Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

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.

Prove it

[brainburn]

Prove it

It's not my job to prove. It's LDS authority you're disagreeing with. Plus, God has apparently "proven" it to many already. Why might he not prove it to you?

Edited November 26, 2012 by brainburn

[CV75]

To me, the scriptures support the “mind-dependency” of the reality we experience, notably in comparing the fruits of the carnal and spiritual minds (2 Nephi 9:39—two basic realities to choose from), and how far the mind can quicken the immortal body according to its alignment with God’s (D&C 88:67-68, 27-28—many degrees of reality to choose from).

At the same time, revelation from God and knowing the mind of God occur in the spiritual mind (D&C 6:15; 68:4; 67:10), and can ultimately result in His children being of one mind (Moses 7:18) and of one mind with Him (D&C 35:2), a shared reality.

[mfbukowski]

It's not my job to prove. It's LDS authority you're disagreeing with. Plus, God has apparently "proven" it to many already. Why might he not prove it to you?

CFR

[mfbukowski]

To me, the scriptures support the “mind-dependency” of the reality we experience, notably in comparing the fruits of the carnal and spiritual minds (2 Nephi 9:39—two basic realities to choose from), and how far the mind can quicken the immortal body according to its alignment with God’s (D&C 88:67-68, 27-28—many degrees of reality to choose from).

At the same time, revelation from God and knowing the mind of God occur in the spiritual mind (D&C 6:15; 68:4; 67:10), and can ultimately result in His children being of one mind (Moses 7:18) and of one mind with Him (D&C 35:2), a shared reality.

The Godhead is one in purpose. And we are to be one with God in his throne. That's a mighty big throne.

Where does one find "purposes"? Lying around on the beach somewhere? What color are they?

Clearly "purposes" are mind-dependent. All experience and everything we can know is "in our mind" or in someone's, otherwise we would not know it.

I keep trying to cram things into my head but they don't fit. And it gets painful sometimes too. I tried getting a grand piano in there once and boy- that was NOT fun!

All I can get in there is ideas and they are kind of mind dependent.

Edited November 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Clearly "purposes" are mind-dependent. All experience and everything we can know is "in our mind" or in someone's, otherwise we would not know it.

I agree that in this sense they are subjective from someone’s perspective, even if not experienced or known from our own.

But I’m thinking that when experience and knowledge are in someone else’s mind (and not ours) and they are handled and used by that other mind to impact us, they can be considered objective as far as we are concerned. This is our situation when we are acted upon, offered a standard, liberty and options, judged, etc. Once we share the same experience and knowledge as someone else (to the extent that we know that they know—JS-H 1:25), they become subjective. So when our mind cannot access, handle or use particular knowledge and experience, they are objective (to us), but when we can, they are subjective (to us), and when they are shared, they are subjective to all involved.

Now that first sentence, “when experience and knowledge are in someone else’s mind (and not ours) and they are handled and used by that other mind to impact us, they can be considered objective as far as we are concerned” is a subjective observation and assessment by someone that can see both minds a work. An observer with even greater perception and perspectives than this person (Abraham 3) would in turn make a similar observation and assessment about him in relation to others that are greater in knowledge and experience, so that this person is being impacted by knowledge and experience that are relatively objective to his own.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that in this sense they are subjective from someone’s perspective, even if not experienced or known from our own.

But I’m thinking that when experience and knowledge are in someone else’s mind (and not ours) and they are handled and used by that other mind to impact us, they can be considered objective as far as we are concerned. This is our situation when we are acted upon, offered a standard, liberty and options, judged, etc. Once we share the same experience and knowledge as someone else (to the extent that we know that they know—JS-H 1:25), they become subjective. So when our mind cannot access, handle or use particular knowledge and experience, they are objective (to us), but when we can, they are subjective (to us), and when they are shared, they are subjective to all involved.

Now that first sentence, “when experience and knowledge are in someone else’s mind (and not ours) and they are handled and used by that other mind to impact us, they can be considered objective as far as we are concerned” is a subjective observation and assessment by someone that can see both minds a work. An observer with even greater perception and perspectives than this person (Abraham 3) would in turn make a similar observation and assessment about him in relation to others that are greater in knowledge and experience, so that this person is being impacted by knowledge and experience that are relatively objective to his own.

