain knowledge' which the Holy Ghost can give us". The question is, do Mormonism's most authoritative sources contemplate the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge"? Obviously they do. That's the point.
What does this buy us egarding our assesment of LDS apologetics?
Maybe, that a true "Mormon apologetics" appears to be an impossibility...There seems to be no apologetic argument which, if logically extended, does not come back to bite Mormonism, and hard, right where it is vulnerable.
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
---I think that, say, the belief that "we can never know if we know that Mormonism is all it claims" is not compatible with 177 years worth of statements to the contrary. Don't you?
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
---I was as certain as I thought I could ever get about anything...
Tal Bachman wrote:TarskiSurely there are tensions in Mormon thought in the area of epitemology.
"witness of the spirit" on the one hand and "walk by faith"/"see through a glass darkly" on the other.
But different members seem to fall along that spectrum of expectations in different places.
It all depends on what you include as "Mormon thought". Broadly speaking, there is dispute on EVERY point of Mormonism in "Mormon thought", if by that we only mean "the thought of some Mormons". If by it, you mean Mormon doctrine, no - there is no dispute that I know of in its most authoritative sources; a spectrum of belief is contemplated, but the end point (on the side opposite to total doubt) of that spectrum is the "sure and certain knowledge" spoken of by Hinckley, McConkie, etc. If you don't buy this, would you be so kind as to list a few authoritative sources stating in effect that "we can never have sure and certain knowledge, not even through the Holy Ghost"? If you can't produce them, then I think we are obligated to take the innumerable statements to the contrary at their word.
By the way, to repeat what I said earlier - there is no logical conflict between contemplating a spectrum of faith and an ideal end state of "sure and certain knowledge". I think you are confusing things. It is perfectly logical to say, "some people only see through the glass darkly, while others have the 'sure and certain knowledge' which the Holy Ghost can give us". The question is, do Mormonism's most authoritative sources contemplate the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge"? Obviously they do. That's the point.What does this buy us egarding our assesment of LDS apologetics?
Maybe, that a true "Mormon apologetics" appears to be an impossibility...There seems to be no apologetic argument which, if logically extended, does not come back to bite Mormonism, and hard, right where it is vulnerable.
Well, yeah!. Its all messed up in many ways so, they can't be consistent.
Must a Mormon be infalliblist regarding "spiritual witness" in order to be consistent.
---I think that, say, the belief that "we can never know if we know that Mormonism is all it claims" is not compatible with 177 years worth of statements to the contrary. Don't you?
Yeh, but they might say something like "we can never have a perfect knowledge in this life but we can have the comfort of the HG"
I might have said that. I never never thought I was certain.
I am also curious to know how you, when a believer, would explain to yourself or others your level of certainty regarding your supposed "testimony".
---I was as certain as I thought I could ever get about anything...
Not me. I couldn't bring myself to that point.