Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_mfbukowski]

"But would it matter to you if the church tomorrow rejected all of its historical claims? Would it still be true?"

No, not if you believe what LDS Presidents and Apostles have taught from Joseph Smith down to our time. If the historical "Truth" of the Book of Mormon were abandoned or admitted to be false by LDS leadership then nothing based on this 'revealed scripture' would hold water. A nice basic quasi-moral code, but one can get that from Holy Rollers, Baptists, Hutterites, Amish or Catholics.

The Historical Truth of the Book of Mormon is 'the cornerstone' of LDS teachings. In some ways it is a shame nothing at all has been found to show even part of it as truth.

I already answered that. Read the thread.

[_Euthyphro]

And please tell me what you mean by an "actuality" that no one can see feel or talk about. Anything we can see and observe and we all see it and feel it (leaving out pink elephants that only I see) we can talk about and agree if the whatso-meter registers "10" or "87".

You know what's frustrating about this Wittgenstein business is that so far it's nothing more than a shell game with words. Truth is a property of propositions and nothing more. If someone proposes that God loved us so much that he sent His son to earth to suffer and die for our sins, then one cannot test the veracity of the statement without first conducting some kind of search to determine not just the truthfulness of that, but also of all of the other propositions that entails. If I encountered that person during his (lengthy) search and asked him what he was doing he might respond, "I am looking for the Truth." Everyone, even a disciple of Wittgenstein, would know what he meant, but a Wittgensteinian would quibble over his use of the word "Truth".

How does what Wittgenstein taught about the truth inform one's actions differently from anyone else? If there is no difference, then this is all a tempest in a teacup.

You lost me at "'actuality' that no one can see, feel or talk about." I was talking about an actuality that one can see, feel and talk about and I tried to spell it out that way when I proposed alternative names or phrases for "Truth" such as "whatever it is you call reality as far as we are able to observe it."

[_MrStakhanovite]

How would we know about it if there was? The short answer is "no".

So you agree with Berkeley in a sense about esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived?

[_Runtu]

Come on you guys, I thought you were all supposed to be all scientific and all

This stuff should be familiar to you.

My degrees are in English and Latin American Studies. I'm not all scientific and all, at all.

I still think there's something vaguely mystical in your approach to language and perception. I'm extremely uncomfortable with this idea that there's some sort of special perception reserved for the first person.

[_mfbukowski]

And please tell me what you mean by an "actuality" that no one can see feel or talk about. Anything we can see and observe and we all see it and feel it (leaving out pink elephants that only I see) we can talk about and agree if the whatso-meter registers "10" or "87".

You know what's frustrating about this Wittgenstein business is that so far it's nothing more than a shell game with words. Truth is a property of propositions and nothing more. If someone proposes that God loved us so much that he sent His son to earth to suffer and die for our sins, then one cannot test the veracity of the statement without first conducting some kind of search to determine not just the truthfulness of that, but also of all of the other propositions that entails. If I encountered that person during his (lengthy) search and asked him what he was doing he might respond, "I am looking for the Truth." Everyone, even a disciple of Wittgenstein, would know what he meant, but a Wittgensteinian would quibble over his use of the word "Truth".

How does what Wittgenstein taught about the truth inform one's actions differently from anyone else? If there is no difference, then this is all a tempest in a teacup.

You lost me at "'actuality' that no one can see, feel or talk about." I was talking about an actuality that one can see, feel and talk about and I tried to spell it out that way when I proposed alternative names or phrases for "Truth" such as "whatever it is you call reality as far as we are able to observe it."

Well I am sorry but you do not understand Wittgenstein- I suppose you will blame me for not explaining it but so it goes.

You do not experience reality- you experience lightwaves affecting the rods and cones of your eyes and vibrations in the air rattling your eardrum and your brain makes the rest up.

You get to walk around without bumping into things because what your brain does "works".

You're a nice guy I am sure but you are not getting this- that's ok with you I am sure- just know that your objections just don't make it. Call that what you will- Maybe Runtu or someone else will explain it. I am sorry to be a jerk but it is getting to be a waste of time.

[_mfbukowski]

Come on you guys, I thought you were all supposed to be all scientific and all

This stuff should be familiar to you.

My degrees are in English and Latin American Studies. I'm not all scientific and all, at all.

I still think there's something vaguely mystical in your approach to language and perception. I'm extremely uncomfortable with this idea that there's some sort of special perception reserved for the first person.

Well it is unquestionably mystical.

But I defy you to tell me what I am thinking. That is what it would take to cross that barrier between the first and third person.

You will never know what I am thinking silently. It's two gunfighters staring at each other waiting for the twitch.

What is in my head is my business and you will never know what is there. Can you figure out a way to see what is in someone else's head?

Get out your brain scans and your whatsis-meters- you won't find it from the "outside".

[_mfbukowski]

How would we know about it if there was? The short answer is "no".

So you agree with Berkeley in a sense about esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived?

In a manner of speaking.

Can you think of something which exists which no one has ever experienced in some way?

No you can't, because it does not exist to humans (yet?)

But of course we have invented machines to extend our perception- we have never seen an individual electron etc but we are experiencing their results just by typing here.

And so on to quarks and whatever else there is that I don't know about either. (but someone does)- we participate in what every human has experienced through culture.

I have never been to Antactica but I know it exists because I read National Geographic, and I know that certain wild mushrooms are ok to eat because my grandmother taught me that.

[_Runtu]

Well it is unquestionably mystical.

But I defy you to tell me what I am thinking. That is what it would take to cross that barrier between the first and third person.

You will never know what I am thinking silently. It's two gunfighters staring at each other waiting for the twitch.

What is in my head is my business and you will never know what is there. Can you figure out a way to see what is in someone else's head?

Get out your brain scans and your whatsis-meters- you won't find it from the "outside".

What's going on in your head isn't any different from what's going on outside your head. The difference is, as you point out, that I can't "see" what's in your head until you tell me. But in that telling, you can't adequately communicate to me what you're thinking. By the same token, I would argue that, because you can't perceive anything without processing it linguistically, you can't adequately communicate to yourself what's going on in your head. It may be a different "person" as far as the part of speech, but it's the same process.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Can you think of something which exists which no one has ever experienced in some way?

I don't know. To be honest, you are the first Idealist I've ever actually talked to, so I don't have any great objection to what you've said so far. I guess I'm still trying to prod your beliefs more so I can get a grip on them before trying to offer a critque.

How does your brain generate your self (subject) while at the same time being an object?


EDIT to add: How is your brain simultaneously produced by consciousness and also that which produces consciousness?

[_mfbukowski]

Can you think of something which exists which no one has ever experienced in some way?

I don't know. To be honest, you are the first Idealist I've ever actually talked to, so I don't have any great objection to what you've said so far. I guess I'm still trying to prod your beliefs more so I can get a grip on them before trying to offer a critque.

How does your brain generate your self (subject) while at the same time being an object?


EDIT to add: How is your brain simultaneously produced by consciousness and also that which produces consciousness?

That is precisely the problem- the brain seeing itself as an object. Can't be done in my opinion. THAT to me is the difference between subjective and objective- or first person and third person.

You can't see yourself- as others see you. Or if you can, you can't do both simultaneously. It's two different points of view that can never mesh.

You cannot see the chemicals in your own brain making the experiences. Not possible.

That is the thesis.