Robert Ritner And Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

That's an interesting way of putting it.

Given that the logician Tarski proved that one cannot define truth within any complex language (but must pass to a metalanguage), and given that the universe is pretty complex, I don't know how anything can be "true" except in a metaphysical sense. ;-)

This is precisely why Pragmatists usually don't speak of "truth", since they typically are not metaphysicians- if it is not experienceable it is not "real". The way that I differ from Rorty is that I think God can be experienced and that is what makes him real- not in a metaphysical sense, but in a pragmatic sense. He is "real" because he is a tangible force in my life.

I have posted this before, but why not another time?

[wenglund]

Before AI can be fully realized, it will probably be necessary for computer hardware to move to a more plastic medium.

Yes, and an elastic medium that is capable of not only inductive reasoning, but also emoting. At the core of our minds is an emotion center through which our sensory perceptions and thoughts pass, and it is instrumental in prioritizing and providing the meaning and weight that Bro. Bukowski mentioned earlier. However, were that to happen, computers would no longer be computers. They would be androids.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

How do these invisible "things" "constrain" our experience of them?

Well unless you can put your hand through a wall, your experience is constrained by the wall. What the wall actually is, one cannot not. But the constraints it places on your experience are real to you, and therefore they are real.

We may be getting to the core of our differences here. I put all experience on an equal footing- you seem to favor the objective, which to me is not warranted.

My understanding of James's objective/subjective distinction is that "subjective" experience is basically the realm of personality, feeling, and meaning, whereas "objective" experience is basically the realm of perception of objects and events. Correct me if I'm wrong?

In my experience, the subjective is primary in importance, but the objective is logically prior in the sense of providing the materials from which the subjective is constructed. The subjective can construe objective constraints any way it wishes, but it can't finally wish them away; they must always be obeyed. And, indeed, if there were no constraints then there would be nothing to have subjective feelings about.

[Chris Smith]

Yes, and an elastic medium that is capable of not only inductive reasoning, but also emoting.

Well, not necessarily. Emoting is humanity's cognitive mechanism for decision prioritization, but there's no reason that another mechanism couldn't serve just as well. I think the main requirement for AI is self-awareness.

[Magyar]

So much of what you all have written goes over my poor head. But I have just begun to read Hermes Trismegistus and was intrigued that the quintessential American poet Longfellow was enamored enough of this ancient Egyptian mystic to have composed a poem in his honor, hinting at the vast, lost literary corpus that Trismegistus once bequeathed to the world. So many connections to research, so much to learn!

[wenglund]

Well, not necessarily. Emoting is humanity's cognitive mechanism for decision prioritization, but there's no reason that another mechanism couldn't serve just as well. I think the main requirement for AI is self-awareness.

I agree. I just believe that the mind is far from its best nor fully a mind without the influence of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So much of what you all have written goes over my poor head.

Not to worry. Hot air rises and is bound to at some point soar above the heads of people with their feet planted firmly on the ground.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Yes, and an elastic medium that is capable of not only inductive reasoning, but also emoting. At the core of our minds is an emotion center through which our sensory perceptions and thoughts pass, and it is instrumental in prioritizing and providing the meaning and weight that Bro. Bukowski mentioned earlier. However, were that to happen, computers would no longer be computers. They would be androids.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, and I think you cannot separate what is "rational" from what is emotional- but yes, all our perceptions are filtered and organized (gosh, where have I heard that word before?) by our brains/minds into what we call "experience". Like the little mini-gods that we are, we get to create our own little "worlds" now in a similar way to which we may be able to do so, if we get to "grow up" and be like our Father.

I think the first part of that is well-developed philosophically by many writers- that we organize our own "world"- the last part is of course faith-based belief which makes my life infinitely richer and expands that philosophical understanding infinitely.

But I am going to talk about that first part in my response to Chris a little more, below.

Edited September 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Like the little mini-gods that we are, we get to create our own little "worlds" now in a similar way to which we may be able to do so, if we get to "grow up" and be like our Father.