Yes I think we agree.

We are both in a room together, and I see a pink elephant walk into the room and walk out again. At that moment it is subjective.

I turn to you and say "Did you see THAT?" (which actually is a likely response for most people) and amazingly you say "YES! What was that?? A pink elephant?"

At that second we have verification of a shared experience, and it becomes thereby somewhat objectivized- I would say perhaps "intersubjective" because there are only two agreeing and "verifying" the experience. We have our two witnesses as outlined in the gospel.

We have two people "verifying" the same experience.

So now we run down the hall, grabbing a cargo net I keep at the door precisely for such experiences, and we throw the cargo net over the pink elephant and drag it off to the zoo, and all the zoologists flip out because it is an undiscovered species of elephant - now named pinkus elephantus and it gets recorded in the whatsis book of elephantology and it is publicized throughout the world. People flock to see it.

It has now entered the culture fully- it is fully proven to be "objective" because many many people have had the experience of seeing the pink elephant. It has been given what we call a "species name" and is written up in literature- which is the common repository of human experience where all human experiences are recorded. This common repository of experience is called "science".

And so what was for a moment subjective has now become fully objective. It was always "real"- even when it was subjective. It is no more "real" now than it was when it was subjective.

Thus it is with dreams and visions and revelation. They are "real" but subjective- but the difference is that they cannot be made "objective". I cannot take a revelation out of my head as it were and put it on display so you can see feel taste and touch it. But it is still "real".

What we experience IS "real" - it is just subjective sometimes. The pain in my toe is "real" but you cannot feel it. My love for my wife is "real" but you cannot feel it exactly the way I do, and I cannot feel yours exactly as you do- or at least we cannot know that the feelings are exactly similar. When God tells YOU something- I do not hear the same "words" or feelings and indeed I may feel his "voice" in an entirely different way, but both of us can know- in our own respective ways, that He has "spoken" to our hearts.

THAT is what I mean by "subjective" and "objective". In short, the more people or even animals which "verify" the experience of a thing, the more objective it becomes. Bats find bugs and avoid rocks and trees while flying extremely quickly through sonar. Their experience I am sure is vastly different than the way we experience bugs and rocks- but we can also see the same bugs and rocks they do.

So what makes the bugs and rocks "real"? The fact that we experience them- just as the bats experience them, but each in our own ways.

If no one experienced the rock- would it be "real"? At a certain point that becomes irrelevant. We could not know that the rock was "real" if no one- not even bats- could experience it. It would be irrelevant to animal kind and a totally academic semantic question as to whether or not such a thing "exists".

Is that kind of what you meant?

[CV75]

Is that kind of what you meant?

Yes, in that I took that as the starting point. I agree with what you posted, but I think there’s another application and need for terms; I think I’m using or building upon these concepts for an opposing (but not conflicting) idea.

You used the term “inter-subjective” instead of “objective” to describe how an experience or knowledge becomes “objective” once it is shared and verified among two or more parties. So perhaps I should use “non-subjective” instead of “objective” to describe what I’m trying to say, which is that experience and knowledge are “non-subjective” to an individual until they are actually experienced and known subjectively by that individual, and once shared and verified with another individual or individuals, become additionally subjective. This would mean the shared and verified experiences in your example become all the more subjective as more subjective beings experience, agree and unite around them, and not objective at all.

For instance, with the pink elephant scenario, if I don’t see the pink elephant, and by virtue of your seeing it you are able to do things with it that I cannot, and these things impact my subjective experience in the room, the pink elephant is then an objective (“non-subjective”) reality that unbeknownst to me affects my subjective experience. An example would be that I cannot get past the elephant that I do not see to get to the cookie jar, but you have trained the elephant to deliver you a cookie from the jar with its trunk. Either my reality is to remain cookie-less (and starve!) because the unseen elephant is standing in my way, or you get the elephant to retrieve cookies for me, or you train me to see the elephant too, so that I am not forever dependent on you to command the elephant to deliver me a cookie, freeing up your time and energy to explore and complete other tasks (with or without the elephant) that expand your subjective reality.

