What Is The "Truth"?

[Calm]

Thanks

Just in case that wasn't clear, in most cases I tend to be overly verbose, adding details and trivia because of my need to be precise and desire to be understood correctly. I believe I am able to keep things brief on this subject because I am less confident in what I know, so tend to edit things down to the essentials.

You, on the other hand, are aware of the nuances and language that give greater depth and usefulness to the concept, but because of knowing more of the implications, you try and include more information in your comments and it ends up being more confusing to those who are less familiar, but helpful to those attempting to increase their basic level of understanding....like me.

[Calm]

dup

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Our language (since we use this to define our perceptions) and experience (think of this as collection of perceptions) creates the lenses through which we interact with what we believe is reality....since we only can observe our own perception as everything must go through that filter, all we know is the reality which we create.

Someone who is blind does not exist in a world of colour, for example.

I like what the Lord has said about “language,” “words,” and “understanding:”

2 Nephi 31

:

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

2 Nephi 32

:

7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.

Mosiah 1

:

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

Ether 12

:

39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

D&C 1

:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

D&C 50

:

10 And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.

13 Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?

14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.

15 And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?

16 Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

You guys are turning what the Lord has said on its head. God uses “language,” and “reasons” with man so that man can come to “understanding”. You want to tell me the opposite—that “language” is not the means of communication, learning, and “understanding,” but of confusion and misunderstanding. It is not the means of arriving at the truth, but at error. In reality it is what you guys are teaching that doesn’t make any sense. It is darkness, and therefore it is not of God. It is false.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

Does this help any? calmoriah says things, I think more clearly than I do.

Think of our senses like "sun glasses". From the time you were born, you were fitted with dark sun glasses, and everyone else in the world was also. You and they were also fitted with special gloves which prevented you from feeling hot and cold. We will only talk right now about two senses, but we could name some kind of "filter" for each sense.

How would your color perception change? It would cease to exist. You would only see black and white and shades of grey.

So for everyone in the world there was no longer a perception of color. There were only shades of grey- but you could discriminate some difference between those shades of grey.

Remember that old song about the moon?

"Cold hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the color from our sight

Red is grey and yellow, white

Yet we decide which is right,

And which is an illusion."

So if you are old, like me, you will understand what it was like with black and white TV- blood was black, for example. In fact I am told that in the shower scene of Psycho they used chocolate syrup for "blood".

So suppose now we have new names for all the shades of grey- what we color seers see as "blue" becomes a shade a grey we shall call "grau". Red becomes "rac" but both are shades of grey- but distinctive shades of grey.

So now we live in a world where blood is rac and the sky is grau in color, but everyone can discriminate perfectly between rac and grau.

Does it matter one whit if the sky is grau or blue for these people? Grau and blue are just arbitrary terms for what we see for the color of the sky.

We see it as blue, they see it as grau- but what is it "really"? It is an experience all unto itself- when we look up we see a blue sky, they see a grau sky.

They cannot get "beyond" or "past" the filters of their eyes- and we cannot get past our filters either. We cannot see infra red or ultraviolet light, or radio waves or anything but what our eyes tell us.

So what is the world "really" like? What is "represented" by the words blue or grau? Nothing is "represented" but perhaps the perception- the experience- of seeing the sky.

It is neither "really" blue nor grau- it is reflected light with a name for that experience that we can all agree on and communicate. You see it as blue, I see it as grau, but we both name it the same and so we can share our experiences through language.

There is no reason to worry about what it "really" is because it doesn't matter. What matters is that we can talk about the blue sky and what is true and false- "There are clouds in the sky" is either true or false and what it refers to is our perceptions of what we call the "sky"- not about some "reality" we cannot experience

So what is "real" for purposes of communication between us is the experience itself. What is "real" is the experience- not something the experience represents which we cannot see.

Science tells us things are made of atoms ultimately- but we can't see them- we see reflected light and our brains organize that reflected light into a car or a tree or a house- but what is "really there?" All we can know is what we experience.

That's about the best I can do.

That was a very good explanation of what you mean, mski! Very good! And I think I can now agree with what I think you mean.

There's still something I've been saying that I'm not sure if you can see, though. Do you see what my point has been all along?

Things really exist, if those things are true, but if they are not true they do not exist even though some people may think they do.

... and, vice versa... some things do NOT exist, and some things never will... except in the imagination... and those things are false because they don't correspond to reality, even though some people may think they are real (or true).

[Calm]

You guys are turning what the Lord has said on its head. God uses “language,” and “reasons” with man so that man can come to “understanding”. You want to tell me the opposite—that “language” is not the means of communication, learning, and “understanding,” but of confusion and misunderstanding. It is not the means of arriving at the truth, but at error. In reality it is what you guys are teaching that doesn’t make any sense. It is darkness, and therefore it is not of God. It is false.

