DiscussMormonism.com

TAO wrote:
*shrugs* you may think it weak logically if you like, but it is true. It is the reason nothing is absolute... and the reason every thing you feel must be taken on even ground when you feel it.

Not really. This is why reliability is key to what is better. I have shown a few examples from the physical senses, and there are countless ones we could bring up. YOU have yet to show one with the spiritual, not that I expect you will be able to, because you can't.

Sure it does - if we don't perceive correctly, how can we judge anything as being reality?

Again what works. It's really a very simple idea here/

However, let's also say you have no way of telling whether the car is actually on besides that little light. Then you are basing it on something assumed. It's the same way with the senses. You don't have something proven to test the senses, so you can't say your senses are reliable.

Ah now we need to get rid of those physical senses to make your analogy. It is reliable because we have defined what that would be, and it is easily tested, unless of course we go without those pesky physical senses to make your argument.

Well then I have to say that your reasoning system is incorrect then.

That makes no sense.

Except that it's religions that claim God does, but they promote blind faith.

I believe in a religion because I have faith in God, not the other way around, that I do. When I asked the question, I was asking him, not people.

You don't even know if he/she/they exist. You may have just been asking yourself, and your mind and body gave you what you wanted which you interpreted as being from this God. Funny that people can't agree on what their experiences mean here.

Themis, we aren't sure what they physical world is. You base it on your unproven senses, which you also use to navigate that perceived world. You are right, it may be reliable for navigating your perceived world, but it certainly isn't very reliable for my own perceived world.

All this time and you still don't get it. I accept that we may have no idea about what the real world is like, This is why we go with what works as being a representation of the real world. if it is wrong, there is nothing at the moment that we can do about it. The less something works is a good indicator that our understanding needs more information before we should make conclusions about what they may be or mean. That doesn't mean we cannot act if we think is is not dangerous.

I disagree. 'This makes me feel good' and 'The box is there' have no bias in your mind. It puts no inherent difference between these thoughts, rather, you have consciously put up a box-difference between them. Both statements are relative to you. One is to your preferences. The other is to your location. Neither applies to other people.

You still have to make the interpretation that it feels good.

I also find people who can't agree on whether something is loud or soft, that I do.

Actually in many instances we can find more agreement then other circumstance, but i noticed you used a very subjective example.
Why not try about asking in a dark room and then turn the light on and ask people is the light now on. I think you may find a lot of agreement.

Themis wrote:Not really. This is why reliability is key to what is better. I have shown a few examples from the physical senses, and there are countless ones we could bring up. YOU have yet to show one with the spiritual, not that I expect you will be able to, because you can't.

As said, I already told you why I can't, pressing me about it isn't going to do much. Nor does it make your statements more reliable.

Again what works. It's really a very simple idea here

But I disagree. For many years, "the world was flat" worked. What "works" isn't good enough.

Ah now we need to get rid of those physical senses to make your analogy. It is reliable because we have defined what that would be, and it is easily tested, unless of course we go without those pesky physical senses to make your argument.

No, actually, we need to get rid of all other senses. It wouldn't matter if you had 5 lights on the dashboard indicating different things or 1. Even if you had 5 lights (representing the 5 senses), you wouldn't be able to know any better, if you didn't have a sixth proven one to test it. And since we come into life with no senses proven, we are virtually stranded in those terms.

That makes no sense.

Let me see... ok... you have three circles. The two fit in the middle of the one. Tell me the exact size of the circles. Since we have no measurement (no proven fact), it's not possible. You have no proven fact that the senses work. You cannot even say which circles are bigger, because it's not proven to be a two-dimensional space, and perspective changes over space.

You don't even know if he/she/they exist. You may have just been asking yourself, and your mind and body gave you what you wanted which you interpreted as being from this God. Funny that people can't agree on what their experiences mean here.

And neither do you. But at least I have a sense to base my belief upon. Just as you have a sense to base that your fingers are touching the keyboard in front of you. Oh, yes, that may not exist either, it could be your mind and body giving you what you want. You don't know. All you know is that it makes no sense to do anything but trust your own senses.

All this time and you still don't get it. I accept that we may have no idea about what the real world is like, This is why we go with what works as being a representation of the real world. if it is wrong, there is nothing at the moment that we can do about it. The less something works is a good indicator that our understanding needs more information before we should make conclusions about what they may be or mean. That doesn't mean we cannot act if we think is is not dangerous.

You go with what works. Despite it possibly not being correct. So as you trust your own senses, I will trust mine, with 'what works'. Faith, trust in the spirit, is 'what works' for me, it makes sense just as much as you touching your toes and feeling they are there makes senses to you. I'm still exploring this unrealized sense some, and so I'm going to refrain describing to you what I feel.

