Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

Cool--I think it goes without saying that once we misuse or abuse our agency we are no longer as strong and able Act-ors as we were previously, and have to repent before getting that former strength and power back.

If you are addicted for an example, you have surrendered your agency and have allowed yourself to be controlled by whatever you have surrendered to.

I think every sin involves pride - as President Benson said- and is in a sense allowing pride to have control over you by allowing your pride to control you instead of what you know is right or the best for you. It is you asserting your will over what you know God knows is best for you so that you get that "high" of asserting your will over God's. Essentially it is an addiction to that "high" of doing it YOUR way instead of God's way.

But the problem is that ironically you are surrendering your agency to get the high- to place yourself above God. You are surrendering your agency because you are allowing that high to control your actions- so you are actually be acted upon and being controlled by what gives you the high.

So even something like anger can be an addiction- "He can't treat (The almighty) ME like that!" - so you cuss out the guy who cut you off on the freeway. Very simple example- but you are allowing yourself to be acted upon by surrendering to the emotion of pride. You are not in control - the pride is in control in effect.

Were you to remain calm and rational, you would be controlling the pride from getting out of hand

[brainburn]

As usual I am not sure what you mean, but I can't think of any way in which he is comparable to a new species. God is as real to me as any intelligence I have ever experienced- he is more real to me than you are. He speaks and communicates directly with my heart and I always understand him, but I have trouble understanding you almost always.

For me the Plan of Salvation is the overall plan of everything as I understand it. The POS to me uses Pragmatism as the method shown in Alma 32 to show us how to learn the truth. It is a method to discover what makes us happy and how to live the best way to make us happy.

I prefer to call it the Plan of Happiness- if you look at it that way and insert what is philosophically called a Utiltarian perspective which leads mankind to happiness, you see that there is no difference between the two. The goal of mankind is to develop as far as they can and be happy doing so. In other words, filling the measure of their creation and having joy therein.

Same thing. Humanism IS theology when God is a Man.

Well, I'm surprised because by referring to an undiscovered species, you seems to be presuming that species exists independent of any observer. I think you know exactly what I mean. It's just that you don't use those terms the way I happened to use them.

But please, everything you are trying to get through to me, I get. You don't need to explain that "exists" is just a word, again. I understand that you prefer the term to refer to something only after it is "organized" with language. Just know that this doesnt prevent you from understanding the concept I'm referring to using different meanings. Can we please talk about the meanings I have in mind without imposing your meanings and maybe we won't misunderstand each other?

I'd really like to walk you through exactly what I mean, step by step so you can jump in at any moment....... Just as long as you can stay on my definitions. I think it's very possible to have a fruitful conversation focused mainly on my definitions, even if you dont accept my definitions and want to constantly refuse to entertain any but your own. Am I really asking too much?

[mfbukowski]

Well, I'm surprised because by referring to an undiscovered species, you seems to be presuming that species exists independent of any observer. I think you know exactly what I mean. It's just that you don't use those terms the way I happened to use them.

But please, everything you are trying to get through to me, I get. You don't need to explain that "exists" is just a word, again. I understand that you prefer the term to refer to something only after it is "organized" with language. Just know that this doesnt prevent you from understanding the concept I'm referring to using different meanings. Can we please talk about the meanings I have in mind without imposing your meanings and maybe we won't misunderstand each other?

I'd really like to walk you through exactly what I mean, step by step so you can jump in at any moment....... Just as long as you can stay on my definitions. I think it's very possible to have a fruitful conversation focused mainly on my definitions, even if you dont accept my definitions and want to constantly refuse to entertain any but your own. Am I really asking too much?

I don't know. All I have been doing is defining my terms and you have defined nothing. How am I supposed to know what your definitions are if you don't tell me?

All we will end up doing is fighting over definitions.

But why are you asking instead of doing? Aren't I already constantly refusing to entertain them? What do you want?