No, this is quite different from what we are saying. I am sorry, but I don't think you really understand (your way or mine) what has been described.

[mfbukowski]

Just in case that wasn't clear, in most cases I tend to be overly verbose, adding details and trivia because of my need to be precise and desire to be understood correctly. I believe I am able to keep things brief on this subject because I am less confident in what I know, so tend to edit things down to the essentials.

You, on the other hand, are aware of the nuances and language that give greater depth and usefulness to the concept, but because of knowing more of the implications, you try and include more information in your comments and it ends up being more confusing to those who are less familiar, but helpful to those attempting to increase their basic level of understanding....like me.

Gotcha.

Thanks again. Oh by the way I sent you an email and tried to do a PM but that didn't work

[zerinus]

Ahab:

Does this help any? calmoriah says things, I think more clearly than I do.

Think of our senses like "sun glasses". From the time you were born, you were fitted with dark sun glasses, and everyone else in the world was also. You and they were also fitted with special gloves which prevented you from feeling hot and cold. We will only talk right now about two senses, but we could name some kind of "filter" for each sense.

How would your color perception change? It would cease to exist. You would only see black and white and shades of grey.

So for everyone in the world there was no longer a perception of color. There were only shades of grey- but you could discriminate some difference between those shades of grey.

Remember that old song about the moon?

"Cold hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the color from our sight

Red is grey and yellow, white

Yet we decide which is right,

And which is an illusion."

So if you are old, like me, you will understand what it was like with black and white TV- blood was black, for example. In fact I am told that in the shower scene of Psycho they used chocolate syrup for "blood".

So suppose now we have new names for all the shades of grey- what we color seers see as "blue" becomes a shade a grey we shall call "grau". Red becomes "rac" but both are shades of grey- but distinctive shades of grey.

So now we live in a world where blood is rac and the sky is grau in color, but everyone can discriminate perfectly between rac and grau.

Does it matter one whit if the sky is grau or blue for these people? Grau and blue are just arbitrary terms for what we see for the color of the sky.

We see it as blue, they see it as grau- but what is it "really"? It is an experience all unto itself- when we look up we see a blue sky, they see a grau sky.

They cannot get "beyond" or "past" the filters of their eyes- and we cannot get past our filters either. We cannot see infra red or ultraviolet light, or radio waves or anything but what our eyes tell us.

So what is the world "really" like? What is "represented" by the words blue or grau? Nothing is "represented" but perhaps the perception- the experience- of seeing the sky.

It is neither "really" blue nor grau- it is reflected light with a name for that experience that we can all agree on and communicate. You see it as blue, I see it as grau, but we both name it the same and so we can share our experiences through language.

There is no reason to worry about what it "really" is because it doesn't matter. What matters is that we can talk about the blue sky and what is true and false- "There are clouds in the sky" is either true or false and what it refers to is our perceptions of what we call the "sky"- not about some "reality" we cannot experience

So what is "real" for purposes of communication between us is the experience itself. What is "real" is the experience- not something the experience represents which we cannot see.

Science tells us things are made of atoms ultimately- but we can't see them- we see reflected light and our brains organize that reflected light into a car or a tree or a house- but what is "really there?" All we can know is what we experience.

That's about the best I can do.

If truth = knowledge (which is how God has defined it); and if that “knowledge” is deep enough; it cancels out, or is not affected by, any “errors” that might be introduced through “sensory perceptions”. If that were not the case, nothing could be “known” by us humans, and “knowledge” would become a meaningless concept. We would all be living a world of delusion, like Alice in Wonderland, where nothing is what it appears to be. Nothing could be said to be “known,” and no declared “knowledge” could be trusted. The truth of course is that “knowledge” is not derived through “sensory perception” alone, but in ways that are independent of it.

For example, once upon a time most people believed in a geocentric model of the universe, because that is what their sensory perception told them. Then they came to know the heliocentric model, which is the correct model; and it is important to explore how they came to know that.

One way was by direct revelation. That is how the Nephrites knew (Helaman 12:15). That is also how Abraham and other early prophets and patriarchs knew.

The other way that that truth came to be known is a bit more interesting, because it can be argued over. The secular world would call it scientific observation; but I call it indirect revelation. The Wikipedia article explores the history of how the heliocentric model came to be discovered, or become the accepted model—even though it is counterintuitive, if viewed through the “lens” of sensory perceptions. Without detailing the history of it, I believe that also came by revelation—but indirect revelation. Those who were receiving the revelations for the most part were not aware of that fact. Their minds were being enlightened by the Spirit of God without them realizing it. That is how all truth is discovered or known.

