The Boundaries of Experience

[_Darth J]

How is the subjective experience of Moroni's Promise, which you said is different for everyone, a reliable indicator of objective reality?

Well, first of all, I do not know that it is different for everyone, I just assumed it was. There is no way for me to know, aside from actually becoming that person, what another person feels or how they interpret their own experiences. But truth is truth, whether objective and commonly accepted, or subjective and very personal.

If it is impossible to know what another person feels or how they interpret their experiences, then how is the LDS Church justified in telling people that the Holy Ghost is telling them that the Church is true? How was it justifiable for me and every other missionary at the MTC to be instructed to tell people they were feeling the Holy Ghost when they described their emotions to us?

And how is the subjective interpretation of a subjective experience a valid and reliable way to determine claims of fact? And also, how do you know that your subjective interpretation of a subjective experience (I feel good, so the Church is true) is accurate?

[_Buffalo]

I think faith says something more along the lines of "Don't sit at all, and if you manage to not sit for the duration of your life, then after this life you'll be rewarded with the most comfortable chair possible. Then you can sit.".

Yup. Trading a real today for an imaginary tomorrow.

[_Buffalo]

If it is impossible to know what another person feels or how they interpret their experiences, then how is the LDS Church justified in telling people that the Holy Ghost is telling them that the Church is true? How was it justifiable for me and every other missionary at the MTC to be instructed to tell people they were feeling the Holy Ghost when they described their emotions to us?

And how is the subjective interpretation of a subjective experience a valid and reliable way to determine claims of fact? And also, how do you know that your subjective interpretation of a subjective experience (I feel good, so the Church is true) is accurate?

I don't know what the current manual says, but in my day the manual made it clear that you were to interpret investigator's "answer" for them. "That is the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."

[_brade]

If this is a defense of belief in certain teachings of the Church, then I have to confess that it just seems odd that the defense amounts to essentially arguing that belief in or of any part of reality is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims. Right? If belief in anything is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims, then one is on just as sure a footing as one can be with anything when one believes certain religious claims. Ta da!

[_Simon Belmont]

If this is a defense of belief in certain teachings of the Church, then I have to confess that it just seems odd that the defense amounts to essentially arguing that belief in or of any part of reality is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims. Right? If belief in anything is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims, then one is on just as sure a footing as one can be with anything when one believes certain religious claims. Ta da!

I am unsure as to why the common consensus on this thread is that I have some ulterior apologetic motive. I do not. I simply wanted to discuss, with those who may be interested, the boundaries of experience.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Simon, when does this fuzzy reality get sharp? Is there such a thing as sin?

[_Simon Belmont]

If it is impossible to know what another person feels or how they interpret their experiences, then how is the LDS Church justified in telling people that the Holy Ghost is telling them that the Church is true? How was it justifiable for me and every other missionary at the MTC to be instructed to tell people they were feeling the Holy Ghost when they described their emotions to us?

I believe it is impossible to fully understand how another person perceives experiences. However, like the optometrist determining blindness, we can measure certain things based on recurrence of certain variables. If, for example, a person does not respond at all to visual stimuli, or by measuring the level of response the optometrist measures from the patient, he or she can determine the common attributes of blindness. Likewise, when a description of certain feelings becomes almost standard, I believe missionaries are justified in explaining about the Holy Ghost.

And how is the subjective interpretation of a subjective experience a valid and reliable way to determine claims of fact?

It is not 100% reliable. But when we see recurring behavior of certain variables, we can be fairly confident in our interpretation of them.

And also, how do you know that your subjective interpretation of a subjective experience (I feel good, so the Church is true) is accurate?

That does not follow.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I've seen everything with Mopologetics now: Quantum Mormonics.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_brade]

If this is a defense of belief in certain teachings of the Church, then I have to confess that it just seems odd that the defense amounts to essentially arguing that belief in or of any part of reality is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims. Right? If belief in anything is just as nebulous as belief in certain religious claims, then one is on just as sure a footing as one can be with anything when one believes certain religious claims. Ta da!

I am unsure as to why the common consensus on this thread is that I have some ulterior apologetic motive. I do not. I simply wanted to discuss, with those who may be interested, the boundaries of experience.

Fair enough. My apologies.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Who said anything about "compelling"?

My OP ... encourages you to refer to me in the third person?

Who said "encourage"?

Sure you are:

Your "hope" is that you can get everyone to agree to your ill-conceived argument about how all "experience" is subjective (as opposed to, say, inter-subjective). That way, critics will at last have to concede that your testimony is immune to criticism.

The hope I have for this thread is to discuss, with those who are interested, the relationship between what we consider reality (a physical chair, for example) and what only some consider reality (a paranormal encounter, for example). If you are not interested in such a discussion, I invite you to post elsewhere.

No, you're not interested in that sort of discussion, Simon. An honest discussion of what you're describing would ultimately entail you having to concede that your testimony isn't "reality" in the same way as a "physical chair." (E.g., your remarks about the optometrist in relation to missionaries describing the "burning in the bosom." You agree that the optometrist measures things, but it sails right over your head that the experience of the Holy Ghost is not "measurable.")

I am unsure as to why the common consensus on this thread is that I have some ulterior apologetic motive.

It's not hard to understand. A quick review of your 3,700+ posts ought to serve as sufficient reminder. Your history of stalking, posting images of Paul O. and PP without permission, launching a stalking-fueled attack blog (in which you stole and posted Facebook images of another poster's significant other), claiming to have stolen everyone's IP addresses, etc. is reason enough for everyone to believe that you "have some ulterior apologetic motive."