Edited November 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, I'm surprised because by referring to an undiscovered species, you seems to be presuming that species exists independent of any observer.

Not really. I just talk that way because I have described this many times and I know how far I can push the language without people flipping out on me and bringing up extraneous issues.

Species do not exist independent of any observer. Nothing does to speak of because there is no such word as "exist" independent of observers.

[brainburn]

Why do you keep telling me I haven't defined what I mean? How could you be rejecting my definition if there is none?

[Nathair/|\]

Not really. I just talk that way because I have described this many times and I know how far I can push the language without people flipping out on me and bringing up extraneous issues.

Species do not exist independent of any observer. Nothing does to speak of because there is no such word as "exist" independent of observers.

If there is such a thing as a Sasquatch/Yeti/Gigantopithecus; for the purposes here, is it capable of observing itself?

[mfbukowski]

If there is such a thing as a Sasquatch/Yeti/Gigantopithecus; for the purposes here, is it capable of observing itself?

There was a famous essay by a guy named Thomas Nagel called "What is it Like to Be a Bat"? (available as a pdf on the internet- just do a search) who in fact believes that "bat consciousness" actually adds to what we call "objectivity" so that even with their perception through sonar and the huge difference between the way they experience the world and the way we do, in a sense we would still agree with bats or aliens about certain objective characteristics of the world, like the specific location of a bug relative to the bat. We would express it differently but yet the notions of direction and distance to a location clearly have to be similar to ours. After all, we believe that both species evolved in the same world, and hunting for bugs is not that different than hunting for fruit on trees or deer with bows and arrows. If you don't have a target and a way of getting to it, nothing would eat and life could not last. A pragmatist would say that hunting wouldn't "work"

So the short answer to your question is "yes".

But if you notice the way I phrased it, I factored that into my words in the second sentence:

Species do not exist independent of any observer. Nothing does to speak of because there is no such word as "exist" independent of observers.

The issue here as I see it is not whether or not any Sasquatch/Yeti/Gigantopithecus could observe itself, - presumably it could- but whether or not such a being would understand the word "exist" as we do.

I suppose I should have said "human observers" technically and that thought actually flickered through my mind as I wrote that, but I figured no one would pick up the point anyway. But congratulations- you caught me!

But my point was that if a being has no idea of what the word "exist" means (one has to have an idea of non-existence to have an idea of existence) or does not have language at all, the question and the answer becomes irrelevant

Actually the word "exist" is a pretty useless word. I cannot imagine what non-existence is- can you? You might think of an empty box or something but that is not non-existence. So this gets complicated really fast!

You noticed how I even covered my tail by saying this first?:

Not really. I just talk that way because I have described this many times and I know how far I can push the language without people flipping out on me and bringing up extraneous issues.

There you go.

That's why I implied that undiscovered species "exist"- to avoid all this. But you guys are getting too smart for me

[mfbukowski]

Why do you keep telling me I haven't defined what I mean? How could you be rejecting my definition if there is none?

Define "objectivity" and quit playing games. Otherwise I am done and you are on ignore. Put up or shut up.

[mfbukowski]

Why do you keep telling me I haven't defined what I mean? How could you be rejecting my definition if there is none?

Can we please talk about the meanings I have in mind without imposing your meanings and maybe we won't misunderstand each other?

Total contradiction.

Either you have told me the meanings you have in mind or you haven't.

Get lost troll.

[Nathair/|\]

There was a famous essay by a guy named Thomas Nagel called "What is it Like to Be a Bat"? (available as a pdf on the internet- just do a search) who in fact believes that "bat consciousness" actually adds to what we call "objectivity" so that even with their perception through sonar and the huge difference between the way they experience the world and the way we do, in a sense we would still agree with bats or aliens about certain objective characteristics of the world, like the specific location of a bug relative to the bat. We would express it differently but yet the notions of direction and distance to a location clearly have to be similar to ours. After all, we believe that both species evolved in the same world, and hunting for bugs is not that different than hunting for fruit on trees or deer with bows and arrows. If you don't have a target and a way of getting to it, nothing would eat and life could not last. A pragmatist would say that hunting wouldn't "work"

So the short answer to your question is "yes".