The bottom line is that the source of all truth is ultimately God; and any truth obtained from God is free from error because it is obtained by revelation, and therefore not affected by the limitations of our sensory perceptions. When truth is communicated by the Spirit of God to our spirits, it is not the by-product of our sensory perceptions, and therefore it is free from the errors that that process might entail.

Truth is not an elusive concept, nor is it “relative”. It is absolute; and can be known, when sought for and obtained from the right source.

Edited August 25, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

That was a very good explanation of what you mean, mski! Very good! And I think I can now agree with what I think you mean.

There's still something I've been saying that I'm not sure if you can see, though. Do you see what my point has been all along?

Things really exist, if those things are true, but if they are not true they do not exist even though some people may think they do.

... and, vice versa... some things do NOT exist, and some things never will... except in the imagination... and those things are false because they don't correspond to reality, even though some people may think they are real (or true).

OK now let's try to build on what I said above.

Remember, all we can see is our filtered perceptions of "things" and all we are talking about is those filtered perceptions right?

For me, it is not an issue of if "things correspond" to those perceptions- what is important is that we AGREE on those perceptions.

Suppose we are together in a room, talking and behind you, I see a pink elephant, clear as day, walking along the street outside the window.

What would I do? I would immediately start saying in an excited voice "Look there- look at that thing! It's a pink elephant!"

Suppose you turned around and said to me- "Uh, what are you talking about??? Are you crazy? There's nothing there! "

I might rub my eyes, and say "Oh, nevermind, I thought I saw something, but I was wrong" and try to continue the conversation. THAT would be a hallucination or something "imaginary".

Subjectively, I saw something- but you couldn't see it- so I ended up doubting my own perceptions- my mind. The fact that only I saw it made me doubt that it was "real". THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE WHAT I SAW IN THIS CASE MADE ME KNOW IT WASN'T REAL.

Now, suppose that instead of you NOT seeing it, you turn around and say "What? I don't believe it! It IS a pink elephant!" Then we turn and go outside- and yes- there IS a pink elephant walking down the street! And there are other people now coming out of their houses to see the pink elephant! We might follow it, or want to touch it, to confirm that it was not a hologram or some kind of illusion or if it was a "real" elephant painted pink or whatever. But what if it didn't seem to be painted and it felt real, and it's skin was a little different than other elephants- we might want to capture it and call the zoo or something.

So we call the zoo, and they send out someone, and that person calls someone else, and soon we have a swarm of people called "scientists" swarming around, and they take the elephant to the zoo and do blood tests etc and soon we see an article in the paper about a totally freakish happening- that a new species of elephant which has been identified with pink skin- impossibly walking down the street in Yourtown USA.

What happened there?

First I had a subjective experience. I saw a pink elephant walking down the street. That's what my eyes told me.

I could have said two different sentences at that moment:

"I see a pink elephant"- that would be a subjective statement, and it would be true. I did in fact see that pink elephant. The statement is not about what is "real" but about what I saw, and in fact, I did SEE a pink elephant.

"I see a pink elephant and it is real" At that moment, I could not know if that statement is "true" or not. Maybe I think it is true, or believe it is true, but if I believed that, I would be mistaken. (as shown by future evidence)

Now let's look at case 2

I see the elephant and you do too. I conclude that the elephant is probably "real". We go outside and others confirm that they see the pink elephant.

So now MANY have seen the pink elephant- but we still do not know if it is "real". That it "exists" is clear, because our perceptions match the perceptions of others. Many now have seen the pink elephant- there is SOMETHING there, but is it "real"? Maybe it is a joke- a balloon or a puppet, or a projection, or a publicity stunt, hologram, etc. We still don't know.

But eventually the scientists arrive and weigh it, give it blood tests, look at its DNA etc- now many many people have seen it and gotten "evidence" about it, and somewhere along the line, it becomes totally clear that even though its appearance is unexplained and highly mysterious, it is clearly "real".

Now what has happened there? Remember our perceptions are still being filtered through our eyes etc, just as when we had on the sunglasses. (now off or we could not see pink -

Is the elephant "really" pink? All we know is that we all agree that it's skin is perceived by everyone as what we call "pink" and that it looks like an elephant, and scientist have shown, through their particular filtered perceptions, that it is what they would classify as an "elephant".

Now let's go back to our two sentences again:

"I see a pink elephant" - Is STILL a subjective statement- and it is still true. I am talking about my perception, not a state of the world- so that has not changed. We could add to that sentence the phrase "I see a pink elephant and it is real" and it still would be both true AND subjective- subjectivity objectivity has nothing to do with what is real or not. If it was an angel I saw, it could be a hallucination or it could be a real angel- (enter Joseph Smith's way of differentiating- give him your hand etc)

"I see a pink elephant and it is real" is now an OBJECTIVE statement AND it has proven itself to be "true" by the fact that lots of people have seen the pink elephant etc. No one anywhere has any doubt if it is "real" or not.

