The Boundaries of Experience

[_GR33N]

Flatland is a great place to start for wisdom on this issue.

Thank you for that link...

[_sock puppet]

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.

What then is the Mormon link? This is, after all, Mormon Discussions.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Just 8 minutes before this post, you posted in this same thread to having no ulterior motive. Here you post that very motive. Simon, if you want credibility, don't deny what you then, minutes later, reveal.

[Guest]

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.

But the optometrist has objective metrics against which he or she can measure a person's description of his/her subjective perception (that's how they can tell if you need glasses).

If a description of certain feelings becomes almost standard, then you have refuted your own previous statement that experiencing what is claimed to be the Holy Ghost is unique to each individual. But where is the objective metric against which this is being measured? How do we know that the way the Church tells people (and tells missionaries to tell people) to interpret their feelings is accurate?

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.

How? How is this interpretation of subjective experience being tested against objective reality for accuracy?

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.

Exactly. "The Church is true/the story in the Book of Mormon really happened/Joseph Smith was a prophet" does not logically follow from "I feel good/happy/at peace/calm." How does one know that the factual propositions the Church wants people to read into these experiences really are being validated by those experiences? How do you know that a testimony is anything other than operant conditioning by the Church for people to associate their feelings with the Church's dogma?

ETA: Especially when the Church tells people that if they have a spiritual experience that is contrary to LDS dogma and/or priesthood authority, they are a priori being deceived by their own emotions and/or Satan?

E.g.,

Boyd K. Packer, "The Candle of the Lord", Ensign, Jan. 1983

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.

Avoid like a plague those who claim that some great spiritual experience authorizes them to challenge the constituted priesthood authority in the Church.

And of course it's a foregone conclusion that it's not possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual vis-a-vis "the Church is true," or possible for the adversary to trick people into thinking that "the Church is true." Right?

[_Joseph]

Trying to get into a discussion of exestential and etherial topics when you consistently refuse to answer simple questions is dumber than an Obama Chia doll.

[_Darth J]

Trying to get into a discussion of exestential and etherial topics when you consistently refuse to answer simple questions is dumber than an Obama Chia doll.

Speak for yourself. Hail Chia Obama!

[_Simon Belmont]

Trying to get into a discussion of exestential and etherial topics when you consistently refuse to answer simple questions is dumber than an Obama Chia doll.

Joseph, get the hell off my thread.

[_Buffalo]

Trying to get into a discussion of exestential and etherial topics when you consistently refuse to answer simple questions is dumber than an Obama Chia doll.

Joseph, get the hell off my thread.

[_sock puppet]

Trying to get into a discussion of exestential and etherial topics when you consistently refuse to answer simple questions is dumber than an Obama Chia doll.

Joseph, get the hell off my thread.

Are you, Simon, going to get the hell off of his threads?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]