But if you notice the way I phrased it, I factored that into my words in the second sentence:

The issue here as I see it is not whether or not any Sasquatch/Yeti/Gigantopithecus could observe itself, - presumably it could- but whether or not such a being would understand the word "exist" as we do.

I suppose I should have said "human observers" technically and that thought actually flickered through my mind as I wrote that, but I figured no one would pick up the point anyway. But congratulations- you caught me!

But my point was that if a being has no idea of what the word "exist" means (one has to have an idea of non-existence to have an idea of existence) or does not have language at all, the question and the answer becomes irrelevant

Actually the word "exist" is a pretty useless word. I cannot imagine what non-existence is- can you? You might think of an empty box or something but that is not non-existence. So this gets complicated really fast!

You noticed how I even covered my tail by saying this first?:

There you go.

That's why I implied that undiscovered species "exist"- to avoid all this. But you guys are getting too smart for me

Thanks. I know little of this stuff. There's a reason why I chose to be a magician rather than a philosopher.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. I know little of this stuff. There's a reason why I chose to be a magician rather than a philosopher.

I'd rather be a magician if the truth be told, but I can't help it. I was born this way. I have tried to stop many times but I can't. It's all just words and I know it but they won't stop coming out of my mouth.

The real magic begins when the words stop.

[brainburn]

I know you consider my definition to be problematic, but why don't you considered "reality independent of any observer" a definition with meaning, at all?

I've mentioned it several times and clearly explained that it was my definition.

And I'm still trying to make clear that it doesn't matter to me whether it can be confirmed or have the status of truth or whether it can be known. I don't think it can. I also feel trolled because seriously, I agree with you! But nonetheless, my definition has meaning. Even if you don't accept it, all I want to get through to you is that I want to discuss the possibility of God telling you any certain exclusive religious model of objective reality corresponds to some reality independent of human observers. Do you even accept it as possible that some one could experience God telling them this?

[mfbukowski]

P.S. When we refer to langage in all forms, we are referring to language using any of the senses, right?

Yep- so sign language is included- and actually so is math and music as far as I am concerned, though one could argue that music communicates emotions directly without logical content, yet obviously it is a highly structured medium.

[mfbukowski]

I know you consider my definition to be problematic, but why don't you considered "reality independent of any observer" a definition with meaning, at all?

Definition of WHAT? You give me one side of the equals sign and not the other. You say " =A" What good is that? What is in front of the equals?

Objective? Objectivity? Objective reality? Objective truth? Objective knowledge? Objective objections?

What is your OBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVELY? Can you see how many meanings that can have?

And I'm still trying to make clear that it doesn't matter to me whether it can be confirmed or have the status of truth or whether it can be known. I don't think it can. I also feel trolled because seriously, I agree with you! But nonetheless, my definition has meaning. Even if you don't accept it, all I want to get through to you is that I want to discuss the possibility of God telling you any certain exclusive religious model of objective reality corresponds to some reality independent of human observers. Do you even accept it as possible that some one could experience God telling them this?

Not really.

I am an observer. How could God tell me about any reality independent of observers? That would be some reality independent of me. How could I know about such a thing? You want me to doubt my own existence as an observer when I am..... What? Observing???

Many have spoken about such a reality but to me it is nonsense- literally. How can I see something independent of my own seeing it?

It's like talking about existence independent of things or something- I don't know what it would mean.

So suppose God does indeed actually appear to me- a genuine theophany and he tells me this "exclusive religious model of objective reality corresponds to some reality independent of human observers", and he shows me a model.

I am not sure what that word "model" means then in this context. You mean an intellectual model? A description? You mean like a physical model city or something?