You still have to make the interpretation that it feels good.

And you have to still make the interpretation that tit is located there. Where is there? It's completely relative. And based on perception. Say it's relative to that couch. The couch is relative in terms of location, and based on perception. Add an infinite numbers of objects, and they are all still relative in terms of location, and based on perception.

There be five objects in this case. Your five senses. They are all relative. And all based on perception. You can compare them all you want, but it doesn't make them any more existing than a chair that exists somewhere in the world that you cannot pinpoint.

Actually in many instances we can find more agreement then other circumstance, but i noticed you used a very subjective example.
Why not try about asking in a dark room and then turn the light on and ask people is the light now on. I think you may find a lot of agreement.

I'm sure you could find many who disagree about how light it is. That's why people get "night-eyes", some see better in the dark than others.

TAO wrote:
Themis, we aren't sure what they physical world is. You base it on your unproven senses, which you also use to navigate that perceived world. You are right, it may be reliable for navigating your perceived world, but it certainly isn't very reliable for my own perceived world.

Well if the time comes that a boy and his dog play fetch on I405 while the cars whisk through them, and the B.H.S. Hawks play their homecoming game in the sky, and people walk through solid walls like air, then I'll look into the idea that the senses are unproven. But at this point I'm pretty well convinced I don't want you driving in my neighborhood.

TAO wrote:As said, I already told you why I can't, pressing me about it isn't going to do much. Nor does it make your statements more reliable.

Of course you can't. I already siad you can't and for good reasons. They are not as reliable like our physical senses.

But I disagree. For many years, "the world was flat" worked. What "works" isn't good enough.

Sure it worked. That's the point. When new information came along, the world eventually changed. Interesting that religion had to change kicking and screaming.

No, actually, we need to get rid of all other senses. It wouldn't matter if you had 5 lights on the dashboard indicating different things or 1. Even if you had 5 lights (representing the 5 senses), you wouldn't be able to know any better, if you didn't have a sixth proven one to test it. And since we come into life with no senses proven, we are virtually stranded in those terms.

Like I said you have to get rid of all other senses to make your analogy work. :) Again proof is in what works, not what may or may not be reality. Now what works is probably a better representation of reality.

Let me see... ok... you have three circles. The two fit in the middle of the one. Tell me the exact size of the circles. Since we have no measurement (no proven fact), it's not possible. You have no proven fact that the senses work. You cannot even say which circles are bigger, because it's not proven to be a two-dimensional space, and perspective changes over space.

Incorrect again. We define things like measurement and what bigger means.

And neither do you.

No I don't know.

But at least I have a sense to base my belief upon.

Just not a reliable one. Don't worry there is lots of people who do in most if not all the religions out there. I did as well. WE take very subjective experiences that for many of the claims we cannot test we just go with the interpretation we like. This is probably why we see so many religions.

You go with what works. Despite it possibly not being correct. So as you trust your own senses, I will trust mine, with 'what works'. Faith, trust in the spirit, is 'what works' for me, it makes sense just as much as you touching your toes and feeling they are there makes senses to you. I'm still exploring this unrealized sense some, and so I'm going to refrain describing to you what I feel.

Sure I know many people who will go with it and think it works, and for many subjective things it does, but not for things like whether the the Book of Mormon is about a real people. Show me that I am wrong. I would love if I am.

There be five objects in this case. Your five senses. They are all relative. And all based on perception. You can compare them all you want, but it doesn't make them any more existing than a chair that exists somewhere in the world that you cannot pinpoint.

Again, again, and again. What works is what matters here. What works is also what is reliable. This is a concept that shouldn't be this hard to comprehend, but I guess some do. Now you still can't show reliability with the spiritual in regards to physical claims being made from them.

I'm sure you could find many who disagree about how light it is. That's why people get "night-eyes", some see better in the dark than others.

This simply is not true, and I think you know that, and just want to disagree because we don't agree about LDS truth claims.

cafe crema wrote:
Well if the time comes that a boy and his dog play fetch on I405 while the cars whisk through them, and the B.H.S. Hawks play their homecoming game in the sky, and people walk through solid walls like air, then I'll look into the idea that the senses are unproven. But at this point I'm pretty well convinced I don't want you driving in my neighborhood.

LOL that made me laugh. I think Tao likes to just disagree. No one is saying we know anything absolute. Even science does not deal in absolutes, but with what works.

cafe crema wrote:Well if the time comes that a boy and his dog play fetch on I405 while the cars whisk through them, and the B.H.S. Hawks play their homecoming game in the sky, and people walk through solid walls like air, then I'll look into the idea that the senses are unproven. But at this point I'm pretty well convinced I don't want you driving in my neighborhood.

