Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 5

[_mfbukowski]

"How could the person who tells you "girl X loves you" actually know that the girl X actually loves you? This person has no more access to girl X's feelings of love (if they exist) than you do. Introducing this person who tells you "girl X loves you" can't help bridge the gap between your experiences and the subjective experiences (feelings) of girl X."

Now do you see where mfbukowski's example went off the tracks?

I am remembering now talking to you over at MADB and having the same problem.

You are really missing my point totally.

The point is that when someone tells you that someone loves you, no, they CAN'T know that what they are telling you is true. But that point is irrelevant.

Notice what I actually said:

Post subject: Re: Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 5
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:08 pm

Look at "I love you" vs "She loves you"

Very different statements epistemologically.

"Why do you think she loves me?" "Because she told me, and can't you see the way she looks at you when she talks to you?"

We now have a couple of reasons to think that it is perhaps true that she really does love me. Of course she could still be lying, but we have 1- been given data from another person and 2- been given an observation from that individual that they have "seen" "the way she looks at me" and that person has actually suggested that such data is verifiable for me also- ie: I should be able to also perceive that "she looks at me as if she loves me".

We have entered into an area of "objectivity" which is never obtainable when we simply as an observer look at a person who has just told us "I love you". Admittedly it is not horribly far up on the "objectivity index" but we do have some data which might indicate that she does in fact love me. If we get a second witness, and a third, and then all her friends tell me that she loves me, and I notice her acting in a certain way, I may reach a point where it is reasonable to say something like "Yes, she does love me". Third person statements are verifiable by observation.

But first person statements are not.

If I say "I love you", no one knows if it is a true statement or not except me.

Nowhere did I say that the person who said "she loves you" actually KNOWS that she loves you. In fact in the last line of the above quote, I say that the only one who can know a "subjective statement" is true is the one who makes the statement.

You are looking at this from the point of view of the "person who tells you that girl x loves you" but that is not even the point of view I am talking about.

I am talking about MY pov, not hers. I cannot know if anyone loves me or not, or if the person who tells me someone loves me is correct or not.

The entire point of my above quote is that when someone does in fact tell me that "someone loves me" what I have is an increased level of EVIDENCE that it may be true.

We have reached a higher level of evidence, however slight, that in fact someone MAY love me.

We have "upped" the level of objectivity of that belief or "hunch" or whatever you want to call it.

This is really the same point Nagel makes in his famous paper "What is it like to be a Bat"?

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/nagel.htm

While an account of the physical basis of mind must explain many things, this appears to be the most difficult. It is impossible to exclude the phenomenological features of experience from a reduction in the same way that one excludes the phenomenal features of an ordinary substance from a physical or chemical reduction of it—namely, by explaining them as effects on the minds of human observers. 4 If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.

This last sentence is the idea that I am seeking to develop.

Linguistically the point of that last sentence is exactly what I am saying in the post in question. that there is a difference in point of view between first person (singular) statements and all others, and that any objective theory will "abandon that point of view".

[_mfbukowski]

Oh, I read the thread; I just understand that what you're saying is ultimately designed to support the idea that your religious belief, and that of your compatriots, is reasonable. Is this not the case? If it is, then we can cut to the chase and discuss whether the "subjective experiences of [somebody else] could produce a new, justified belief in [me]" -- i.e., whether what you're saying could ever be the basis for a persuasive argument for your position. If this isn't what you're saying, then I hope you'll forgive me for assuming that your thread was on-topic for this board.

I think the evidence shows that you have not understood from the first what this thread is about.

The point of the thread is that there are strong parallels between post modernism and Mormonism and you are arrogantly assuming to know what I am arguing without reading what I am saying. If you cannot argue the points being made, I will just ignore you.

[_JohnStuartMill]

"How could the person who tells you "girl X loves you" actually know that the girl X actually loves you? This person has no more access to girl X's feelings of love (if they exist) than you do. Introducing this person who tells you "girl X loves you" can't help bridge the gap between your experiences and the subjective experiences (feelings) of girl X."

Now do you see where mfbukowski's example went off the tracks?

I am remembering now talking to you over at MADB and having the same problem.

You are really missing my point totally.

The point is that when someone tells you that someone loves you, no, they CAN'T know that what they are telling you is true. But that point is irrelevant.

Notice what I actually said:

Post subject: Re: Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 5
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:08 pm

Look at "I love you" vs "She loves you"

Very different statements epistemologically.

"Why do you think she loves me?" "Because she told me, and can't you see the way she looks at you when she talks to you?"

We now have a couple of reasons to think that it is perhaps true that she really does love me. Of course she could still be lying, but we have 1- been given data from another person and 2- been given an observation from that individual that they have "seen" "the way she looks at me" and that person has actually suggested that such data is verifiable for me also- ie: I should be able to also perceive that "she looks at me as if she loves me".

