Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_mfbukowski]

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.

Well I think we are pretty close as usual but don't always understand each other.

I just don't understand the last 5 words- "but it's the same process". Not sure what that means

It's two points of view you can't have at once- it's like seeing the rabbit and the duck at the same time- you can't do it

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rabbit-DuckIllusion.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl- ... usion.html

You can't see from two points of view at the same time.- that is why there is a difference between subjective and objective and I would argue it is a category error to mix the two.

And what is the implication of this? The implication is that spiritual experiences are as "real" as any first person experience. I can know that I have had a spiritual experience and it is as "valid" as any first person experience like being in love or being hungry or being in pain.

And it has nothing to do with scientific observation- it cannot be verified scientifically in other words because to do so would be to look into another person's brain and see what he was thinking. You can't do it. You can never cross that gulf between being the observer and the observed at the same time.

[_Chap]

... I think that the principle of "Redemption" is something any "true" (ie: "working") religion absolutely must have- people like me have screwed up too much in life to keep obsessing about things I have done or people I have hurt- there has to be a release valve in there somewhere if anyone in this life is going to feel any peace.

So a principle of redemption is key as far as I am concerned- and of course Christianity in a broad sense supplies that.

And yet though I have screwed up in life, I really do want to be the best human being I can be- so defining what that means becomes another goal- to make a good philosophical description of what it means to be a good human being MUST be in any religion I would call "true" and I cannot think of a better definition than the idea of an anthropomorphic God who is a human being- an ideal human being- you just cannot come up with a better definition than that!

And the idea that after an eternity of working at it, that I could become perfect too?? Dang it just doesn't get much better than that for me- I can't think of anything that "works" better than that to get me to be a "good human being" and literally be the "best I can be".

So pragmatically, I can't think of anything that works better as a paradigm of all that I want out of life than the LDS value system.

QFT

I would really, really like the LDS religion to be true, because I find the its teachings so congenial and believing in them makes me feel good. Therefore it is true. Would you like to convert to my faith and start paying 10% of your income to the CoJCoLDS?

I would really, really like to own the Empire State Building, because the idea that I am rich is congenial, and believing in it makes me feel good. Therefore I do own the Empire State Building. Will you buy it from me?

[_mfbukowski]

I would really, really like the LDS religion to be true, because I find the its teachings so congenial and believing in them makes me feel good. Therefore it is true. Would you like to convert to my faith and start paying 10% of your income to the CoJCoLDS?

I would really, really like to own the Empire State Building, because the idea that I am rich is congenial, and believing in it makes me feel good. Therefore I do own the Empire State Building. Will you buy it from me?

I was going to ignore this post because it was so obviously absurd, but then I thought that there might be some who actually thought this was a relevant criticism.

If we can do a title search and you can show me you are actually who is on the deed for the ESB and if it is beneficial for me to do the transaction, I will be glad to put together a syndication and do that. That's the sort of thing I do for a living.

I really don't see what this has to do with the topic of this thread however. Please enlighten me.

I really should have responded "Green cow!"

After all, the early worm gets the bird!

[_Chap]

... I think that the principle of "Redemption" is something any "true" (ie: "working") religion absolutely must have- people like me have screwed up too much in life to keep obsessing about things I have done or people I have hurt- there has to be a release valve in there somewhere if anyone in this life is going to feel any peace.

So a principle of redemption is key as far as I am concerned- and of course Christianity in a broad sense supplies that.

And yet though I have screwed up in life, I really do want to be the best human being I can be- so defining what that means becomes another goal- to make a good philosophical description of what it means to be a good human being MUST be in any religion I would call "true" and I cannot think of a better definition than the idea of an anthropomorphic God who is a human being- an ideal human being- you just cannot come up with a better definition than that!

And the idea that after an eternity of working at it, that I could become perfect too?? Dang it just doesn't get much better than that for me- I can't think of anything that "works" better than that to get me to be a "good human being" and literally be the "best I can be".

So pragmatically, I can't think of anything that works better as a paradigm of all that I want out of life than the LDS value system.

QFT

I would really, really like the LDS religion to be true, because I find the its teachings so congenial and believing in them makes me feel good. Therefore it is true. Would you like to convert to my faith and start paying 10% of your income to the CoJCoLDS?

I would really, really like to own the Empire State Building, because the idea that I am rich is congenial, and believing in it makes me feel good. Therefore I do own the Empire State Building. Will you buy it from me?

I was going to ignore this post because it was so obviously absurd, but then I thought that there might be some who actually thought this was a relevant criticism.

So MFB does not agree that my bolded text above is a fair summary of the import of the passage I quoted? I'm not surprised.

MFB seems to to be quite comfortable using "truth" as applied to the propositions advanced by the CoJCoLDS in a way that is crucially different from the way he would use it if discussing the case for a (say) business proposition.

If he served a mission, I hope he made his difference of usage quite clear when he bore testimony that "the Book of Mormon is true". But somehow I suspect not.

[_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?

Pragmatism is sometimes also characterized as radical empiricism, which I suppose is akin to idealism but it is perfectly tied to perception. Sometimes the labels can be misleading because Plato can be seen as an "idealist" too, in that only ideas are "real" for him, but he is also a dualist. The material world for him is an illusion, an imperfect reflection of ideas.