I would take it on faith that it "corresponds" to something in some way I could not understand if God personally said those words to me, but I would not know anything about what it "corresponds" to or in what way it "corresponds"- to nothing knowable.

I mean I don't know what a model is of something you cannot see- perhaps it would be like walking through a giant model of a cell or something in a museum. I once walked through a house-sized model of a human heart, maybe it would be like that.

But the difference is that I CAN experience a cell directly- the model is a model of what is known- a cell. Get out the old microscope and there it is- just like the model. Same with a heart. Got one thumping away in my chest right now, thank God.

But in what sense is a model a model of something I cannot know if it is a model of or not? "This is a model squivnok".

For me that now becomes a "real" squivnok, not a model at all. I have no way of knowing anything about squivnoks independent of the model. I take it on faith because God told me.

In God we trust. All others pay cash.

If you show me a model squivnok I say you are nuts. There is no such thing as a squivnok.

[Nathair/|\]

I'd rather be a magician if the truth be told, but I can't help it. I was born this way. I have tried to stop many times but I can't. It's all just words and I know it but they won't stop coming out of my mouth.

The real magic begins when the words stop.

Have you considered bardcraft? Bardic magic is almost entirely mediated through language.

[CV75]

Yep- so sign language is included- and actually so is math and music as far as I am concerned, though one could argue that music communicates emotions directly without logical content, yet obviously it is a highly structured medium.

Even emotion is a form of intelligence (in my opinion, anyway)--plus there's always synesthesia and ideasthesia to give it logic!

Edited November 18, 2012 by CV75

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, (or anyone)

I came across this this morning. I'm curious to know how you explain the following.

Edmund Briggs and Samuel Gurley went to speak to Emma and Joseph Smith III about Joseph taking his rightful place as leader of the reorganized church. When they arrived they announced that they were missionaries from the reorganized church and then thrust a letter into Joseph's hand. It read:

They are saying that they are speaking to God after both fasting and prayer regarding Joseph's succession as the "true" Mormon successor. It seems these men have met your standard for Knowledge and Truth. Religious experience = Knowledge and Truth.

What do you do with situations like this? Dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your subjective religious faith based experiences? There are a ton of different assertions of Truth in the world that are based on subjective religious experiences just like yours. Are they all right? Are they wrong? It seems to me that the product of these religious experiences is a faithful belief in something. Not knowledge or truth. Just an expression in some type of justified belief(s). Alma 32 seems to agree.

Big UP!

Lamanite

If someone were to come to me and declare that they had fasted and prayed to know that I was to be the rightful prophet of the Church, I would greet them with a great deal of skepticism. I would then send them on their way, saying that if the Lord felt the same way they did, and He manifested it to me in a way that was unmistakeable, then I would get back with them (don't call me, I'll call you). Now, JS3, because of his proximity to JSjr probably thought there might conceivably be more to it than I would in my case, and from a certain point of view one might understand how he felt some justification.

As to the RLDS/CoC, well, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but please.

On the one hand, Joseph Smith was called by divine revelation of the Father and the Son, and through divine investiture of authority by means of angelic visitors he was given priesthood authority and the task of restoring All Things. Revelations were then forthcoming, including such marvels as DC 76, where Joseph and Sidney Rigdon testified that Jesus Christ lives, because they saw Him, and heard the voice of the Father bearing record of His Sonship!

And then on the other hand we have Joseph Smith III, called by a committee of nobodies, some who had formerly been members of the CoJCoLDS, and some who had not, and these nobodies send another nobody, Edmund Briggs, to tell JS3 that he's the Lord's prophet, 16 years after JSjr's death. I say "nobodies" not out of disrespect, but by way of comparision to how JSjr was called. JSjr was called by the divine; JS3 was called by a committee. Perhaps it is just me, but I find the disparity quite breathtaking.

