History vs "What Really Happened"- New Article Illustrates the Difference

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is where I'm having the disconnect with what you're saying.  You're accepting that we shouldn't throw out scholarship, science, literature.  But then you're saying this.  

From my vantage point your second statement is essentially saying that subjective experiences mean that scholarship and science shouldn't be trusted.  Are you saying this?  If not, can you explain how you can appreciate science and scholarship, but at the same time say that reality is unknowable. 

I believe reality is knowable to some degree, but I do believe that 100% absolute certainty about reality is unknowable.  Its the 100% part that I am unwilling to accept.  I recognize that we are limited and our perceptions are limited.  So absolute certainty is something I'm uncomfortable with.  However, that doesn't mean our interpretations and perceptions of reality don't correspond to some degree of accuracy.  Maybe 10% maybe 50% Maybe only 2%.  But some degree of correspondence seems to be valuable, and those observations/descriptions of reality that correspond more closely than others seem to have a higher degree of value than those descriptions that correspond with less accuracy.  

You've convinced me that all we can experience is a human level experience and that this is limited.  So I understand what you're saying there.  I'm way less well read than Clark and I've read many of your back and forth discussions but I get lost because I don't have the education about philosophical debates, so I can't help there.  I'm trying to use my brain with the very limited understanding that I have to work out these problems, and I admit I'm very naive and uneducated on these complex subjects.  Appreciate your willingness to interact with me anyway, I'm learning a little at a time. 

Ok let's take this slow and easy this time, line by line.

Let's do a mental science experiment and see if our feedback is given to us in human perceptions of reality or reality itself.

How would prove the boiling point of water?

First of  all  I presume you might start with a  pot of water.

What is "water"  and  how do you know it is water and not gasoline?  Are human perceptions involved?   I think boiling gasoline might prove hazardous.

Or perhaps we  can  cut  it  short and agree that what we can be certain about are our perceptions that it is, what  we humans call "water" described as H2O and other sense perceptions confirming its definition as "water"

It's not "gasoline" because we 1- got it outof a water tap., 2- doesn't smell like the stuff called"gasoline" nor does it have the various sense perceptions which by  definition characterize what is called "gasoline".

But how do we know it is water "itself" and not just "perceived as water"?

We cannot.  We cannot get outside of the perceptions of water and the generally agreed upon descriptions of water to get to "water itself"- which we cannot even define.

Is  it strings in string theory?  Is it particles or waves or subatomic particles or all of the above?  But aren't those just fancy "perceptions" using fancy gizmos to extend our senses still giving us sensible information in graphs or charts or readings confirming whatever it is we are trying to confirm?

How do we get outside of sensing the readings on the machines?   And what do those human numbers indicate but human measurement?  And how did the water get into the tap independent of human intervention?

What IS "water as it is" TOTALLY independent of human perceptions??

Are you certain of your perceptions of water or water itself whatever that is, which cannot even be defined by physics??

http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

Quote

 

Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding

Stanford university physicist leonard susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles. Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality

Susskind worries that reality might be beyond our limited capacity to visualize it. He is not the first to express such a concern. In the 1920s and 1930s the founders of quantum mechanics split into realist and antirealist camps. Albert Einstein and other realists held that the whole point of physics is to come up with some mental picture, however imperfect, of what objective reality is. Antirealists such as Niels Bohr said those mental images are fraught with peril; scientists should confine themselves to making and testing empirical predictions. Susskind thinks the contradictions and paradoxes of modern physics vindicate Bohr’s wariness.

 

 

 

I am with Bohr and the gang.

So does that sound like I am against science?

Science is about making and testing PREDICTIONS of PERCEPTIONS and not about "realty itself"

"IF I connect this stuff to my gizmo-meter if it is stuff X, the gizmometer will show 18.6894"

The gizmometer shows 18.6894!!

We are rich!! AND-  We have cured cancer!!

That is 100% human perception of a humanly constructed gizmo meter constructed precisely to give us humanly perceivable readings of whatever it is we want to measure in human terms

Never once is it about "things in themselves"- it is about humanly observed DATA, observed by human eyes etc.

Rorty: "The world is out there but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

ALMA 32: "Try it to see if it bears good fruit"

Moroni 10: "Ask God and he will manifest the truth unto you"

These are all statements based on human perceptions,and DESCRIPTIONS not on "the world as it is" or "things in themselves"

Edited May 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That was supposed to be short- it just kept growing. 

This is from William James.   Seat belts on- it's gonna get bumpy for beginners- says essentially the same thing as above

https://www.britannica.com/topic/radical-empiricism

Quote

 

Radical empiricism, a theory of knowledge and a metaphysics (theory of Being) advanced by William James, an American pragmatist philosopher and psychologist, based on the pragmatic theory of truth and the principle of pure experience, which contends that the relations between things are at least as real as the things themselves, that their function is real, and that no hidden substrata are necessary to account for the various clashes and coherences of the world.