But on the other hand, NOTICE that throughout all of this, we have never had to say anything about "correspondence" to something outside our perceptions and experience.

We have not said anything about the "world" being true- only about statements which are true or false. Things can be shown to be "real" without consideration of "corresponding" to anything "out there" beyond perceptions and experience- BECAUSE WE CANNOT SEE FEEL TASTE OR TOUCH anything beyond the way we experience and talk about things.

All we can talk about is what we actually experience.

So now I have an experience confirming to me that the Book of Mormon is true. I have the classic "burning in the bosom" an incredible sense of peace, a self-affirming knowledge that God is talking to me.

Can that experience be "real"? Of course it can- just as much as my first perception of the pink elephant was- the elephant which somewhat magically later proved to be scientifically proven to exist- just exactly as I believe God will eventually be proven to exist scientifically.

But at this moment, it is still a "subjective" experience. YOU cannot feel MY testimony- but when we talk about it, we share the same words about the experience- burning in the bosom, feeling of peace and love etc.

WE know it is "real" and so do 13 million (or whatever it is) Mormons also- but it cannot be scientifically proven "objectively" yet, strictly speaking, yet we have FAITH that it will be eventually. We don't have a picture of God in his throne taken from a satellite- and we never will. Those who believe we are seeing "pink elephants" when we speak of religious experience will continue because THEY can't see it. That's their problem!

But none of this needs any description of something "corresponding" to anything. All we have talked about is experience- your experience, my experience, and our shared experience. Nothing about a mysterious world "beyond" experience that somehow our experiences "correspond" to or a world that can be "true or false"- worlds are not true or false- experiences and statements about them may be true or false, real or not, but statements and experiences are not worlds.

When I speak, things do not fall out of my mouth (we hope) but words which express experiences do.

I hope you totally get what I am saying now, because I am about done. PHEW

There is no need to postulate the need for that kind of thing

Edited August 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If truth = knowledge (which is how God has defined it); and if that “knowledge” is deep enough; it cancels out, or is not affected by, any “errors” that might be introduced through “sensory perceptions”. If that were not the case, nothing could be “known” by us humans, and “knowledge” would become a meaningless concept. We would all be living a world of delusion, like Alice in Wonderland, where nothing is what it appears to be. Nothing could be said to be “known,” and no declared “knowledge” could be trusted. The truth of course is that “knowledge” is not derived through “sensory perception” alone, but in ways that are independent of it.

For example, once upon a time most people believed in a geocentric model of the universe, because that is what their sensory perception told them. Then they came to know the heliocentric model, which is the correct model; and it is important to explore how they came to know that.

One way was by direct revelation. That is how the Nephrites knew (Helaman 12:15). That is also how Abraham and other early prophets and patriarchs knew.

The other way that that truth came to be known is a bit more interesting, because it can be argued over. The secular world would call it scientific observation; but I call it indirect revelation. The Wikipedia article explores the history of how the heliocentric model came to be discovered, or become the accepted model—even though it is counterintuitive, if viewed through the “lens” of sensory perceptions. Without detailing the history of it, I believe that also came by revelation—but indirect revelation. Those who were receiving the revelations for the most part were not aware of that fact. Their minds were being enlightened by the Spirit of God without them realizing it. That is how all truth is discovered or known.

The bottom line is that the source of all truth is ultimately God; and any truth obtained from God is free from error because it is obtained by revelation, and therefore not affected by the limitations of our sensory perceptions. When truth is communicated by the Spirit of God to our spirits, it is not the by-product of our sensory perceptions, and therefore it is free from the errors that that process might entail.

Truth is not an elusive concept, nor is it “relative”. It is absolute; and can be known, when sought for and obtained from the right source.

Perhaps surprisingly to you, there is nothing in this post with which I would disagree.

I am not saying that "truth is relative" OR "absolute" - just that it is a property of propositions, not of the world. So I would not disagree that it is "absolute" since that idea is irrelevant to what I am saying.

I certainly agree that scientific models are only provisionally true and subject to revision. And I have no problem believing that God directs scientific discovery through revelation.

[Calm]

So this thread has got me thinking about certain implications of what "becoming one with God" will mean to what we are participating with and in.

No wonder the contrast between "seeing through a glass darkly" and "knowing as we are known" (hoping I remembered those right).

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

So this thread has got me thinking about certain implications of what "becoming one with God" will mean to what we are participating with and in.

No wonder the contrast between "seeing through a glass darkly" and "knowing as we are known" (hoping I remembered those right).

The implications are unfathomable!

To me, the mirror and the veil are the same; I see this as a temple scripture, speaking of the mirror- I won't go into that obviously, but there is one place where that "mirroring" occurs

And the idea of that mirror in which we see ourselves and God perhaps at once- have we received his image in our countenance, through the veil that is his flesh, as we become one with Him?