As to Mohammed, the Buddha, Martin Luther, Zoroaster, Bahá'u'lláh, and the like, I believe that they must have received a portion of the Spirit. I don't believe that they received a fulness. Not by a long shot.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

Even emotion is a form of intelligence (in my opinion, anyway)--plus there's always synesthesia and ideasthesia to give it logic!

I agree- it certainly is a form of consciousness and I usually see consciousness as pretty much synonymous with "intelligence" in an LDS context as in "The Glory of God is intelligence"

Clearly emotion is one of the major ways we experience the world.

[brainburn]

Mfbukowski,

Glad we can make some progress. I've always meant objective reality. It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to understand what I'm trying to say.

Take for example the objective reality of the plan of salvation. (I'm not claiming it to be objectively true.)

If God confirmed through revelation that the plan of salvation is the way the universe works regardless of what anyone thinks, you wouldn't accept that you then know that the plan of salvation is objectively true? It would still be a matter of choosing to have faith in what God tells you , so anything God tells you isn't fact but just a useful interpretation. Meaning if God said this is the way it works for everyone, you would tell him sorry but that's not possible to know?

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski,

Glad we can make some progress. I've always meant objective reality. It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to understand what I'm trying to say.

Take for example the objective reality of the plan of salvation. (I'm not claiming it to be objectively true.)

If God confirmed through revelation that the plan of salvation is the way the universe works regardless of what anyone thinks, you wouldn't accept that you then know that the plan of salvation is objectively true? It would still be a matter of choosing to have faith in what God tells you , so anything God tells you isn't fact but just a useful interpretation. Meaning if God said this is the way it works for everyone, you would tell him sorry but that's not possible to know?

No because that is not what "objectively true" means to me. For it to be objectively true I would have to be able to show the entire world evidence of its truth- because that is what "objective" means to me. If God gave me that power I suppose it could be shown to be "objectively true" because God gave me scientific data that would show it to all the scientists in the world.

Now let's just say God told me subjectively through revelation that the Plan "really was true". That would be nice, but I already know that through revelation- he HAS told me that much.

If God confirmed through revelation that the plan of salvation is the way the universe works regardless of what anyone thinks, you wouldn't accept that you then know that the plan of salvation is objectively true?

That's like saying something is "blue regardless of what any one sees".

Besides, if God didn't care what anyone thinks about it, he wouldn't have made the plan in the first place. The plan would not even exist because it's object IS to have everyone believe it. That doesn't even make sense!

I am not sure what that could mean.

Truth and falsity are only relevant to describe types of sentences to other people- not to say something about some unseen "reality" nobody sees. So if God showed me the Plan he would show me the plan. The plan would be "real" because I experienced The Plan directly.

So would the plan be "true" then?

No, because no one has said anything about the plan. Things are not true or false, verbal expressions are. But if someone asked me something about the plan which was true I then could confirm that it was true. Is salt "true"? Is a chair "true"? No because I haven't said anything about either. "I salted the soup" on the other hand can be true or false.

Suppose I have a subjective experience of God appearing to me and showing me the plan- the plan itself cannot be true or false- it just is what it is. I see what I see, I experience what I experience. It is non-verbal.

Then someone asks "Does the plan include agency?" My answer would be "yes it includes agency" and that would be a true statement. Or if I wanted to lie, I could say "The plan does not include agency" and that would be false or a lie. But the plan is not true or false- only statements about it can be true or false.

Or suppose God tells me something verbal which I suppose he could do. God does not lie and I will believe him- every word he says. What he says would be "true" because it was a sentence.

Meaning if God said this is the way it works for everyone, you would tell him sorry but that's not possible to know?

Of course not. Obviously that would be valuable information. Suppose he said that as subjective private information to me. I mean that would be nice to know but it wouldn't do much good because I did not have any evidence of what God told me subjectively.