It is interesting that you would mention this since it ties back into the OP--which talks about Iamblicus' belief that Theurgy was derived from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

For, "Iamblichus believed theurgy was an imitation of the gods, and in his major work, On the Egyptian Mysteries, he described theurgic observance as "ritualized cosmogony" that endowed embodied souls with the divine responsibility of creating and preserving the cosmos." (Wiki: Theurgy

Curious!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Well unless you can put your hand through a wall, your experience is constrained by the wall. What the wall actually is, one cannot not. But the constraints it places on your experience are real to you, and therefore they are real.

I think you are "getting" the paradigm shift here in your head but not yet in your heart and gut

It is not that your "experience is constrained by the wall"- your experience of what you call "the wall" IS the wall- for you. You cannot see feel or touch "the wall" in any sense whatsoever without "experiencing it". Your experience of the wall IS indeed describable as "something through which your hand will not pass, which is light green in color, about 8 feet high, with a door in it, and that door is the place through which one may pass through the wall, but nowhere else". THAT IS your "experience of the wall" it does NOT in any way "constrain" itself!

As you look around the room, and see the computer in front of you, everything you see has been ordered by your "mind" for lack of a better term, conditioned by language, and in the moment- right now- it is completely in the realm of "subjective experience". Perhaps there are other people in the room, but you see them through your eyes, not theirs, and that makes your perception of them "subjective"- for the moment- I will get into "objective" in a minute--

My understanding of James's objective/subjective distinction is that "subjective" experience is basically the realm of personality, feeling, and meaning, whereas "objective" experience is basically the realm of perception of objects and events. Correct me if I'm wrong?

You are absolutely right!

In my experience, the subjective is primary in importance, but the objective is logically prior in the sense of providing the materials from which the subjective is constructed. The subjective can construe objective constraints any way it wishes, but it can't finally wish them away; they must always be obeyed. And, indeed, if there were no constraints then there would be nothing to have subjective feelings about.

For James, you are absolutely right, but this is where I would differ with James, and I think I am in good company with others on that point of view.

James was writing over a hundred years ago and he really was THE pioneer in this area, and there are certain things I think he didn't get quite right, and I think this is one of them.

He did not have the benefit of a Piaget or a Nagel or even of a Dewey or Wittgenstein or Rorty to engage in conversation about these and other points, in fact, were it not for James' pioneering views, I think the world would be a very different place. We have to remember that James was also a pioneer in Psychology, and he wasn't able to benefit from further advances in learning theory, or scientific advances made after his time about how the brain interacts with the environment.

But to address your point directly, James' distinction is less between what we would call "subjective" and "objective" and what he calls the "subjective" and the "intellectual". You are right to characterize his idea of the subjective as realm of personality feeling and meaning, which he contrasts with the "intellectual"

Of course today, we commonly do not make that distinction because of all we know about how children learn and how important culture is in conditioning these kind of responses to the environment, we know that one often cannot differentiate between "nature and nurture" in personality development, or really in any area of learning. The rational and emotional are inextricably intertwined and any differentiation between them is bound to be totally arbitrary.

I'll just throw out a couple of quotes about Constructivism, a close ally of Pragmatism, in case there are any non-believers lurking:

The importance of the background and culture of the learner

Social constructivism or socioculturalism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her version of the truth, influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments and symbol systems, such as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the learner as a member of a particular culture and these are learned throughout the learner's life. This also stresses the importance of the nature of the learner's social interaction with knowledgeable members of the society. Without the social interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to utilize them. Young children develop their thinking abilities by interacting with other children, adults and the physical world. From the social constructivist viewpoint, it is thus important to take into account the background and culture of the learner throughout the learning process, as this background also helps to shape the knowledge and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the learning process (Wertsch 1997).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29

Constructivism has roots in chemistry, education and social constructivism. Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces the belief that a human can come to know external reality (the reality that exists beyond one's own mind). Constructivism holds the opposite view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God). Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction.[3]

Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people's lives.[citation needed]

The expression "Constructivist epistemology" was first used by Jean Piaget, 1967, with plural form in the famous article from the "Encyclopédie de la Pléiade" Logique et Connaissance scientifique or "Logic and Scientific knowledge", an important text for epistemology. He refers directly to the mathematician Brouwer and his radical constructivism.