Regarding the full relay of thoughts and visions, I believe that the Spirit can take experience from one person’s head and place it into another--for example, the gift of discerning the thoughts of another. The Lord’s taking the suffering for our sins upon Him, and our suffering as He did if we do not repent, are perhaps better examples. And the gift of charity is given of God to those who in turn experience what He does. Using your examples, I think God experiences (or at least can experience) the pain in your toe and the love for your wife. These experiences are subjective to Him, and simultaneously subjective to you, and depending on your relationship with God, mutually subjective. Or His experience of your pain and love can remain “non-subjective,” but only to you. And He may opt out of experieincing reactions to pain and love that He finds objectionable (D&C 1:31).

Using your example of the rock: Like the pink elephant, if I do not experience the rock, but its existence is experienced by someone more intelligent than me who uses or allows the rock to affect my experience, then the rock serves as an objective (or “non-subjective”) reality to me.

Maybe a shorter way of saying all this is that until we become like God, we can have an experience that is affected, influenced, molded or superseded by that which we do not experience, and that while all things are subjective to God, He sees that much of what He experiences as still being non-subjective or objective to us.

So as long as we can have both individual and shared experiences, I see “reality’ as being made up of subjective (shared) and objective (unshared) components.

Disclaimer: none of the above is intended to be construed as an argument for omniscience!

[mfbukowski]

Yes, in that I took that as the starting point. I agree with what you posted, but I think there’s another application and need for terms; I think I’m using or building upon these concepts for an opposing (but not conflicting) idea.

You used the term “inter-subjective” instead of “objective” to describe how an experience or knowledge becomes “objective” once it is shared and verified among two or more parties. So perhaps I should use “non-subjective” instead of “objective” to describe what I’m trying to say, which is that experience and knowledge are “non-subjective” to an individual until they are actually experienced and known subjectively by that individual, and once shared and verified with another individual or individuals, become additionally subjective. This would mean the shared and verified experiences in your example become all the more subjective as more subjective beings experience, agree and unite around them, and not objective at all.

For instance, with the pink elephant scenario, if I don’t see the pink elephant, and by virtue of your seeing it you are able to do things with it that I cannot, and these things impact my subjective experience in the room, the pink elephant is then an objective (“non-subjective”) reality that unbeknownst to me affects my subjective experience. An example would be that I cannot get past the elephant that I do not see to get to the cookie jar, but you have trained the elephant to deliver you a cookie from the jar with its trunk. Either my reality is to remain cookie-less (and starve!) because the unseen elephant is standing in my way, or you get the elephant to retrieve cookies for me, or you train me to see the elephant too, so that I am not forever dependent on you to command the elephant to deliver me a cookie, freeing up your time and energy to explore and complete other tasks (with or without the elephant) that expand your subjective reality.

Regarding the full relay of thoughts and visions, I believe that the Spirit can take experience from one person’s head and place it into another--for example, the gift of discerning the thoughts of another. The Lord’s taking the suffering for our sins upon Him, and our suffering as He did if we do not repent, are perhaps better examples. And the gift of charity is given of God to those who in turn experience what He does. Using your examples, I think God experiences (or at least can experience) the pain in your toe and the love for your wife. These experiences are subjective to Him, and simultaneously subjective to you, and depending on your relationship with God, mutually subjective. Or His experience of your pain and love can remain “non-subjective,” but only to you. And He may opt out of experieincing reactions to pain and love that He finds objectionable (D&C 1:31).

Using your example of the rock: Like the pink elephant, if I do not experience the rock, but its existence is experienced by someone more intelligent than me who uses or allows the rock to affect my experience, then the rock serves as an objective (or “non-subjective”) reality to me.

Maybe a shorter way of saying all this is that until we become like God, we can have an experience that is affected, influenced, molded or superseded by that which we do not experience, and that while all things are subjective to God, He sees that much of what He experiences as still being non-subjective or objective to us.

So as long as we can have both individual and shared experiences, I see “reality’ as being made up of subjective (shared) and objective (unshared) components.

Disclaimer: none of the above is intended to be construed as an argument for omniscience!

Definitely gotta think about that one!

[CV75]

Definitely gotta think about that one!