(Hebrews 10: 20)

There is no tapping the depth or width or height of where one can take this. There are probably a few books just in getting a glimmer of all the places this could go symbolically.

[Mudcat]

So this thread has got me thinking about certain implications of what "becoming one with God" will mean to what we are participating with and in.

No wonder the contrast between "seeing through a glass darkly" and "knowing as we are known" (hoping I remembered those right).

The implications are unfathomable!

To me, the mirror and the veil are the same; I see this as a temple scripture, speaking of the mirror- I won't go into that obviously, but there is one place where that "mirroring" occurs

And the idea of that mirror in which we see ourselves and God perhaps at once- have we received his image in our countenance, through the veil that is his flesh, as we become one with Him?

(Hebrews 10: 20)

There is no tapping the depth or width or height of where one can take this. There are probably a few books just in getting a glimmer of all the places this could go symbolically.

I had dropped interest in my own thread and had settled on the notion that most people think different things about the truth, but I like what I think about it best.

However, I find the turn it's taken quite interesting.

I too ponder over being one with God, it is a fascinating thing and we don't have all the answers on how that works for sure. But if you guys don't mind me playing ball on the topic, I'll put on my "what if I were a LDS spectacles" and offer the following.

Frank Herbert wrote a scifi series of books called Dune. The main character, through partaking in something called "the water of life" became the Universe's super being. Part of the effect was that this character was completely aware of the past experiences and personalities of all that directly preceded him in his genetic line. In short he was aware of their knowledge and experiences... on back to the beginning of man.

I attended a Temple open house and can't remember if it was my family or the guide who explained the metaphor of the mirrors. I will admit, it is an excellent tool given the imagery it relates. Nevertheless I think I follow the direction and inference of Bukowski.

I suppose if I were LDS, being one with God, would also mean being one with who God was one with. I don't imagine it would happen another way, if such were the case.

This would mean being one with a Patriarchal infinite ergo infinite knowledge, experiences and so on.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

I attended a Temple open house and can't remember if it was my family or the guide who explained the metaphor of the mirrors. I will admit, it is an excellent tool given the imagery it relates. Nevertheless I think I follow the direction and inference of Bukowski.

I suppose if I were LDS, being one with God, would also mean being one with who God was one with. I don't imagine it would happen another way, if such were the case.

This would mean being one with a Patriarchal infinite ergo infinite knowledge, experiences and so on.

I actually had a bit of a different reference in mind, but now that you bring it up, that is also a fascinating way to see it all- I have never thought of that.

And yes you are right about being sealed together as a human family through what we call the "Patriarchal Order" unified in love and purpose as the Godhead itself is unified in love and purpose. (And I don't doubt perfect mental "communication" and being of "one mind" though I have never seen that explicitly taught- but I think it is commonly understood to be a true principle)

And the common purpose is "raising the kids": "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

[Ahab]

OK now let's try to build on what I said above.

Remember, all we can see is our filtered perceptions of "things" and all we are talking about is those filtered perceptions right?

For me, it is not an issue of if "things correspond" to those perceptions- what is important is that we AGREE on those perceptions.

Suppose we are together in a room, talking and behind you, I see a pink elephant, clear as day, walking along the street outside the window.

What would I do? I would immediately start saying in an excited voice "Look there- look at that thing! It's a pink elephant!"

Suppose you turned around and said to me- "Uh, what are you talking about??? Are you crazy? There's nothing there! "

I might rub my eyes, and say "Oh, nevermind, I thought I saw something, but I was wrong" and try to continue the conversation. THAT would be a hallucination or something "imaginary".

Good grief, mski. Suppose there really was a pink elephant there and I just didn't see it. Would the fact that I didn't see it really cause you to conclude it was a hallucination? Why should that be?

Suppose instead you said you saw an angel of God because God opened your eyes so that you could see him, but he didn't open my eyes because the vision was intended for you, and not for me.

Would the fact that I didn't see the angel cause you to doubt or even conclude that you did not really see an angel of God, simply because I didn't see the angel?

Subjectively, I saw something- but you couldn't see it- so I ended up doubting my own perceptions- my mind. The fact that only I saw it made me doubt that it was "real". THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE WHAT I SAW IN THIS CASE MADE ME KNOW IT WASN'T REAL.

Sheesh. Develop some backbone, mski, and ditto to what I just said up above.

Now, suppose that instead of you NOT seeing it, you turn around and say "What? I don't believe it! It IS a pink elephant!" Then we turn and go outside- and yes- there IS a pink elephant walking down the street! And there are other people now coming out of their houses to see the pink elephant! We might follow it, or want to touch it, to confirm that it was not a hologram or some kind of illusion or if it was a "real" elephant painted pink or whatever. But what if it didn't seem to be painted and it felt real, and it's skin was a little different than other elephants- we might want to capture it and call the zoo or something.