Moreover, in 1967, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann published The Social Construction of Reality, which has initiated social constructionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Yes, I know some will be horrified by some of the names mentioned here, but remember I was an atheist when I found these ideas, and it was these ideas that allowed me to see the true genius in Joseph Smith, understanding that we can and do create our own "worlds" both here and beyond. Suffice it to say that I am now a Nice Mormon Boy. I find that one line about a superhuman God very ironic indeed- when in fact we believe in no such thing, but in fact a Human who is himself able to elevate we humans to Godhood.

But that is all parenthetical to what Chris has brought up- the point is that for me and others who read more contemporary philosophy the "objective" is different than what it is for James.

For Nagel for example, the objective is what we all can verify for each other. One might I think characterize it is "that which is verifiable by others. Maybe another way of saying it is that for me, "objective" means something like "those subjective experiences which are verifiable by others".

So going back to our subjective experience in looking at a computer screen, looking around the room which our perceptions - our minds/brain have constructed out of light waves and other inputs to our senses, we are wholly "in" the subjective. Suddenly someone speaks- "I'm hungry- anybody want something out of the refrigerator?" Our experience now shifts to the objective and linguistic- and our momentary solipsism is shattered by the perception of another intelligence "out there" besides our own- (of course we never had any real doubt that those things moving around the room were people- while we were making silent subjective judgements about them- "oh- he's wearing that same blue shirt from yesterday"). It is objective because we have now stepped out of our moment of subjective reverie - there is another human out there asking me a verbal question.

We snap back into the subjective- hmmm, yes I guess I am a little thirsty- "Yes- I think there are some bottles of water in the back of the fridge- if it's not too much trouble".

The experience out there moves what we call its "mouth"- and vibrates the air with its vocal cords, which cause the air to vibrate- all these things we know because we have been to school and have been enculturated to see them that way- the vibrations hit our ears and are ordered by our brains into "language" which we understand- and instantly and seamlessly we have established "communication" with the experienced "other" in the room- it has said "Sure- I'll grab a water for you- no problem!" All in the room heard this- and so did we. In principle, they could verify that this interaction "actually happened" and was not a subjective, but an objective experience.

Suppose our friend comes back and forgets the water. We say "Hey Chris- wasn't there any water left"? He looks at me blankly. "Did you ask me to get you a water?"

We theoretically could be in a dilemma at this point. Did I forget to ask him? I WAS kind of busy-

Then another person in the room pipes up: Yeah, he asked you- are we out of water?"

AHA! We now have "objective verification" that indeed I DID ask for the water- someone else through the medium of language has verified that his subjective experience matches my subjective experience- and that defines both experiences as in some sense "objective". In principle this is no different than a scientist writing a paper about his experiences in the lab of adding x to y and getting reaction z.

"Oh man- I've been so busy I forgot- sorry - I can go back" "No problem- I was just getting up myself"

So my experiences keep flip flopping between subjective and objective all evening, and finally I am tired, and nodding off at the computer. I go to bed, but first I pray.

Subjectively, I "talk" to God. Subjectively, I feel a unity with him- with an intelligence "out there" emracing me with his love. Perhaps some thoughts occur to me which seem to not be mine- but perhaps a response.

Subjectively, it is not much different than the interaction with my friends, in tone and feeling, but there is no one else to "verify" what was said, but it is just as "real" to me.

It was not an objectively verifiable experience, but nevertheless it was an experience. It was as much an experience as any other, as the feeling of thirst, of the reverie, of reading someone's post and thinking about it.

Were THOSE subjective experiences less "real" because they did not have objective verification? Did I really read that post and think those thoughts? Of course I did. Can I prove it to anyone else? Of course I can't.

But that experience of reading a post and thinking about it was just as "real" as the conversation I had with God.

[mfbukowski]

One more thing about the objective while I am thinking about it.