Alma and Korihor are in a room. They agree that they both see the pink elephant. Alma sees that the elephant can be trained to retrieve cookies from the cookie jar and expresses his intention to do so. Korihor sees that the elephant is nothing but work and the cookies aren’t of interest anyway. He complains that he doesn’t want to see it anymore. The concierge overhears Korihor, and offers to set up mirrors and prisms to hide the elephant from his view (since the owner insists the elephant stay in the room). Korihor thanks him and voila, he sees no more elephant and doesn’t covet the cookies. Alma trains the elephant and Korihor remains apathetic about cookies. Time goes by and one day they argue over the elephant’s existence, until the elephant steps on Korihor.

Korihor’s reality went from experiencing the elephant (subjective) to not seeing it (non-subjective), to experiencing the impact (subjective) of what he did not see (non-subjective), to experiencing a “now I remember” moment (subjective).

[harfad]

Alma and Korihor are in a room. They agree that they both see the pink elephant. Alma sees that the elephant can be trained to retrieve cookies from the cookie jar and expresses his intention to do so. Korihor sees that the elephant is nothing but work and the cookies aren’t of interest anyway. He complains that he doesn’t want to see it anymore. The concierge overhears Korihor, and offers to set up mirrors and prisms to hide the elephant from his view (since the owner insists the elephant stay in the room). Korihor thanks him and voila, he sees no more elephant and doesn’t covet the cookies. Alma trains the elephant and Korihor remains apathetic about cookies. Time goes by and one day they argue over the elephant’s existence, until the elephant steps on Korihor.

Korihor’s reality went from experiencing the elephant (subjective) to not seeing it (non-subjective), to experiencing the impact (subjective) of what he did not see (non-subjective), to experiencing a “now I remember” moment (subjective).

But in either case, is the elephant really, truly, “objectively” in existence (in the room) or not?—regardless of what Alma and Korihor think about it? Is there some way of determining that? That is the true test of objectivity. And I believe the answer is Yes.

D&C 93:24 describes “truth” (or reality) as “knowledge of things as they are ...” The use of the word “knowledge” here is significant. It implies two things about truth: (1) it is knowable; and (2) it must be known (by somebody). If these two conditions are not fulfilled about something, then it is not truth. And since there is only one person in the universe who know everything (i.e. God), then we conclude that truth (i.e. objective truth) is whatever exists in the mind of God, or in God’s knowledge. If God knows something, then it is objectively true, or is objective truth. That is the scriptural definition of objective truth.

Now going back to your elephant analogy, how can we know that the elephant is really, truly, objectively in the room (and not in somebody’s imagination)—regardless of what Alma or Korihor think about it? What if both Alma and Korihor had been bewitched, deceived, drugged, hallucinating, daydreaming, smoking pot etc., and the elephant wasn’t there all along. How would we know? There is only one way: (1) God must know that the elephant is in the room; and (2) He must communicate it to us by means of his Spirit. That is how (the only way in fact) that we can know objectively that the elephant is in the room. That I believe the definition of objective truth (from our perspective), and how it can be known (by us). That I believe is the message that the scriptures convey where they talk about us knowing the truth. In scriptural terms, truth (objective truth) is conveyed by the power of the Spirit of God, and not in any other way. That is the message conveyed in numerous passages of scripture, including (but not limited to) Moroni 10:5; D&C 124:97; Moses 6:61.

So the bottom line is that truth (objective truth) exists, and can be (objectively) known only by revelation.

[brainburn]

But in either case, is the elephant really, truly, “objectively” in existence (in the room) or not?—regardless of what Alma and Korihor think about it? Is there some way of determining that? That is the true test of objectivity. And I believe the answer is Yes.

D&C 93:24 describes “truth” (or reality) as “knowledge of things as they are ...” The use of the word “knowledge” here is significant. It implies two things about truth: (1) it is knowable; and (2) it must be known (by somebody). If these two conditions are not fulfilled about something, then it is not truth. And since there is only one person in the universe who know everything (i.e. God), then we conclude that truth (i.e. objective truth) is whatever exists in the mind of God, or in God’s knowledge. If God knows something, then it is objectively true, or is objective truth. That is the scriptural definition of objective truth.