So we call the zoo, and they send out someone, and that person calls someone else, and soon we have a swarm of people called "scientists" swarming around, and they take the elephant to the zoo and do blood tests etc and soon we see an article in the paper about a totally freakish happening- that a new species of elephant which has been identified with pink skin- impossibly walking down the street in Yourtown USA.

What happened there?

You still saw the pink elephant in the first place and whether or not anyone else did is beside the point.

First I had a subjective experience. I saw a pink elephant walking down the street. That's what my eyes told me.

I could have said two different sentences at that moment:

"I see a pink elephant"- that would be a subjective statement, and it would be true. I did in fact see that pink elephant. The statement is not about what is "real" but about what I saw, and in fact, I did SEE a pink elephant.

"I see a pink elephant and it is real" At that moment, I could not know if that statement is "true" or not. Maybe I think it is true, or believe it is true, but if I believed that, I would be mistaken. (as shown by future evidence)

Now let's look at case 2

I see the elephant and you do too. I conclude that the elephant is probably "real". We go outside and others confirm that they see the pink elephant.

So now MANY have seen the pink elephant- but we still do not know if it is "real". That it "exists" is clear, because our perceptions match the perceptions of others. Many now have seen the pink elephant- there is SOMETHING there, but is it "real"? Maybe it is a joke- a balloon or a puppet, or a projection, or a publicity stunt, hologram, etc. We still don't know.

But eventually the scientists arrive and weigh it, give it blood tests, look at its DNA etc- now many many people have seen it and gotten "evidence" about it, and somewhere along the line, it becomes totally clear that even though its appearance is unexplained and highly mysterious, it is clearly "real".

Now what has happened there?

It was real in the first place when you first saw it and the fact that scientists later also saw what you saw and said something about it is beside the point.

Remember our perceptions are still being filtered through our eyes etc, just as when we had on the sunglasses. (now off or we could not see pink -

Is the elephant "really" pink? All we know is that we all agree that it's skin is perceived by everyone as what we call "pink" and that it looks like an elephant, and scientist have shown, through their particular filtered perceptions, that it is what they would classify as an "elephant".

Uh huh.

Now let's go back to our two sentences again:

"I see a pink elephant" - Is STILL a subjective statement- and it is still true. I am talking about my perception, not a state of the world- so that has not changed. We could add to that sentence the phrase "I see a pink elephant and it is real" and it still would be both true AND subjective- subjectivity objectivity has nothing to do with what is real or not. If it was an angel I saw, it could be a hallucination or it could be a real angel- (enter Joseph Smith's way of differentiating- give him your hand etc)

"I see a pink elephant and it is real" is now an OBJECTIVE statement AND it has proven itself to be "true" by the fact that lots of people have seen the pink elephant etc. No one anywhere has any doubt if it is "real" or not.

But on the other hand, NOTICE that throughout all of this, we have never had to say anything about "correspondence" to something outside our perceptions and experience.

We have not said anything about the "world" being true- only about statements which are true or false. Things can be shown to be "real" without consideration of "corresponding" to anything "out there" beyond perceptions and experience- BECAUSE WE CANNOT SEE FEEL TASTE OR TOUCH anything beyond the way we experience and talk about things.

All we can talk about is what we actually experience.

You seem to shy away from the concept of something "corresponding" to something else, for some reason. Why is that? Seems to me you are squeamish about that word and what it means for no good reason.

So now I have an experience confirming to me that the Book of Mormon is true. I have the classic "burning in the bosom" an incredible sense of peace, a self-affirming knowledge that God is talking to me.

Can that experience be "real"? Of course it can- just as much as my first perception of the pink elephant was- the elephant which somewhat magically later proved to be scientifically proven to exist- just exactly as I believe God will eventually be proven to exist scientifically.

But at this moment, it is still a "subjective" experience. YOU cannot feel MY testimony- but when we talk about it, we share the same words about the experience- burning in the bosom, feeling of peace and love etc.

It's real whether or not I experience what you experience, and the fact that more people experience it doesn't make it more real than it already is.

WE know it is "real" and so do 13 million (or whatever it is) Mormons also- but it cannot be scientifically proven "objectively" yet, strictly speaking, yet we have FAITH that it will be eventually. We don't have a picture of God in his throne taken from a satellite- and we never will. Those who believe we are seeing "pink elephants" when we speak of religious experience will continue because THEY can't see it. That's their problem!

That's right! That's their problem. But to be fair, it's understandable, and it's not really a problem. It's simply a matter of us experiencing something that others haven't experienced yet, and whether or not they ever will won't make what is true more real than it already is.

