The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_subgenius]

Another dodge.

i always duck when crap is being thrown

...I don't recall anything you gave that explained what your position was.

this is not my fault nor my problem

I showed that yes even that is being interpreted.

it should be noted that you "claiming" something is not the same thing as "showing"....i interpret "showing" as meaning you would actually provide evidence or a line of reasoning which concluded - you have done neither with regards t just about every claim you make.

Maybe you could provide your definition of self evident it so I might know where you stand on it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=self-evident

I have yet to see an example given that did not require interpretation....

the best example is the very thought you have that you are conscious....no interpretation required and it exists without any reasonable question.

I am not saying for sure that ir is, but just bringing up a reasonable possibility. I think drugs and scientific research is showing evidence for just that, but I remain open to other possibilities. You are the one asserting that it is coming from a divine being, and that is how we should be evaluating religious claims. You need to back up why you think it has to be a divine being, and why it couldn't be the body creating it.

what you are saying is actually not a reasonable possibility....its just plain old imaginary.

Ok, here is a direct response to the rather absurd version of physicalism that you are proposing.

take your brain out of your skull and you divide it into two, and you put one half into one otherwise empty skull and the other half into another otherwise empty skull. And if that’s not enough to produce two conscious persons, you add bits to each of these brains from my identical clone and then you start these operating and you have two living persons with conscious lives. But one does not know which is you – it may be that number 1 is you and it maybe that number 2 is you and it maybe that neither are you. But one of those answers must be correct. And that again illustrates the point that one could know everything that has happened to bodies (what has happened to every atom of what was previously your brain) and yet not know what has happened to you. Therefore being "you" must involve something else as well as your body, and that something else is not another property – it’s not another mental experience; because one can know all about the thoughts and feelings of the subsequent persons without knowing which is you. It is having an essential part, a substance which is the essential part of you (and has properties), a soul.

physical events vary from each other only in respect of a few measurable factors such as location, velocity, mass, spin etc. <-----quantifiable
Mental events vary from each other in innumerable non-quantifiable way. <------non-quantifiable

For your particular "what if" theory (or for it to be a reasonable possibility) you need general functional laws that determine how a certain sort of variation will give rise to another sort of variation; that is to say - your theory is only "possible" (or an actual theory) if the variations are variations in quantifiable respects – otherwise we are just left with a collection of separate causal connections. - and thus you make the following combinations of atoms gave rise to souls and their mental lives, without that causal activity arising from the previous powers of atom - your theory fails because you can not integrate into a theory which explains its interactions.

[_Themis]

this is not my fault nor my problem

Actually it is your fault, and your problem if you ever want to have people understand your position. and then back it up.

it should be noted that you "claiming" something is not the same thing as "showing"....i interpret "showing" as meaning you would actually provide evidence or a line of reasoning which concluded - you have done neither with regards t just about every claim you make.

I used your own example to show that interpretation was involved. Show me one that does not.

the best example is the very thought you have that you are conscious....no interpretation required and it exists without any reasonable question.

Without interpretation, you can have no meaning. You have to have some meaning to the word or idea of consciousness, therefore interpretation is involved. Any other examples. :)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=self-evident

Nothing there precludes interpretation.

what you are saying is actually not a reasonable possibility....its just plain old imaginary.

You mean imaginary like your spiritual expereinces. :) You still avoid this issue, and it is a very reasonable possibility. Interesting.

Ok, here is a direct response to the rather absurd version of physicalism that you are proposing.

My version is held by many including many believing members. Again the LDS church teaches that the spirit is physical, but of a different nature. Your example is irrelevant to the discussion. I am not talking about consciousness, but I would say your computer takes on a life of it's own that would not be possible unless certain atoms coming together in a particular way.

your theory fails because you can not integrate into a theory which explains its interactions.

I am not sure what theory you are referring to.

[_subgenius]

.....I am not sure what theory you are referring to.

[_Themis]

.....I am not sure what theory you are referring to.