If he told me objectively and gave me all the evidence I needed to convince every scientist on the planet (except a few rebels presumably) that he existed or whatever it was he wanted me to say, then of course I would do what he wanted me to do. But that of course is silly- such a thing would actually violate his plan as I understand it because then no one would need faith.

It would be giving everyone the answer sheet in the middle of the test.

Not very likely but you asked the question.

Statements can only be "objectively true" in my and I think Nagel's world if the whole world can in principle verify them. The boiling point of water or the speed of light are objectively true for example.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe this is the best way to explain this:

"The car is red". Is that true independent of any minds? First look at the word "red"- does red exist independent of minds? And what about cars? Does a car exist independent of minds?

You could say that the "wavelength of light which is perceived as red exists independent of minds", but that sentence and calling something a "wavelength of light" could not exist without human minds.

So whatever is "out there" cannot be spoken about independent of the human mind and whatever is "out there" cannot be known independent of the human mind.

There is definitely something "out there" - no sane person doubts it. But what it "really is" we will never know, so it doesn't much matter.

For all we know- literally- what we see is what is "real" so the Pragmatist quits worrying about it and goes with appearances only. What you see is what you get!

[brainburn]

No because that is not what "objectively true" means to me.

:/ I thought I already went over what I thought about your use of the term.

For it to be objectively true I would have to be able to show the entire world evidence of its truth- because that is what "objective" means to me. If God gave me that power I suppose it could be shown to be "objectively true" because God gave me scientific data that would show it to all the scientists in the world.

But I'm still confused, "no" what? Do you possibly mean to say that God wouldn't use the term with any meaning but your own? Or do you mean that even if God told you exactly what he meant, you'd tell him that his word isn't good enough to confirm objective truth?

From what you've said here, it seems that your standard of objective truth is necessarily tied to scientists or groups of people. Not to distract too much from the definition I've been pushing (which I still don't think you're getting), I have a few questions about yours:

What is it about any group that meets your standard but God doesn't by himself? Shouldn't God's authoritative word meet any principle of proof any group could meet? Is he not the ultimate scientist? Why do we defend the idea that the problem is never God's revelation, but our interpretation?God can't tell a lie, so why is that still not good enough? What else could we mean when we say some revelations come with an absolute sense of certainty that contains zero doubt? Could it be that zero doubt not possible, in your view? Or do you believe God can't tell a lie because he's always "right" subjectively to each person he speaks to? I have no idea what you'll say, I'm just throwing things at you and hoping you'll grab something and run with it. It seems like you don't want to identify with anything I'm saying.

Now let's just say God told me subjectively through revelation that the Plan "really was true". That would be nice, but I already know that through revelation- he HAS told me that much.

That's like saying something is "blue regardless of what any one sees".

It's like saying, "our spirit will survive the deaths of our bodies, regardless of what any one sees". My point is not to consider the plan only as we subjectively perceive it, but more importantly the way it works regardless of what anyone perceives at one moment. While the plan of salvation includes pragmatism, the plan is also a realist proposition which revelation could possibly confirm as objectively true regardless of what anyone thinks or sees.

Besides, if God didn't care what anyone thinks about it, he wouldn't have made the plan in the first place. The plan would not even exist because it's object IS to have everyone believe it. That doesn't even make sense!

I am not sure what that could mean.

I really do love talking to you, but honestly this is kinda weak. I never suggested God didn't care. But God did know that everyone would not think anything about the plan of salvation temporarily because of the veil. Yet the plan exists regardless of any ignorance of that fact. Obviously this isn't "plan failed".

Truth and falsity are only relevant to describe types of sentences to other people- not to say something about some unseen "reality" nobody sees.

You accept experience as truth and it has nothing to do with describing types of sentences to other people. You can experience truth and then refer to it as true in a proposition. So, it's totally coherent and reasonable to think about truth independent of any act of description.

So if God showed me the Plan he would show me the plan. The plan would be "real" because I experienced The Plan directly.