Now going back to your elephant analogy, how can we know that the elephant is really, truly, objectively in the room (and not in somebody’s imagination)—regardless of what Alma or Korihor think about it? What if both Alma and Korihor had been bewitched, deceived, drugged, hallucinating, daydreaming, smoking pot etc., and the elephant wasn’t there all along. How would we know? There is only one way: (1) God must know that the elephant is in the room; and (2) He must communicate it to us by means of his Spirit. That is how (the only way in fact) that we can know objectively that the elephant is in the room. That I believe the definition of objective truth (from our perspective), and how it can be known (by us). That I believe is the message that the scriptures convey where they talk about us knowing the truth. In scriptural terms, truth (objective truth) is conveyed by the power of the Spirit of God, and not in any other way. That is the message conveyed in numerous passages of scripture, including (but not limited to) Moroni 10:5; D&C 124:97; Moses 6:61.

So the bottom line is that truth (objective truth) exists, and can be (objectively) known only by revelation.

And there you have your correspondence, mfbukowski. It's called revelatory knowledge and God is what makes it work. Scripture clearly shows that knowledge of true things is possible and plus, it's explained in a way that's incompatible with any anti-realist interpretation. Thanks, harfad.

[mfbukowski]

And there you have your correspondence, mfbukowski. It's called revelatory knowledge and God is what makes it work. Scripture clearly shows that knowledge of true things is possible and plus, it's explained in a way that's incompatible with any anti-realist interpretation. Thanks, harfad.

I have already talked about it. How do you peek around the side of the revelation to see what it corresponds to? You are experiencing God directly.

What does the color red correspond to - or the proverbial taste of salt?

I'm done. There's only so many times even I will repeat something. Yes God makes revelatory knowledge work and what we experience is what God sends us. It doesn't correspond to anything we can know to check how it corresponds to something else.

If you have read my posts you know that I have never denied that we have true knowledge of things. That is called "experiencing them". It is those who believe that experience CORRESPONDS to something else who believe we cannot experience things as they are. They ARE as they are experienced.

I have already said that multiple times. Bye. Burn your brain on someone else's time.

And oh by the way- I am holding you to my CFR's. I am still waiting to see a general authority endorse a philosophical view of the correspondence theory of truth with reference to a philosopher as establishing what "truth" is.

The board rule is produce the reference or retract the statement.

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Lamanite]

I think Busman did a fine job discussing these issues in under 5 min. Cant believe you guys are still going!

[mathonihah]

But in either case, is the elephant really, truly, “objectively” in existence (in the room) or not?—regardless of what Alma and Korihor think about it? Is there some way of determining that? That is the true test of objectivity. And I believe the answer is Yes.

D&C 93:24 describes “truth” (or reality) as “knowledge of things as they are ...” The use of the word “knowledge” here is significant. It implies two things about truth: (1) it is knowable; and (2) it must be known (by somebody). If these two conditions are not fulfilled about something, then it is not truth. And since there is only one person in the universe who know everything (i.e. God), then we conclude that truth (i.e. objective truth) is whatever exists in the mind of God, or in God’s knowledge. If God knows something, then it is objectively true, or is objective truth. That is the scriptural definition of objective truth.

Now going back to your elephant analogy, how can we know that the elephant is really, truly, objectively in the room (and not in somebody’s imagination)—regardless of what Alma or Korihor think about it? What if both Alma and Korihor had been bewitched, deceived, drugged, hallucinating, daydreaming, smoking pot etc., and the elephant wasn’t there all along. How would we know? There is only one way: (1) God must know that the elephant is in the room; and (2) He must communicate it to us by means of his Spirit. That is how (the only way in fact) that we can know objectively that the elephant is in the room. That I believe the definition of objective truth (from our perspective), and how it can be known (by us). That I believe is the message that the scriptures convey where they talk about us knowing the truth. In scriptural terms, truth (objective truth) is conveyed by the power of the Spirit of God, and not in any other way. That is the message conveyed in numerous passages of scripture, including (but not limited to) Moroni 10:5; D&C 124:97; Moses 6:61.

So the bottom line is that truth (objective truth) exists, and can be (objectively) known only by revelation.

I would say that was a great "mystical" post!

[CV75]

But in either case, is the elephant really, truly, “objectively” in existence (in the room) or not?—regardless of what Alma and Korihor think about it?

Yes—that is the scenario.

Is there some way of determining that?

Yes--I said so.

D&C 93:24 describes “truth” ... whatever exists in the mind of God, or in God’s knowledge...