I see you still can't have a real discussion, or answer simple questions.

[_Alfredo]

Subgenius,

Don't have time for an extended response, so I'll try and clarify the distinction required to understand my critique. I'm convinced straying from this point seems to be preventing any progress between us. This distinction is based on very simple and evident observations, and I'm a bit suspicious you've yet to focus on the problem these observations show.

First, I'm not convinced we can be certain at all that any one revelation is true, so when I use the term "revelation", I am referring to the claim that any revelation is true. That is, I am referring to revelations as open questions. The truth or falsehood of any revelation is to be determined.

This is remarkably easy to understand. I'm not trying to presuppose anything about revelation. Try to work with me to progress from this stance to another you find preferable. Just follow along until you think I've made an assumption which is not supported, and tell me what you think.

So, the necessary distinction is based on the following observations:

Religionists are convinced that some revelations as true, but reject incompatible revelations as false.
While incompatible revelations are rejected by some religionists, those same revelations are convincing to other religionists.
All religionists defend their respective revelations as convincing given their personal experience of revelation or the qualia of revelation.

The relevant distinction required to understand my critique is between two categories of experience:

The convincing experiences of revelations which are false.
The convincing experiences of revelations which are true.

If you don't get the idea by now, I'm not sure what we can discuss.

If it is possible to be extremely convinced, based on experience or qualia, of a revelation which is not true...

...what degree of certainty can we apply to any one revelation as within one category and not the other, and why?

My critique of revelation is to point out that there is no possible reason to consider an experience as in one category which isn't as equally convincing as the possible reasons to put the same revelation in the opposite category. Unfortunately for religionists, the only refutation of this null judgement is a defense circularly based on a single unsupported presupposition.

Religionists presuppose the existence of valid reasons to consider an experience in one category and not the other, to explain why they believe there are any valid reasons at all to consider the same.

The reasoning religionists offer in response to the question of how we can tell which experiences fall into which categories fallaciously begs the question by presupposing there are valid reasons to categorize certain experiences.

That is, there are no convincing reasons offered by religionists to consider any revelation as true or false. Based on all given information--including the reported qualia of revelation--the truth of any one revelations is just as likely as its falsehood, until relevant information is provided.

[_subgenius]

....My critique of revelation is to point out that there is no possible reason to consider an experience as in one category which isn't as equally convincing....

i am not convinced of this with regards to this context. The distinction between self-evident and interpretation is not a gray area for me, and for you to persist without understanding that distinction is a concern.

That is, there are no convincing reasons offered by religionists to consider any revelation as true or false. Based on all given information--including the reported qualia of revelation--the truth of any one revelations is just as likely as its falsehood, until relevant information is provided.

sure there are convincing reasons...through the application - which is based on faith, and faith is the basis of every and all human action. I use an alarm clock is because it works most of the time...some times it has failed, because of my own error or it was just faulty....but those times, those "exceptions" have not changed the "rule" (which is that an alarm clock works).

i applaud your persistent attempts to frame some sort of cognitive dissonance associated with LDS Revelations.
But i do not see the idea of continued revelation in the LDS church as bound up as you are attempting to show.
I am not going to deny that something like Moroni's challenge involves presupposition but that is another discussion.
However, you seem to make special question at times about "degree of certainty" - to which the response is quite simple...a considerable high degree of certainty.
Por que? because revelations are not like a bushel of apples...one bad one does not spoil the lot.
It would seem that you have narrowed your argument to the notion that a revelation is made in a vacuum and received in a vacuum - yet Mormon doctrine (and most of Christianity) supports just the opposite. Almost every instruction for receiving revelation, confirmation, and guidance is founded on the idea that one most "pray" and "study"....the two are seldom, if ever, exclusive of each other. I do not suppose there is any evidence or doctrine that considers revelation(s) as a spontaneous event.


