Facilitated Communications

[_MrStakhanovite]

My philosophy background is limited to a couple of classes in college and the books I have voluntarily read since. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining the proof you gave above and how it responds to MFB's proposed worldview?

I'll do a full write up when I get home from school tommorow.




MFB,

I still don't understand why you would find that amusing, even with the link you've given.

[_mfbukowski]

My philosophy background is limited to a couple of classes in college and the books I have voluntarily read since. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining the proof you gave above and how it responds to MFB's proposed worldview?

I'll do a full write up when I get home from school tommorow.




MFB,

I still don't understand why you would find that amusing, even with the link you've given.

I haven't seen much evidence that you understand my "world view" in the first place, and secondly, the Hempel proof has little to do the central attitude of Pragmatism.

But go ahead- let's see how it goes if you like.

[_mfbukowski]

If there is anyone who is actually watching this thread and trying to learn anything from it, I would say that from my point of view, it pretty much ends here.

From this point, if there is any future, I can see a protracted battle over teeny details which have no implications whatsoever for the very basic argument I am making. My purpose here is to give some education in Pragmatism to alter if possible what I see as the "naïve realism" we see in people everyday.

What I have been trying to express is very simple, and is a widely held view in philosophy and literary criticism- and I will briefly summarize it again

Actually, the exchange above with Runtu was right on the money until he had to bring a "cheap shot" moral criticism of Mormonism into a perfectly good little dialogue on the nature of truth.

When you look out into the world- what do you see?

You see "chairs" and "tables" and "cars" and "trees" and "stars" and "the moon"- and "pebbles" and "mountains" etc.

The point is that never see the "stuff" that makes those things up- you are actually seeing lightwaves entering your retina, but from the nanosecond those light rays enter your eye, your brain takes over and makes a picture out of those random light waves- and even gives portions of that picture the names detailed above.

YOU CANNOT LOOK OUT AND SEE THE 'RAW' STUFF OF REALITY- ALL YOU SEE IS ALREADY ORGANIZED INTO WORDS AND CONCEPTS

That is the central insight. This is how we "EXPERIENCE" the world- ALL WE CAN SEE FEEL TASTE TOUCH ETC is organized already into something we can call "human experience"

We cannot know what's "out there" because our senses and brain FILTER AND CREATE whatever goes into our senses.

So the central insight is this: WHY PRETEND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT WE CANNOT SEE OR EXPERIENCE- WHY NOT JUST BE HONEST AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT- THE EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIENCING.

And I would maintain that is precisely what science does. "When I add this amount of what we define as "sodium" to this amount of what we define as "chlorine" I always get this amount of what we define as "sodium chloride" which is also known as "salt".

Every aspect of science is based on the strict observation of experiences which are then expressed linguistically.

In this way, one can see that even science is based on language

What science does, in a very detailed way, chronicle human experience about the world so that anyone anywhere can do the same thing and get the same results. And the fact that it is so reliable means that anyone anywhere can USE that information- "knowledge"- to DO THINGS. In other words- science "works" to allow us to build buildings and make medicine and fly to the moon and make the atom bomb.

Ultimately what makes any proposition in science "true" is that it always "works". Combining Na to Cl will give you NaCl every time you want to make some NaCl. Doing this and this and this will give you an atom bomb every time. If you want to harden steel, you do this and this.

Science gives us knowledge which I would call "objective" because once we have the recipe, anyone anywhere can make the cake.

That information is based on experiences we all have. All of us can go out and make the observations- because we have SHARED EXPERIENCE- we can all add the same chemical to some same other chemical and have the beaker turn red- that experience can be replicated again and again.

But there are also private experiences no one else shares, like what I dreamed last night, who I am falling in love with, what I am thinking, why I don't like that guy, etc.

There are also decisions to be made, what school to go to, whether or not I should eat that chocolate cake, should I study now or go on the internet and argue with Bukowski, etc.

And then there's that pain in my knee that just doesn't seem to be getting better.

All of these factors are based "subjective" experience that no one knows but each of us individually- and indeed it is in a state of subjectivity that we live our lives.

This is where joy is, happiness, love, purpose, determination, strength to go on- all of these are found in a state of subjectivity.

Linguistically, we express these states using first person statements, like "I am sad" or maybe "I was thinking about..." etc.

I would also maintain that this is where we also find religious belief and what we as Mormons call "testimony".

And I would say that the way we "know what's right for us"- is ultimately by the same criteria we use in the "objective" world- that is, "what works". Only we can know what works for us- what gives us what we need to get through the trials of life, who to love, what school to go to, who to marry, whether or not I should become a pilot or a professor or a farmer.

All of those are subjective decisions to be made and defined subjectively by the criteria of "what works"

(Cheap shot moral comments fit here- but of course there is also what works for society which keeps us on track- of course I am not getting into that here)

So that's it in a nutshell

It's extremely simple and very general, and a very common way of seeing the world philosophically- so much so hardly anyone with a little philosophy under his belt would even find it illuminating.

What I am presenting is not detail about how propositions are verified, how logic relates to what we "know" or the logical nature of the a priori.

We have not even gotten that far yet.