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that one might first see a pyramid as a triangle as one first approaches it. I actually had that experience once - it was really very instructive. I was driving through Long Beach California once, and saw a large triangular blue thing- the thing was huge and I could not figure out what I was looking at. It was several stories high- and seemed to be divided somehow, but overall, it looked like a projection or reflection of the cloudless sky- and I could not believe my eyes! I could tell it was big, but it seemed the closer I got, the bigger it got!

And yet it remained triangular even as I approached it from different directions. It dwarfed the trees I could now see outlined on its base. I could just not understand what I was seeing.

Of course when I approached closer, it turned out indeed to be a huge blue pyramid. How often does one see a 180 foot tall blue pyramid?

The structure's distinctive cobalt blue exterior has permanently altered the city's skyline. It rises 18 stories above north campus and can be seen for miles in all directions. It has provided a quantum leap in both the image and effectiveness of the Long Beach State athletics programs, with an immediate impact on the 49ers' fan base, scholarship fundraising, recruiting and revenue generation. Nearly 200,000 visitors pass through the Walter Pyramid's entrances annually.

On Nagel's view of the objective, as I got closer I was able to see the pyramid from different angles, move closer to it, judge its size, and finally stand next to it, walk around it, see what it was made of, etc. Each step brought me closer to full "objectivity". The more I saw of it and the more I was able to catalogue those experiences, the more "objective" it became.

So a scientist first has a subjective experience- Archimedes steps into the bathtub. He makes an observation, and wonders if it is "right". Through further observation, measurement etc, it becomes an "objective observation" or an "objective experience" (same thing) which anyone anywhere can replicate.

The more replicable by others an experience is, the more "objective" it is. Experiences which are not replicable are called "subjective".

[Chris Smith]

Hi mfb,

It is not that your "experience is constrained by the wall"- your experience of what you call "the wall" IS the wall- for you.

This is why I say there doesn't seem to be any pragmatic difference between pragmatism and critical realism. On one level, pragmatism seems to want us to nuance our language about what's really "out there"-- for example, to talk about "warranted assertability" instead of "truth". But on the other hand, it wants to say that whatever language is useful for you in organizing your experience-- however unnuanced-- is the language you should use. Seems almost self-defeating, to me.

As for your comments about feeling the presence of God, I think the problem there is that when people chat with God, the things he tells them don't seem reliably commensurate with the rest of "objective" experience. The same is true of interactions with other kinds of "unseen" or "visionary" presences. We have in fact constructed entire medical categories (e.g. "paranoid delusion") to refer to experiences that are subjectively indistinguishable from reality, but nevertheless are not reliable. To act on such experiences as if they were "real" in the usual sense could in fact be damaging to the self and others.

Peace,

-Chris

[mfbukowski]

It is interesting that you would mention this since it ties back into the OP--which talks about Iamblicus' belief that Theurgy was derived from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

For, "Iamblichus believed theurgy was an imitation of the gods, and in his major work, On the Egyptian Mysteries, he described theurgic observance as "ritualized cosmogony" that endowed embodied souls with the divine responsibility of creating and preserving the cosmos." (Wiki: Theurgy

Curious!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think in a very real sense, that is what human culture does! We re-create or re-organize the cosmos which God initially organized for us, and I relate that to Adam "naming" things and defining them as taught by God- see especially Abraham 4:

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called ^anight; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

I see this as "linguistic constructivism" at it's finest! They are "defining" the worlds into existence by the power of the Word - "by whom all things were made"

God becomes creator though his use of language which he teaches to Adam; Adam now with a linguistic context can name "sin" by knowing the linguistic context for good and evil- and that is itself a fall from innocence- the animal "innocence" (animals can't sin- tigers eat people but they don't "murder" them) pre-linguistic "humans" had. For me that is a large part of my understanding of the Adam and Eve story.

When you see this kind of genius here- I am supposed to worry about Joseph "mistranslating" the papyrii? It just becomes an absurd notion to even think about it! (That gets us back to the OP Big Time!)

Can you see why I don't get upset by those silly discussions?