"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but whoever walks wisely will be delivered." -Proverbs 28:26

"I do not consider the evidence of personal testimony as relevant to scholarly argument." - John E Clark

[_Alfredo]

i am not convinced of this with regards to this context. The distinction between self-evident and interpretation is not a gray area for me, and for you to persist without understanding that distinction is a concern.

I understand that you believe there exists experiences which are self-evident and require no interpretation. You haven't convinced me that there is anything about the experience of revelation which can be described as "self-evident" which couldn't also possibly apply to the experience of an incompatible revelation, and you have no way of telling.

You haven't convinced me that the experiences which are self-evident actually originate in what is "self-evident".

At this point, I could describe any possible experience as self-evident of any possible truth and I would have matched your argument, as you've presented it.

The experience of something being self-evident is not necessarily attached to something that's actually true. It is very possible to experience things that are not real, including the qualia described as self-evident.

I can grant that self-evident revelations which are true exist. It's possible, although suspiciously unfalsifiable. But this still doesn't help us decided which claims to self-evident revelations are actually true.

There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is true.
There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is not actually true.

How do you tell the difference?

sure there are convincing reasons...through the application - which is based on faith, and faith is the basis of every and all human action. I use an alarm clock is because it works most of the time...some times it has failed, because of my own error or it was just faulty....but those times, those "exceptions" have not changed the "rule" (which is that an alarm clock works).

But it would be absurd to have faith that the alarm clock will be set magically. There's a very clear difference.

The problem is that faith is applied in many incompatible cases.

Por que? because revelations are not like a bushel of apples...one bad one does not spoil the lot.

You still don't get it.

Most of the apples are spoiled. The point is that we can't tell which ones are, in fact, unspoiled.

Claiming your particular apple is unspoiled because you've experienced it doesn't help us because everyone claims to experience their apple as unspoiled.

Faith is a helplessly broken and epistemically unreliable idea. Faith is incapable of discriminating between subjects of faith, yet distinction between subjects of faith is required to make sense of any of them.

Many claim the experience of the apple being unspoiled is self-evident. We know that not all the apples are unspoiled, so there's a serious flaw in the way we think about apples and a serious flaw in the way we think the qualia of self-evidence applies to reality concerning apples.

[_subgenius]

You haven't convinced me that the experiences which are self-evident actually originate in what is "self-evident".

then you have no idea what the term means...if it were for me to "convince" you that something was self-evident then it would not be self-evident...it would be me-evident or rather it would just be "convincing".

At this point, I could describe any possible experience as self-evident of any possible truth and I would have matched your argument, as you've presented it.

you could, but you would be wrong with regards to this topic. something being self-evident for you is not what "makes" it self-evident to me. It is not your testimony that confirms things, but rather the Spirit that does.

The experience of something being self-evident is not necessarily attached to something that's actually true. It is very possible to experience things that are not real, including the qualia described as self-evident.

arguable. self-evident, by its very nature is true. You can not claim that you are not conscious, because that very claim proves itself false.
i have objected to your bait-and-switch with "qualia" before, and i fear your fixation with it in this is a fallacy. Qualia is far too ambiguous as you have been using it and too arguable of a term for what your OP proposed.

I can grant that self-evident revelations which are true exist. It's possible, although suspiciously unfalsifiable. But this still doesn't help us decided which claims to self-evident revelations are actually true.

which is the point...you do not "decide" for it is already manifest.

Code: Select all

There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is true.
There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is not actually true.

i disagree with this dissection, but do not consider it pertinent at the moment.

How do you tell the difference?

i will give the same answer i have given before, and before....application

But it would be absurd to have faith that the alarm clock will be set magically. There's a very clear difference.

Not applicable to the point.

The problem is that faith is applied in many incompatible cases.

i disagree, you are trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Most of the apples are spoiled. The point is that we can't tell which ones are, in fact, unspoiled.

now you are grasping at straws....again, look at the apple, bite the apple, etc..