But none of this needs any description of something "corresponding" to anything. All we have talked about is experience- your experience, my experience, and our shared experience. Nothing about a mysterious world "beyond" experience that somehow our experiences "correspond" to or a world that can be "true or false"- worlds are not true or false- experiences and statements about them may be true or false, real or not, but statements and experiences are not worlds.

When I speak, things do not fall out of my mouth (we hope) but words which express experiences do.

I hope you totally get what I am saying now, because I am about done. PHEW

There is no need to postulate the need for that kind of thing

I get what you mean, I think, but you seem to shy away from certain words and concepts for no good reason, in my perspective.

Some things are actually out there and beyond certain people's experiences, even though to those who experience them they are just as real as anything else that is real with each and every truth corresponding to all things in reality.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes less knowledge is helpful.

Sigh.

How do you do that?

[mfbukowski]

I get what you mean, I think, but you seem to shy away from certain words and concepts for no good reason, in my perspective.

The reasons are too complicated to go into right now. For me they mean that the gospel is not true because Plato and Aristotle were right. But that is not exactly part of this thread.

I believe in things I can see, not in things I cannot see. I don't think you get it- but that's ok - you are a great guy and a good poster!

I just don't think there is much need to take it farther! See you soon, dude!

Edited August 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Sigh.

How do you do that?

BTW, I've cleared some PMs out so should be able to get them again. Haven't got an email yet from you, so not sure if that is working.

[Calm]

Sigh.

How do you do that?

BTW, I've cleared some PMs out so should be able to get them again. Haven't got an email yet from you, so not sure if that is working.

[Ahab]

I believe in things I can see, not in things I cannot see.

Your example gave me the impression your belief in things you can see is strengthened when other people also see what you see, but when others don't you then either doubt or abandon your belief because others didn't see what you then think you only thought you saw.

If that's not the impression you meant to give, try giving a better example next time.

To me it can be comforting when others see what I see, but if they don't I still know I really saw what I saw.

[mfbukowski]

Your example gave me the impression your belief in things you can see is strengthened when other people also see what you see, but when others don't you then either doubt or abandon your belief because others didn't see what you then think you only thought you saw.

If that's not the impression you meant to give, try giving a better example next time.

To me it can be comforting when others see what I see, but if they don't I still know I really saw what I saw.

Instead of "see" that should have said "experience".

I experience God on a minute-to-minute basis.

Try to understand better next time.

[Ahab]

Instead of "see" that should have said "experience".

I experience God on a minute-to-minute basis.

Try to understand better next time.

Go ahead and substitute "experience" with "see" in what I said. I still got the same impression.

At some point you need to have enough faith to go it alone even if you think the whole world doesn't agree with you.

Would you still believe your experiences with God are experiences with God even if everybody else you knew didn't agree with you?

I've had many experiences which others I know personally have not experienced, or at least I'm not aware of it if they have... not counting the people mentioned in scripture... and yet that didn't cause me to doubt or abandon what God had "shown" me.

Your first example in that post gave me the impression that you are open to peer pressure, and I don't see a good reason to be.

[mfbukowski]

Go ahead and substitute "experience" with "see" in what I said. I still got the same impression.

At some point you need to have enough faith to go it alone even if you think the whole world doesn't agree with you.

Would you still believe your experiences with God are experiences with God even if everybody else you knew didn't agree with you?

I've had many experiences which others I know personally have not experienced, or at least I'm not aware of it if they have... not counting the people mentioned in scripture... and yet that didn't cause me to doubt or abandon what God had "shown" me.

Your first example in that post gave me the impression that you are open to peer pressure, and I don't see a good reason to be.

Nowhere close! I am sorry you are not understanding me at all. The entire point of all that was to show you what the difference between science and religion was, and you saw it as some kind of show of personal lack of confidence. In science, the more people who verify an observation the more "factual" it becomes- the more "objective" it becomes.

I am quite alone on this board in expressing my views on truth, and when I first joined the church, all my friends were atheists as I was before I joined. How lonely do you think it is being a former atheist who God has talked to ?

No, peer pressure has been about the least important thing to me for my entire life. If I were to be influenced by peer pressure, I would believe just as you do, to be honest. Yours is the prevalent Mormon view of the nature of truth.

If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not.

Every run of the mill atheist on all the religious boards in the world believe in the correspondence theory of truth. Montgomery, elguanteloko, Tarski- all of those guys believe in correspondence.

What "reality" does spiritual experience correspond to?

If you like, I could take the atheist side on this and see where it goes.

"How could you possibly know there is some invisible world we cannot see? What does the word "God" represent or correspond to ? Nothing!

All your subjective feelings are just that- with no objective basis. There is no source for religious experience- what does it correspond to?"

Our conversation could now proceed exactly as one would with Montgomery Price if you like. I hope we do not actually have to go through the exercise- we have all been through it many times anyway.