We have entered into an area of "objectivity" which is never obtainable when we simply as an observer look at a person who has just told us "I love you". Admittedly it is not horribly far up on the "objectivity index" but we do have some data which might indicate that she does in fact love me. If we get a second witness, and a third, and then all her friends tell me that she loves me, and I notice her acting in a certain way, I may reach a point where it is reasonable to say something like "Yes, she does love me". Third person statements are verifiable by observation.

But first person statements are not.

If I say "I love you", no one knows if it is a true statement or not except me.

Nowhere did I say that the person who said "she loves you" actually KNOWS that she loves you. In fact in the last line of the above quote, I say that the only one who can know a "subjective statement" is true is the one who makes the statement.

Then the two statements are in fact NOT very different epistemologically, which has been my contention with you this entire time. Contrary to your claim, verifying the statement "I love you" is done in pretty much the same way as the statement "she loves you".

You are looking at this from the point of view of the "person who tells you that girl x loves you" but that is not even the point of view I am talking about.

Not ultimately, no. I'm looking at this from the point of view of the "you" in "she loves you" and "I love you". The person who tells you that "girl X loves you" is only important because they inform "you"'s point of view.

The entire point of my above quote is that when someone does in fact tell me that "someone loves me" what I have is an increased level of EVIDENCE that it may be true.

No; this person's subjective experience is just as inscrutable as that of the person saying "I love you". If they offer publicly-available information to you as evidence, that's a different ballgame. But keep in mind that the "I" in "I love you" can also offer publicly-available information, as in your "the way she looks at you" example, e.g. "can't you tell from the way I look at you that I love you?" or "of course I love you; would I have married you if I didn't?" The chasm you've drawn between the epistemological statuses of the two statements just doesn't exist.

his is really the same point Nagel makes in his famous paper "What is it like to be a Bat"?

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/nagel.htm

By the lights of your example, we could potentially verify what it's like to be a bat if some third person gave us data relating to this question, but not if we examined the data ourselves. That's silly.

[_Runtu]

I think the evidence shows that you have not understood from the first what this thread is about.

The point of the thread is that there are strong parallels between post modernism and Mormonism.

Um, no, not even close. I haven't discussed postmodernism yet, so how anyone be arguing for strong parallels?

[_mfbukowski]

I think the evidence shows that you have not understood from the first what this thread is about.

The point of the thread is that there are strong parallels between post modernism and Mormonism.

Um, no, not even close. I haven't discussed postmodernism yet, so how anyone be arguing for strong parallels?

I don't know what to say.
Five threads, all on postmodernism and you haven't discussed postmodernism.

I think it is appropriate that Alice in Wonderland is coming out soon. I like your hat.

[_Runtu]

I don't know what to say.
Five threads, all on postmodernism and you haven't discussed postmodernism.

I think it is appropriate that Alice in Wonderland is coming out soon. I like your hat.

I've already explained to you that until now, my posts have been giving some background on the development of postmodernism, hence discussions of Romanticism, the Enlightenment, Mormon apologetics, and early twentieth-century linguistics--none of that is postmodernism. If I said I was going to post about cars but provided background posts about chariots, wagons, and carriages, would you say I've done 3 posts, all about cars?

And I'm really tired of your snarky comments. Just saying.

[_mfbukowski]

Contrary to your claim, verifying the statement "I love you" is done in pretty much the same way as the statement "she loves you".

So in order to verify that you love someone, I guess you ask others, you, closely watch your own behavior to see if you appear to smile when you are with that person, appear to want to be with them, appear to be bonded in some way to that person, appear to want to touch them, etc.

I think you must be very thin, since you have to verify with someone else whether or not you are hungry.

I am not going to respond to more of these silly points.

Runtu said:

I've already explained to you that until now, my posts have been giving some background on the development of postmodernism, hence discussions of Romanticism, the Enlightenment, Mormon apologetics, and early twentieth-century linguistics--none of that is postmodernism. If I said I was going to post about cars but provided background posts about chariots, wagons, and carriages, would you say I've done 3 posts, all about cars?

And I'm really tired of your snarky comments. Just saying.

I suppose you are right. You did say that. I apologize for being snarky.

Let me know when you get to the "good stuff" if you want to.

[_Runtu]

I suppose you are right. You did say that. I apologize for being snarky.

Let me know when you get to the "good stuff" if you want to.

The next one will be the last, so it's my last chance for good stuff (wish me luck). I have been way too busy this week to put anything together. Maybe over the weekend.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Contrary to your claim, verifying the statement "I love you" is done in pretty much the same way as the statement "she loves you".

So in order to verify that you love someone, I guess you ask others, you, closely watch your own behavior to see if you appear to smile when you are with that person, appear to want to be with them, appear to be bonded in some way to that person, appear to want to touch them, etc.

No. By verifying the statement "I love you," I was talking about verifying it when it is said by someone else. You were, too, remember?

We have entered into an area of "objectivity" which is never obtainable when we simply as an observer look at a person who has just told us "I love you".

What else could this possibly mean?

I am not going to respond to more of these silly points.

This is probably for the best, considering that you can't even keep straight what you're talking about.