Hehe, that might not be so far in the future ya' know. ;-)

I'm not saying don't use the senses, I'm saying that any of your feelings are as valid a sense as your other ones.

Themis wrote:Of course you can't. I already siad you can't and for good reasons. They are not as reliable like our physical senses.

What I said was I was still exploring, and thus, would not give an account of what I feel.

Sure it worked. That's the point. When new information came along, the world eventually changed. Interesting that religion had to change kicking and screaming.

This is something I don't like though. I don't trust the most viable option until more information comes along. I take a look at alternatives now.

Like I said you have to get rid of all other senses to make your analogy work. :) Again proof is in what works, not what may or may not be reality. Now what works is probably a better representation of reality.

When your physical senses are those 5 lights, and them only... you aren't actually taking stuff away. Those lights represent your physical senses, so technichally your senses don't exist in the car... your brain can just 'tell' when the lights are on.

Incorrect again. We define things like measurement and what bigger means.

However, this means it is all relative, again, and thus unproven. And perspective based.

Just not a reliable one. Don't worry there is lots of people who do in most if not all the religions out there. I did as well. WE take very subjective experiences that for many of the claims we cannot test we just go with the interpretation we like. This is probably why we see so many religions.

Considering that you haven't experienced what I have, how can you tell whether it is reliable or not? Indeed, how can you judge on how it works, if you have not felt. My spirit has showed me why there is so many religions... and yet you judge it all the same, without having felt it yourself. But I will say no more.

Sure I know many people who will go with it and think it works, and for many subjective things it does, but not for things like whether the the Book of Mormon is about a real people. Show me that I am wrong. I would love if I am.

It's not my quest to show you you are wrong. It is your own. That is one of the truths I know.

Again, again, and again. What works is what matters here. What works is also what is reliable. This is a concept that shouldn't be this hard to comprehend, but I guess some do. Now you still can't show reliability with the spiritual in regards to physical claims being made from them.

Except what works is relative to you. It doesn't apply to me. What is a physical sense to you is not necessarily a physical sense to me. What is a spiritual sense to you is not necessarily a spiritual sense to me. So 'what works' isn't good enough. Because 'what works' for different people is different.

This simply is not true, and I think you know that, and just want to disagree because we don't agree about LDS truth claims.

No, it's most certainly true that different people disagree on how light it is... that's why you have to "let your eyes adjust to the darkness" in certain places. If you take a person who didn't adjust, and a person who did, who's going to see better. And who's going to trip on their shoelace and get a broken nose?

Themis wrote:I think Tao likes to just disagree.

Somewhat ;-).

But there is also a serious side too.

TAO happens to be using both in this discussion =D.

TAO wrote:

cafe crema wrote:Well if the time comes that a boy and his dog play fetch on I405 while the cars whisk through them, and the B.H.S. Hawks play their homecoming game in the sky, and people walk through solid walls like air, then I'll look into the idea that the senses are unproven. But at this point I'm pretty well convinced I don't want you driving in my neighborhood.

Hehe, that might not be so far in the future ya' know. ;-)

I'm not saying don't use the senses, I'm saying that any of your feelings are as valid a sense as your other ones.

You have been saying that the senses are unreliable, if your point is that feelings are valid then quit the stupid game of pretending that reality can't be determined by the senses. As to relying on feelings, I do, case in point, you are not someone I would allow to have access to my children. No sensible reason, no logic, no reliance on any of my 5 senses, just the feeling that you would not be a good influence on my kids and may in fact be detrimental.

cafe crema wrote:You have been saying that the senses are unreliable, if your point is that feelings are valid then quit the stupid game of pretending that reality can't be determined by the senses.

Dude Chilllax! The sense are unprovable. And as of such, their real reliability cannot be determined.

What I'm saying actually is that the spirit is a valid sense, as usable as the physical ones.

As to relying on feelings, I do, case in point, you are not someone I would allow to have access to my children.

Hmm... cafe crema, I think one needs to know that TAO is KNOWN for discussing the abstract. He is quite reliable around kids (in fact, he treats them even more carefully than china, because he thinks kids are awesome).

No sensible reason, no logic, no reliance on any of my 5 senses, just the feeling that you would not be a good influence on my kids and may in fact be detrimental.

Madame, this entire topic is based off of logic. Logic is the one that put itself in this bind. TAO only takes this discussion seriously to the extent that he is justified to use his spiritual sense. So yah, how you take the topic is up to you, but I think one is overreacting excessively. If one feels it will be detrimental, it is fine to leave. But I assure you I will do nothing consciously to harm your children. Children are precious indeed.