If this post was about the tax code, what I have just posted goes about as deep as "we should have a flat tax" when the "Raven Paradox" Stak is talking about is like talking about subchapter 4375 on the taxation of intentionally defective grantor annuity trusts.

It's very important, but so detailed as to be pretty much irrelevant to the level of discussion we are having.

And that is not my purpose in being here- I have already stated that.

[_Runtu]

I'm sorry that came across as a cheap shot. It was not meant that way. That is one of my basic problems with Mormonism: it lacks any morality other than obedience. Abdicating moral authority to another human being is dangerous stuff.

[_mfbukowski]

I'm sorry that came across as a cheap shot. It was not meant that way. That is one of my basic problems with Mormonism: it lacks any morality other than obedience. Abdicating moral authority to another human being is dangerous stuff.

Arguably, another cheap shot.

I disagree, but we have already discussed that.

It teaches us to follow our own testimonies and consciences - since the very acceptance of that obedience is a covenant we freely accept.

It's called "self-determination".

I'm sorry if you did not understand that as an 8 year old. My son did before he was 9 and was not baptized until he was ready, and the same with my daughters, but they felt "ready" earlier.

If they had not understood that, they would not have been baptized.

[_Runtu]

Arguably, another cheap shot.

I disagree, but we have already discussed that.

It teaches us to follow our own testimonies and consciences - since the very acceptance of that obedience is a covenant we freely accept.

It's called "self-determination".

I'm sorry if you did not understand that as an 8 year old. My son did before he was 9 and was not baptized until he was ready, and the same with my daughters, but they felt "ready" earlier.

If they had not understood that, they would not have been baptized.

Gee, 40 years in the church, and I missed that. D'oh!

In all seriousness, the version of the church you seem to believe in is quite foreign to me. If you think we were taught "self-determination" and to follow our consciences, you clearly have not served a mission.

[_mfbukowski]

.... the version of the church you seem to believe in is quite foreign to me.....

I guess so.

[_Themis]

So the central insight is this: WHY PRETEND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT WE CANNOT SEE OR EXPERIENCE- WHY NOT JUST BE HONEST AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT- THE EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIENCING.

We don't pretend. New things are experienced all the time suggesting that there is something out there beyond our current expereinces or current ability to expereince pr perceive. Now the idea that there is something out there beyond our ability to perceive or expereince now or ever does not come science but from many religious ideas.

And I would maintain that is precisely what science does. "When I add this amount of what we define as "sodium" to this amount of what we define as "chlorine" I always get this amount of what we define as "sodium chloride" which is also known as "salt".

Science deals with what it can experience, but good scientists are always aware that there are most likely things beyond our expereinces, which is vital to the scientific en-devour. If not we would have far less discovery's today.

But there are also private experiences no one else shares, like what I dreamed last night, who I am falling in love with, what I am thinking, why I don't like that guy, etc.

Private expereinces are shareable at least to some degree.

All of these factors are based "subjective" experience that no one knows but each of us individually- and indeed it is in a state of subjectivity that we live our lives.

Not really. many private expereinces are knowable to some degree. I see a child with a skinned knee I know to some degree what they are going through having gone through it myself on more then one occasion.

I would also maintain that this is where we also find religious belief and what we as Mormons call "testimony".

Remember you are talking to Mormons here, even if some of us Mormon do not believe all of the Churches claims.

And I would say that the way we "know what's right for us"- is ultimately by the same criteria we use in the "objective" world- that is, "what works". Only we can know what works for us- what gives us what we need to get through the trials of life, who to love, what school to go to, who to marry, whether or not I should become a pilot or a professor or a farmer.

One method is very objective and reliable and the other is not for many different reasons. I'm sure there are many drug addicts who know what is right for them, and if it was not for some who said they knew better what is right for them they would be dead now. I know a girl who thought she knew what was best for her when she married a friend of mine. I didn't know her so I never said anything, but got to know her after she was divorced. She wishes someone had told her so she could have had better information to make these decisions about. The same with the church. Just because someone believes soemthing is best for them or is the best thing to make them happy or successful does not mean it is, and yes many times others may know better.

All of those are subjective decisions to be made and defined subjectively by the criteria of "what works"

One of the reasons that in many cases it does not work even though one may think it does. Would you have interfered with the heavens gate people saving there lives even though they though they believed what they were doing was best for them and their future happiness aboard that alien ship?

Arguably, another cheap shot.

I think that is an incorrect and unfair. Runtu was expressing his opinion even though you may disagree with it he never meant it as a cheap shot and I think you may know that. Obedience is harped on even though the church will not force it on non-members, it does on it's member if they want to stay members. It's not the first time you have made declarations of what the church is that others like Darth have shown is incorrect with evidence. I understand you like many NOM's see the church differently and as long as you keep quiet about some things you wont get into trouble.

I'm sorry if you did not understand that as an 8 year old. My son did before he was 9 and was not baptized until he was ready, and the same with my daughters, but they felt "ready" earlier.

Now this is a cheap shot.

[_mfbukowski]

Now this is a cheap shot.

Ok, if it was, it was not intended to be and I apologize.

[_Themis]

Ok, if it was, it was not intended to be and I apologize.

That's fine, but you should be open that Runtu statement was not meant as a cheap shot either.