So would the plan be "true" then?

No, because no one has said anything about the plan. Things are not true or false, verbal expressions are. But if someone asked me something about the plan which was true I then could confirm that it was true. Is salt "true"? Is a chair "true"? No because I haven't said anything about either. "I salted the soup" on the other hand can be true or false.

Suppose I have a subjective experience of God appearing to me and showing me the plan- the plan itself cannot be true or false- it just is what it is. I see what I see, I experience what I experience. It is non-verbal.

Then someone asks "Does the plan include agency?" My answer would be "yes it includes agency" and that would be a true statement. Or if I wanted to lie, I could say "The plan does not include agency" and that would be false or a lie. But the plan is not true or false- only statements about it can be true or false.

Or suppose God tells me something verbal which I suppose he could do. God does not lie and I will believe him- every word he says. What he says would be "true" because it was a sentence.

I want you to know that I think you are mostly right. What I'm not so sure about is whether I ever suggested the plan itself was true or false.

Of course not. Obviously that would be valuable information. Suppose he said that as subjective private information to me. I mean that would be nice to know but it wouldn't do much good because I did not have any evidence of what God told me subjectively.

If he told me objectively and gave me all the evidence I needed to convince every scientist on the planet (except a few rebels presumably) that he existed or whatever it was he wanted me to say, then of course I would do what he wanted me to do. But that of course is silly- such a thing would actually violate his plan as I understand it because then no one would need faith.

It would be giving everyone the answer sheet in the middle of the test.

The "need faith" idea hasn't convinced me yet. Why should knowledge of the plan of salvation negate our freedom of choice to follow it? I didn't expect you to see it this way. I would suspect that like you might think God's omniscience doesn't negate his own free will, knowledge of the reality of the plan of salvation doesn't negate freedom of choice either. I also expected you to only consider faith in a pragmatic sense and never apply it to realist propositions, but I shouldn't have because you've already explained that you're a Mormon first and Mormonism defines faith, not pragmatism. But maybe I should expect you to think that Mormonism defines faith pragmatically?

[brainburn]

There is definitely something "out there" - no sane person doubts it. But what it "really is" we will never know, so it doesn't much matter.

For all we know- literally- what we see is what is "real" so the Pragmatist quits worrying about it and goes with appearances only. What you see is what you get!

But through revelation we can know that our spirits will survive death. This is a proposition about what "really is" and it sure does matter.

[mfbukowski]

But through revelation we can know that our spirits will survive death. This is a proposition about what "really is" and it sure does matter.

Yes but what does that revelation "correspond to"? It is an experience "in our heads" which we cannot check against any other "reality". You cannot get outside your head to see what revelation corresponds to. Revelation is completely mind-dependent, as are all other notions of what is "real".

You can never get outside your experience or the collective experience of mankind, to check it against anything else. We are all wearing rose-colored glasses and we cannot see true "color", as it were. You cannot take off the glasses to see what color it "really is".

All that is real is experience and human experience is always filtered through a human mind.

That's my last attempt to explain it to you.

Edited November 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

Yes but what does that revelation "correspond to"? It is an experience "in our heads" which we cannot check against any other "reality". You cannot get outside your head to see what revelation corresponds to. Revelation is completely mind-dependent, as are all other notions of what is "real".

You can never get outside your experience or the collective experience of mankind, to check it against anything else. We are all wearing rose-colored glasses and we cannot see true "color", as it were. You cannot take off the glasses to see what color it "really is".

All that is real is experience and human experience is always filtered through a human mind.

That's my last attempt to explain it to you.

You're last attempt to explain it to me is to repeat what I've already responded to?

Of course, all experience is filtered through a human mind, but some experiences are set-up by God.

Because God can't tell a lie, that solves your problem because he is on the outside of your experience. Period.

He is the correspondence bridge. When God says something corresponds, you have a true correspondence every time because he can see our situation without the glasses.