…is subjectively known by God, and inasmuch as God is truth, it is a subjective experience from His perspective, and inasmuch as we have a personal relationship with God, it is subjective from our persepctive as well. As we become like God (and at what point does that start?), truth becomes even more a personal part of us, or even more subjective to us.

Now going back to your elephant analogy, how can we know that the elephant is really, truly, objectively in the room (and not in somebody’s imagination)—regardless of what Alma or Korihor think about it?

You can’t know what you don’t experience—that is what I am calling objective reality. It has to be forced upon you—just like people who insist to only know by being convinced by objective, scientific proof.

So the bottom line is that truth (objective truth) exists, and can be (objectively) known only by revelation.

Objective reality is what acts upon us without our knowledge or cooperation; subjective reality is what we act upon. I think the scriptures accommodate both perspectives, as I indicated in post #62.

EDIT:

harfad, I can't seem to EDIT post #266.

I later realized the referenced post #62 is actually in another thread, "Acording to the LDS View of Revelation" -- copied and pasted below:

Regarding the scripture, “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come… (D&C 93:24),” truth (or knowledge) is ultimately a purely subjective experience since objects (records, evidence, facts, etc.) that can be said to contain or represent such knowledge cannot act for themselves. They only contain knowledge by the hand of those who do act for themselves. This idea is often expressed in such ways as “I am the true light… I am the Spirit of truth… [having] received a fulness of truth, even of all truth (D&C 93: 2, 26)” and “All truth is independent… to act for itself …otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30).”

So on one hand, truth is objective before we find it, and on the other hand, is subjective once we become it (and we "become" by "doing").

Edited November 29, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

And there you have your correspondence...

If revelation is correspondence like a letter is correspondence, then it seems to me that writing, sending, receiving and reading the revelation/letter is a subjective experience for those involved.

If revelation corresponds to reality like a post card of the Eifel Tower corresponds to the Eifel Tower (and not to the Tower of Pisa), then correspondence is an eternal law or objective principle, and we can either act upon it subjectively or have it act upon us objectively. In order for us to act upon it, we have to know about and experieince it (making it subjective). In order for it to act upon us, we have to be ignorant about it, making it objective.

But where God is Truth, He is also correspondence, making even the principle of correspondence ultimately subjective. It is only objective when it is not a part of one's knowledge and action (or experience). At least that's how I've been using the terms.

[harfad]

What does the color red correspond to - or the proverbial taste of salt?

I would say the color red corresponds to that wavelength of light which the majority of mankind with normal vision (i.e. not being colorblind or having other visual impairment) would identify as "red".

Yes God makes revelatory knowledge work and what we experience is what God sends us. It doesn't correspond to anything we can know to check how it corresponds to something else.

If somebody is observing or experiencing truth directly (by the Spirit of truth), then its correspondence with the corresponding fact or reality is observed and experienced directly. It comes as it were as an attachment. If somebody told me that my car was red (which I hadn't seen yet), that statement would be true if it corresponds with the reality that it is indeed red; otherwise it wouldn’t be. It would be a lie or a mistake. However, once my car is delivered, and I can see that it is red, then the redness of my car, and the corresponding reality of its redness are observed and experienced simultaneously. It makes no sense to now say, "It doesn't correspond to anything we can know to check". That would be like riding a horse, and then asking people if they knew where your horse was.

If you have read my posts you know that I have never denied that we have true knowledge of things. That is called "experiencing them". It is those who believe that experience CORRESPONDS to something else who believe we cannot experience things as they are.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to a fact ... But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality ..." Now if the statement and its "corresponding" fact or reality are being observed and experienced simultaneously or directly, how then can their experience be "corresponding" to something else which they are not experiencing? Truth communicated by the Spirit of truth is pure truth, and has a quality of sureness or immediacy about it which makes the “correspondence” immediate and assured. It is pure truth and light. It can be received in its “fullness,” so that the person is then “glorified in truth and knoweth all things” (D&C 93:28). Truth communicated in that sense comes with the “correspondence” preattached. Truth cannot be known or experienced in that capacity without being able to establish the connection between assertion and the “reality” which it correspondence to. The correspondence of the truth statement and the reality it corresponds to is assured. That is how truth is communicated by the Spirit of truth.