Claiming your particular apple is unspoiled because you've experienced it doesn't help us because everyone claims to experience their apple as unspoiled.

.....

Faith is a helplessly broken and epistemically unreliable idea. Faith is incapable of discriminating between subjects of faith, yet distinction between subjects of faith is required to make sense of any of them.

you are speculating.
every human action depends upon faith...otherwise you could not even set your own alarm clock.

Many claim the experience of the apple being unspoiled is self-evident. We know that not all the apples are unspoiled, so there's a serious flaw in the way we think about apples and a serious flaw in the way we think the qualia of self-evidence applies to reality concerning apples.

what do you mean by "reality"? you mean like modal realism? or like the matrix?
(here kitty kitty)

[_Alfredo]

then you have no idea what the term means...if it were for me to "convince" you that something was self-evident then it would not be self-evident...it would be me-evident or rather it would just be "convincing".

I don't think we're getting anywhere because I suspect you're using a self-serving and unreliable definition of self-evident.

There could be many different types of self-evident I can think of.

Self-evident subjective truths. (Contained within the self, such as consciousness.)
Self-evident objective truths. (Outside the self...)

Which category are you talking about?

Both?

self-evident, by its very nature is true.

I can think of many things which might be experienced as self-evident which aren't by their nature objectively true. There are many studies in brain disorders (especially dissociative identities and dis-unity of consciousness) which show we are quite capable of experiences which can only be considered as a subjective self-evident truth, but clearly false in every objective sense. I gave quite a few examples of other disconnects between self-evident subjective experiences and objective truth earlier, which I've reposted below.

The point is that there are many ways to substantiate subjective truths using qualia which may be described as self-evident, but I don't see any standard which bridges the gap between a subjective qualia of self-evidence as actually evident of the related objective truth, such as the Spirit. Sure, it's possible there could be a self-evident experience which verifies an objective truth, but it is very possible that a "self-evident" experience may make subjectively evident something which is objectively false.

So, when I said:

There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is true.
There are claims to experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is not actually true.

Reading between the lines, I mean:

There are claims to subjective experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is objectively true.
There are claims to subjective experiences which are described as self-evident revelations, while the revelation is not actually objectively true.

Given the possibility that any revelation could fall into either category, we must have some way to distinguish between these experiences, and this falls into the same form of critique my OP made.

To question whether we can verify a possible objective truth given a subjective self-evident experience is not answered by reasserting it is possible. That's already given. I've already granted the possibility that a revelation may fall into the objectively true category. You can't explain how to recognize when it has fallen into either category. Explaining nothing with a circular answer is all you can do, because "self-evident", as you present it, is a broken idea.

This is the context in which I offered these questions (with clarifications):

So please, subgenius, explain to everyone how to determine the relevant difference between subjective qualia which are sufficient to accept as evident of the related objective truth and what subjective qualia are not sufficient to accept as evident of the related objective truth?


Is the qualia of God's dis-confirming answer to prayer concerning the Book of Mormon sufficient?
Is the qualia of being told by Allah the Koran is the perfect word of God sufficient?
Is the qualia of orixa sufficient?
Is the qualia of being reincarnated sufficient?
Is the qualia of being one with the universe and the transcendence of the self sufficient?
Is the qualia of being f****d by an alien and giving birth to a hybrid baby sufficient?

Where do you draw the line?



(And while you're answering those questions, you might also answer another of my curiosities... Is it possible that a supernatural something exists which can create an experience which may be self-evident of something which is objectively false? Can something, like the Devil, convince you of something false by creating the self-evident experience of that something as if it were true?)

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE:

subgenius, sentences like

(now i feel bad.....you might actually be r*******)

. . . do not belong in the Celestial Forum.

Alfredo, sentences like

Is the qualia of being f****d by an alien and giving birth to a hybrid baby sufficient?

. . . do not belong in the Celestial Forum.

When participating in the Celestial Forum, please keep all your words, phrases, and sentences Celestial. Thank you.]