But Plato is not an empiricist or a materialist in any sense of the word. Pragmatism says that the only thing we can know is what we can experience- there is no dualism at all. We cannot know what is "out there"- all we can know is what images our brains give us. I would add that some are shared and some are not. The shared perceptions we call "reality" or "science"- because we can all perceive the same things. These are culturally conditioned ways of seeing what comes into our brains through sensation.

But I would argue there are also perceptions we cannot share- internal states and feelings. All these internal and external perceptions go into our brains, which make sense of them, and construct our "reality" from them.

So of course we have a shared reality which everyone sees, and one which only we know about. But where we live and breathe and think and do everything which is important to us, is in our internal, personal, subjective consciousness. That is where choice happens, decisions happen, contemplation happens, religious experience happens- that is really where everything important to us happens. That is where there is rationality, craziness, values, love, grief, the decision to go on a diet, lust, and selflessness exists- all of those are internal states, what goes on at night when the lights go out and we lay there thinking about the day and what will be done tomorrow.

No one knows what is in there but each of us individually, but that is where everything important in life happens. What is "in there" is just as important if not more so than everything we do all day from fixing a tire to measuring the wavelength of gamma rays or writing the great American novel. If it were not for motivation and choice- all of those brain states- lust and grief, brilliance and mental illness- and all the others, nothing would happen in the world.

Nothing. Alexander would not have conquered, Shakespeare would not have written, Columbus would not have discovered, Galileo would not have a telescope, Michelangelo would not have carved- no men on the moon, no wars, nothing.

It is ultimately consciousness which "does" everything. And that fact is inescapable.

[_mfbukowski]

If he served a mission, I hope he made his difference of usage quite clear when he bore testimony that "the Book of Mormon is true". But somehow I suspect not.

Since you are so sure you know what the proper view of truth is, would you please show me how I am wrong, and what is right?

You might want to review the history of philosophy first to save time, seeing what others have said of your view, assuming you actually have one.

Just a suggestion. I really want you to have thought this out. It is an important issue in life.

[_Neo]

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?)

Infinity

[Guest]

I would really, really like the LDS religion to be true, because I find the its teachings so congenial and believing in them makes me feel good. Therefore it is true.

I wonder if Mfb doesn't see that he is doing just that. I see many member doings it, and I have been guilty of it as well. It's funny that he wants to accuse others of having some ultimate truth in the sky idea. I don't necessarily blame them, since we are taught to do it (Alma 32). The spiritual experience is basically the same thing(Moroni 10) except that we are taught to interpret certain feelings, thoughts, etc as information from God that the church is true. Unfortunately many don't realize that their experience does not come with this information attached to it. They do the attaching themselves of what they want it to mean.

As to whether things exist that humans have not experienced yet, I think their is more then sufficient evidence. That evidence is that we are finding many things we never knew existed. When that stops for a very long time, then you might have an argument.

I think most people define truth as the supreme reality. I think this is correct. Many times my own reality slams into the wall of supreme reality. :) All we can do is try to understand or get the best approximation of what that is. The church has taught certain things as being the supreme reality or as close to it as we can understand. Things like Gods exists with a body like ours. Joseph saw this God, and translated a record of a real people, real in the same way we and our ancestors before us are real. All we can do is look at the available information and try to get the best idea of what that reality is(hopefully without being to affected by our own imperfections, biases, etc).

mfbukowski

So of course we have a shared reality which everyone sees, and one which only we know about.

Shared reality is far more accurate and doesn't run into that wall as often as our own personal reality.

[_Chap]

If he served a mission, I hope he made his difference of usage quite clear when he bore testimony that "the Book of Mormon is true". But somehow I suspect not.

Since you are so sure you know what the proper view of truth is, would you please show me how I am wrong, and what is right?

You might want to review the history of philosophy first to save time, seeing what others have said of your view, assuming you actually have one.

Just a suggestion. I really want you to have thought this out. It is an important issue in life.

On the contrary. It is MFB who shows in the affairs of everyday life that he uses the word "truth" in more or less the same way as everybody else. We just have to look above and see:

1. I claim that it is true that I own the Empire State Building.

2. MFB knows exactly what to do to decide whether what I claim is true: he asks to see my name on the title deed.

I am happy to decide what is true and what is not in the way exemplified by MFB above.

He is the one who seems to want to add some other, different sense. So far as I can see, it reduces to "What seems satisfying to me is true". That seems so radically different from the way he responded to my claim to own the ESB that I can see nothing at all in common between the two. He is the one with the burden of explaining how the two usages are consistent.

Unhappily, my prospects of getting a clear explanation seem small, since so far as I can see MFB is one of those people whose study of philosophy seems to have led him to conclude that the point of such study is to retail quotations from famous philosophers, or to tell others to go and read them.

I one the other hand take the perhaps eccentric view that the point of studying philosophy is to learn to think and argue clearly for yourself. I conclude that MFB and I have had different teachers.

[_mfbukowski]

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?)

Infinity

Not a "thing".

The whole point is that no "thing" exists which has not been experienced by someone because the fact of a person experiencing it MAKES it "exist"- ie- we don't call things we cannot experience "existing".