I have often thought about what it would be like to know the future, and I thought that once at the beginning of a temple session. In a very real sense, I knew the "future" at least for the next two hours. Perhaps not the details like where I would sit etc, but substantially, I knew the future. That must be what it is always like for God. He knows what is coming but goes through the ritual for us so we can learn, just as we go through the ritual for the dead (ourselves who are dead in spirit??) so they/we can learn. So ritual is totally central to theurgy in my opinion. We are on both sides of it- perhaps seeing how God sees us, while simultaneously learning symbolically.

Just another way of seeing the idea of "saviors on mount Zion"!

Edited September 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think the problem there is that when people chat with God, the things he tells them don't seem reliably commensurate with the rest of "objective" experience.

This seems to be a repeating theme.

I will think about the other part of your post, but let me get to this part first and the other section maybe when I get some time to think about it.

I think the hangup is that they are not supposed to be "reliably commensurate with the rest of objective experience".

They have nothing to do with "objective experience" any more than falling in love or deciding to drown while saving others is "commensurate with the rest of objective experience", or giving a buck to some guy on a street corner is, or living by any of the principles of Humanism is.

It is important that you said "the rest of objective experience" implying that you were still talking about objective experience- not subjective experience at all.

I just got off the phone with a woman who called me to tell me how grateful she was for me giving her a blessing last night, saying "I don't know- whenever you or (her home teacher) give me a blessing it is like you can see into my mind and know exactly what I am thinking about and what my worries are!"

I bore my testimony that it wasn't me at all, but the spirit.

Is such an experience "commensurate with the rest of objective experience"? It is objective perhaps slightly, like two people seeing the same pink elephant. Do I expect a scientist to see that as "objective" in any real sense?

Of course not. Is it a hallucination? No, not with two people willing to testify that it happened. What is it? I don't know how to characterize it linguistically , but I can tell you that whatever it was, it was REAL. It was the meeting of three minds somehow, though I cannot explain it. It was beyond language, but it was real.

[mfbukowski]

This is why I say there doesn't seem to be any pragmatic difference between pragmatism and critical realism. On one level, pragmatism seems to want us to nuance our language about what's really "out there"-- for example, to talk about "warranted assertability" instead of "truth". But on the other hand, it wants to say that whatever language is useful for you in organizing your experience-- however unnuanced-- is the language you should use. Seems almost self-defeating, to me.

OK I've thought about it No, I think along with Wittgenstein that the only thing philosophy IS is the activity of speaking clearly about these issues. Nothing else matters really. The way we speak about things is the way we think about them, and it is clear to me there is a lot of muddled thinking in this world mostly caused by not speaking clearly. I think maybe you are confusing the idea of "language games"- that meaning is context dependent- with the idea that "unnuanced " language "should be used". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

4.1 Propositions represent the existence and non-existence of states of affairs. 4.11 The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the natural sciences). 4.111 Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences. (The word "philosophy" must mean something whose place is above or below the natural sciences, not beside them.) 4.112 Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in "philosophical propositions", but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. 4.113 Philosophy sets limits to the much disputed sphere of natural science. 4.114 It must set limits to what can be thought; and, in doing so, to what cannot be thought. It must set limits to what cannot be thought by working outwards through what can be thought. 4.115 It will signify what cannot be said, by presenting clearly what can be said.

Of course in his later life, Wittgenstein repudiated the more positivist views of the Tractatus- from which the above is a quote- but he still kept these central notions that clarity of language was central to the purpose (yes, he can be called a Pragmatist and often is) of philosophy.

As the last line in the book, proposition 7 has no supplementary propositions. It ends the book with a rather elegant and stirring proposition: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." („Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.“)

Perhaps Wittgenstein, who has been called a "mystic" was the wisest of all- he would not even attempt a discussion like this one, but would have remained silent. Subjective experience is literally unspeakable. I am reminded of that Rorty video I posted above which speaks of God and subjective experience with it, being "ineffable" But it is itself very clear to me that the most important function of philosophy is to speak clearly about this stuff, so I refuse to give up trying.