[harfad]

CV75,

It seems to me that you are using the terms subjective and objective in an unconventional sense, at least for the purpose of this discussion. By “subjective truth” I mean truth (or a perception of what appears to be the truth) that is created by the mind of the observer the correspondence of which with some kind of “reality” or “fact” cannot be established. By objective truth I mean the opposite of subjective truth. We need to agree upon the meaning of the terms we use in order to avoid talking past each other.

According to the above definition, I know something “subjectively” if a correspondence between what I know (or think I know) and some kind of “fact” or “reality” which it might represent cannot be established. I know something “objectively” if that correspondence with a fact or reality it represents exists and can be established.

The correspondence theory of truth is a philosophical theory which defines truth in terms of that correspondence with a fact or reality independent of the mind of the “knower” of that truth. There are other theories of truth proposed in philosophy besides the correspondence theory; but most people would be inclined towards the correspondence theory; and some of us (including myself) feel that it comes closest to the scriptural definition of truth.

An “anti-realist” would necessarily be unable to accept the correspondence theory of truth. According to the Wikipedia entry for anti-realism, “In analytic philosophy, the term anti-realism is used to describe any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false”. mfb’s position comes closest to the anti-realist position, which confirms to his denial of the correspondence theory of truth. There are some of us who believe that that position is not scriptural, and is untenable in the framework of revealed religion.

[mfbukowski]

I would say the color red corresponds to that wavelength of light which the majority of mankind with normal vision (i.e. not being colorblind or having other visual impairment) would identify as "red".

No, it doesn't

Are you saying the wavelength itself is red??

The wavelength is measured on some kind of meter- you think there are little tiny red things all puddled together on a red car? Like little red balls or something??

The light causes our eyes to "see red"- there is no redness "out there" somewhere. I hope you can "see" this point.

There is NOTHING we can check to see that "red" corresponds to anything- no little red balls puddling together on a car.

[mfbukowski]

Now if the statement and its "corresponding" fact or reality are being observed and experienced simultaneously or directly, how then can their experience be "corresponding" to something else which they are not experiencing?

EXACTLY!

Can't you see how you are contradicting yourself? If you are experiencing it directly IT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO ANYTHING because you ARE experiencing it DIRECTLY. That is what I have been saying- we experience things directly because experience IS "reality"!! The problem is the idea that it must "correspond" to something!!

Truth communicated by the Spirit of truth is pure truth, and has a quality of sureness or immediacy about it which makes the “correspondence” immediate and assured.

AND non-existent! There is nothing else there but experiencing it directly- no correspondence!!

“glorified in truth and knoweth all things” (D&C 93:28). Truth communicated in that sense comes with the “correspondence” preattached.

YOU are doing the attachment here- there is nothing to attach in the scripture or anywhere else! "KNOWETH ALL THINGS" not "knoweth all attachments"! Where does it say anything about an attachment in the scripture? Why postulate an "attachment" where none is needed!

Truth cannot be known or experienced in that capacity without being able to establish the connection between assertion and the “reality” which it correspondence to.

But you haven't "established" any "connection" and don't need to! It is direct apprehension like when you drive over the crest of a hill and see a beautiful vista unfold before your eyes! Is the beauty "attached" or "corresponded" to in some way? No! Of course not! You instantly see the scene AND the "beauty" all at once- they are instantly apprehended together. There's no little paperclip that you have to click on to get the attachment- it's all just there instantly.

What You SEE Is What You Get! It takes on a new meaning in this context!

The correspondence of the truth statement and the reality it corresponds to is assured. That is how truth is communicated by the Spirit of truth.

No need to postulate any "correspondence" whatsoever.

The experience is the reality. We apprehend reality directly. Sometimes yes our eyes trick us or we see illusions. But that is why we have the word "illusion"- it's a false perception. But nearly always we see the world around us for what it is- directly. There is nothing "beyond" for anything to correspond to.

At this point you can see that "realism" and "anti-realism" become two sides of the same coin and the line becomes very blurry. The difference is that the anti-realist can put God into the equation where the realist cannot. I don't know why you think it is the other way around.

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me that you are using the terms subjective and objective in an unconventional sense, at least for the purpose of this discussion. By “subjective truth” I mean truth (or a perception of what appears to be the truth) that is created by the mind of the observer the correspondence of which with some kind of “reality” or “fact” cannot be established.