THAT is the problem with correspondence. Also it is the predominant sectarian view and has been for 2000 years and it does not belong in the restored gospel. In my most humble opinion, obviously.

Correspondence ultimately leads to the whole theory of substance and transubstantiation. If bread can become flesh, what do the appearances correspond to? Well in that invisible world we cannot experience, there must be something called "substance or "essence" which gives rise to appearance. And in transubstantiation, that remains the same while the appearances change. Of course there is no such thing- but that is the kind of thinking which derives from the idea of correspondence. There is a gulf between what "is" and what we see- so we end up speaking in detail about substances and essences which no one has ever seen or experienced or can even define. We make up entities without number to explain every appearance we can imagine rather than just saying that they are just appearances.

There is an essence of elephantness and wormness and humaness and breadness and couchness and tableness etc etc etc which we cannot see, because all we see are appearances which "correspond" in some impossible way to some underlying "essence" Truth itself becomes an "essence" out there in the world somewhere where we cannot see or touch it- and that MUST be true because what does a true statement correspond to if there is no "thing' called "truth"?

I wish you could feel how absurd all of that sounds to me.

But of course I could change that opinion if you disapprove.

Edited August 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[HiJolly]

Mark, I thought I was following you ok until you said "If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not."

I think I need a little help on that one.

If our perceptions of things outside ourselves are accurate, isn't that correspondence?

HiJolly

[Ahab]

Nowhere close! I am sorry you are not understanding me at all.

Don't jump to conclusions, mski. I do understand you at least a little bit.

The entire point of all that was to show you what the difference between science and religion was, and you saw it as some kind of show of personal lack of confidence. In science, the more people who verify an observation the more "factual" it becomes- the more "objective" it becomes.

No, not really. Something that is "factual" is just as factual as it really is whether only one person witnesses or a whole world witnesses it.

Something that is real, or true, or "factual" isn't dependent upon the number of witnesses who "see" it or "experience" it.

I am quite alone on this board in expressing my views on truth, and when I first joined the church, all my friends were atheists as I was before I joined. How lonely do you think it is being a former atheist who God has talked to ?

See? Even if you were the only one who had ever come to find out what is true, and everybody else missed the boat for some reason, you would still know the truth even if everybody did not see or experience what you did.

No, peer pressure has been about the least important thing to me for my entire life.

Then stop saying things to give me the impression that you think the more people who see or experience what you do the more real it is. That's nonsense.

If I were to be influenced by peer pressure, I would believe just as you do, to be honest. Yours is the prevalent Mormon view of the nature of truth.

Well, the fact that a particular view is prevalent doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, either.

If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not.

No, they're both true. Things "correspond" to other things, mski. That doesn't negate what can be experienced through your spirit as it corresponds to the Holy Spirit.

Every run of the mill atheist on all the religious boards in the world believe in the correspondence theory of truth. Montgomery, elguanteloko, Tarski- all of those guys believe in correspondence.

Try considering the idea that there really is something to it..

What "reality" does spiritual experience correspond to?

Spiritual experience corresponds to what your spirit (or someone else's spirit) experiences.

If you like, I could take the atheist side on this and see where it goes.

Sure. Go ahead.

"How could you possibly know there is some invisible world we cannot see?

There ISN'T an invisible world that we can't see. Some of our "kind" may not see it right now, but that doesn't mean our kind "can't" see it, as if it is impossible to see it, and there are some of our kind who actually do see it and are living on it right now!

What does the word "God" represent or correspond to ? Nothing!

Heh, a heck of a lot more than nothing.

God is a word we use to refer to our Father in heaven, and in that sense it "corresponds" to him.

God is a word we also use to refer to 2 particular persons who are very much like our Father in heaven, namely Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, and in that sense it "corresponds" to all 3 of those persons.

God is a word we also use to refer to all who are the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, and in that sense it "corresponds" to all who are that kind of being.

Shall I go on?

All your subjective feelings are just that- with no objective basis.

The objective basis is the basis of how it corresponds to reality. If all there was was what I experience subjectively, without any correspondence to an objective reality, then nothing would extend to anything outside of my own self because all there would be would be what I experience in an existence where only I exist.

There is no source for religious experience- what does it correspond to?"

By "religious experience" are you referring to what can be experienced through religion? If so, all that is true in religion corresponds to and can be experienced in reality.

I'm going to cut this short now and ask you to respond to what I have already said. Hopefully some light bulbs are going off in your head now and you can now see and experience what I have been talking about. If not, we can take this even slower and only one or two steps at a time.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Mark, I thought I was following you ok until you said "If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not."

I think I need a little help on that one.

If our perceptions of things outside ourselves are accurate, isn't that correspondence?

HiJolly

I think he needs our help on that one, HiJolly.