James summarized the theory as consisting of (1) a postulate: “The only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience”; (2) a factual statement: “The relations between things, conjunctive as well as disjunctive, are just as much matters of direct particular experience, neither more so nor less so, than the things themselves,” which serves to distinguish radical empiricism from the empiricism of the Scottish philosopher David Hume; and (3) a generalized conclusion: “The parts of experience hold together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience. The directly apprehended universe needs, in short, no extraneous transempirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure.” The result of this theory of knowledge is a metaphysics that refutes the rationalist belief in a being that transcends experience, which gives unity to the world.

 

 

 

Translation:

Why worry about "things in themselves when perceptions of things are all we have anyway, and work just as well as worrying about "things in themselves"??

Just drop worrying about "things" and let's argue about perceptions instead!!

All we are doing is dropping irrelevant zeros!

Edited May 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

I had a question about the church's modern version of history, in Chapter 2 - Hear Him

https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him

"Peering into the light, Joseph saw God the Father standing above him in the air. His face was 
brighter and more glorious than anything Joseph had ever seen. God called him by name and 
pointed to another being who appeared beside Him. “This is My Beloved Son,” He said. “Hear Him!”

This implies that the Son did not appear at the same time with the Father.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 17, "It no sooner appeared than I found 
myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two 
Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of 
them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. 
Hear Him!"

This seems to imply they appeared together at the same time.

Would someone clarify.

Thanks,
Jim

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/9/2018 at 9:54 PM, Gray said:

Yes, history is a construction. The events are gone forever and can't be brought back. History is the only means at even approaching "what really happened", flawed as it is.

Where are Bill, Ted, Rufus, and that darned phone booth when we need them? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096928/  

[Kenngo1969]

Mever Nind.  

Edited May 19, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a question about the church's modern version of history, in Chapter 2 - Hear Him

https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him

"Peering into the light, Joseph saw God the Father standing above him in the air. His face was 
brighter and more glorious than anything Joseph had ever seen. God called him by name and 
pointed to another being who appeared beside Him. “This is My Beloved Son,” He said. “Hear Him!”

This implies that the Son did not appear at the same time with the Father.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 17, "It no sooner appeared than I found 
myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two 
Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of 
them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. 
Hear Him!"

This seems to imply they appeared together at the same time.

Would someone clarify.

Thanks,
Jim

I would suggest you look up First Vision accounts.

There have been many discussions about that subject here on this board there are articles on the fair Mormon site their are articles every where. I'm not sure that that's the best subject for this particular thread because there are so many elsewhere. Or you could start another thread based on that question. The bottom line is there are multiple First Vision accounts some of which mention it that way others mentioned two-personages. I know that if I give an account of something that happened in my childhood it is never the same twice. Sometimes I remember some details sometimes I skip those details. It depends on what the reason is for me to tell the story.

Either that bothers you or it doesn't.

Edited May 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

 

12 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a question about the church's modern version of history, in Chapter 2 - Hear Him

https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him

"Peering into the light, Joseph saw God the Father standing above him in the air. His face was 
brighter and more glorious than anything Joseph had ever seen. God called him by name and 
pointed to another being who appeared beside Him. “This is My Beloved Son,” He said. “Hear Him!”

This implies that the Son did not appear at the same time with the Father.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 17, "It no sooner appeared than I found 
myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two 
Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of 
them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. 
Hear Him!"

This seems to imply they appeared together at the same time.

Would someone clarify.

Thanks,
Jim

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Kenngo1969
Added FAIRMormon Link Re: 1st Vision Accts

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a question about the church's modern version of history, in Chapter 2 - Hear Him

https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him

"Peering into the light, Joseph saw God the Father standing above him in the air. His face was 
brighter and more glorious than anything Joseph had ever seen. God called him by name and 
pointed to another being who appeared beside Him. “This is My Beloved Son,” He said. “Hear Him!”

This implies that the Son did not appear at the same time with the Father.

 

I don't get that impression.  It does not specify when Jesus appeared by the Father.  Was it 2 seconds or 5 minutes?  Plus this simply is someone retelling the story other than Joseph while the other account is Joseph telling the story.   What is important is that Joseph saw both of them.  One should not waste too much time worrying about trivial issues that really don't affect the experience itself.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

Thanks.

I was just too lazy to look it up.

Besides I was writing a talk and put that off for too long. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

I was just too lazy to look it up.

Besides I was writing a talk and put that off for too long. 

Best wishes.  May The Spirit be with you.