That is precisely the point.

You can never get out of your mind to check if it corresponds or not!!!

You are an always will be in the mind of the observer. Even as a spirit, you will be an observer unless you are merged somehow with the Cosmic Consciousness and that is not LDS doctrine. According to LDS doctrine we were individuals with our own "minds" before we came here and will be afterwards.

We have agency and will always have our own points of view. If we can decide to act as opposed to being acted on, we are agents and individuals with a point of view. That is as basic as it gets. "I am an agent, therefore I am".

If you don't believe that, you are not LDS

[harfad]

No, it doesn't

Are you saying the wavelength itself is red??

The wavelength is measured on some kind of meter- you think there are little tiny red things all puddled together on a red car? Like little red balls or something??

The light causes our eyes to "see red"- there is no redness "out there" somewhere. I hope you can "see" this point.

There is NOTHING we can check to see that "red" corresponds to anything- no little red balls puddling together on a car.

“Red” by itself does not correspond to anything except itself—“red”. Correspondence becomes relevant when you make a statement which can be either true or false, such as, “My car is red”. According to the correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if my car as a matter of fact is red, or in reality is red.

I think the question you are asking is, what does it mean for something to be “red”? My answer to that question is, something is red when it emits (or reflects) a wavelength of light that registers on the eyes of most people with normal vision as red, or creates a color sensation in their eyes to which in the English language is assigned the word “red”.

[CV75]

CV75,

It seems to me that you are using the terms subjective and objective in an unconventional sense, at least for the purpose of this discussion.

...

There are some of us who believe that that position is not scriptural, and is untenable in the framework of revealed religion.

Then this is all I really need to know, and I’m fine with that for then these become only “questions… of their own superstition,” which aren’t a sufficient standard for condemning a man for his beliefs.

But for the sake of friendly discussion, by whom is the observer’s perceived reality established, if not already by his own mind? And if this reality can only be established by someone else, how can the observer ever act independently? This seems to oppose the principle of agency.

While I see (and have experienced) how a person and the Holy Ghost can agree upon their perceptions of truth, I do not see how the Holy Ghost can actually establish or create (not just confirm) the reality of something for us without violating our agency. The person has to be willing to receive the confirming revelation, and to do that, exercise agency. Otherwise the person is like Korihor. But Korihor had already given up his agency and therefore was subject to both his own false perception and then to the truth being imposed upon him in a most unpleasant manner, and even then he never reclaimed his agency (in this life, anyway), even with the truth staring him in the face.

If I cannot experience reality without the Holy Ghost allowing me to perceive that reality independent of my own mind, my agency is denied. For example, the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord as a function of his own faith (mind); God neither allowed nor prevented it (“Arise, why hast thou fallen? / Sawest thou more than this?”). So I don’t see how a truth can be established for me independent of my mind once I have already perceived it with my mind. On the other hand, if the brother of Jared instead saw the Fickle Finger of Fate, he could only be convinced that it does not exist with the voluntary and correct use of his mind, since in this case, that which was observed / experienced / known cannot be defined by or for him independent of his mind or agency.

[mfbukowski]

The problem with correspondence is that "objective reality" is identified with "scientific reality" as it must be for the sake of consistency.

If scientists cannot look at it and poke it and take it apart and do it again and again all over the world, then the statement cannot be "true" because there is no scientific "reality" that the statement "corresponds" to. This is an atheistic position.

God cannot be part of "scientific reality" at least in the present system of science. He cannot be poked or have his picture taken, he cannot be experimentally verified or put under a microscope to test his DNA. The very words make me uncomfortable just to say.

That means that for present day science, God will always be "in our minds".

We have two choices:

1- What is "in our minds" IS reality (my position)

2- What is "in our minds" does NOT count as "reality"- indeed what is "in our minds" in some way "corresponds" to some outside reality which we do not experience directly.

Both of these cannot be "true"

Therefore 2 cannot be a theistic position because it puts God outside the realm of what is "real". There is no way to test our perception of God - (or beauty or love etc) all these are "in our minds" and therefore NOT "real" by definition, or at least assertions about such things cannot be true or false because they are unverifiable.

I really don't know why this is so hard to see. It seems so obvious!