According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[CV75]

I like the language of the scriptures better which talks about receiving light and truth until one is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. The word experience is not mentioned there at all.

I have no qualms about that. But if you're saying that receiving light and truth, being glorified, and knowing are devoid of experieince, or not experieinces, then the scripture does become meaningless to a person and applicable only to a computer.

It was a question of the scriptures existing as a "reality" in God's own mind (or bosom), and then being conveyed to us directly through the agency of God "as they are" without interfearance or involvement of the prophet's own mind which might distort that reality even slightly into "as they are not".

Again, you are suggesting the prophet (and likewise all of us) is a computer that doesn't need a mind, doesn't need grace for its involvement, and doesn't grow from grace to grace.

[CV75]

Thank you. The bottom line for me is whether there is such thing as "knowledge of things as they are;" and if so, whether it is possible to know it, and to know that you know it. I don't know what the philosophers have to say about that; but the scriptural answer seems to me to be yes, and that is what I like to go by.

There is knowledge of things as they are, I possess such knowledge, and I know that I know it; and furthermore, I know that God knows it and that I know it. Pretty good for a computer!

[mfbukowski]

I have no qualms about that. But if you're saying that receiving light and truth, being glorified, and knowing are devoid of experieince, or not experieinces, then the scripture does become meaningless to a person and applicable only to a computer.

Again, you are suggesting the prophet (and likewise all of us) is a computer that doesn't need a mind, doesn't need grace for its involvement, and doesn't grow from grace to grace.

Yep.

How does it get "into our heads" if we don't experience it?

What is the opposition to what seems so obvious??

[mfbukowski]

Maybe if I take the opposite atheistic tack I could be fakebukowski and argue the other side to make others argue my side!

Fakebukowski says:

You guys are all loonies thinking that your brain is in a vat or something? Don't you know that what is real is outside your minds? What's wrong with you?

All your thoughts are observable chemical brain states and nothing more. You are automotons subject to the observable scientific laws of the universe and your silly spiritual experiences are just chemicals knocking around in your brains! If it is not measurable and observable it is not "real". To think otherwise is just superstition!

Reality is what is outside of you- that is all there is- what science can see and measure! The rest is superstition! Language and your thoughts are just representations which correspond to reality and are caused by what is outside you- you are just little chemical factories without spirit or any of this mumbo jumbo you believe in! You are the product of the godless evolution of chemicals- that is all!

So what is your response to fakebukowski?

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

What is the opposition to what seems so obvious??

I think it is from the idea that all things are material, and so knowledge (light) as a material must be conveyed from one generous being to another receptive being. Since the same particle cannot be in two places at once, it has to either move very fast (in which case both minds have to be slower than the traveling particle so as to perceive it as a simultaneously placed piece of something) or be replicated (in which case it isn't really shared directly from one mind to the other) or as the higher intelligence is moving foward the lesser intelligence catches up and takes its discarded knowledge. I'm not saying this doesnt happen under some circumstances, but fundamentally... I have to stick with the "e" word.

[Calm]

I think it is from the idea that all things are material, and so knowledge (light) as a material must be conveyed from one generous being to another receptive being. Since the same particle cannot be in two places at once, it has to either move very fast (in which case both minds have to be slower than the traveling particle so as to perceive it as a simultaneously placed piece of something) or be replicated (in which case it isn't really shared directly from one mind to the other) or as the higher intelligence is moving foward the lesser intelligence catches up and takes its discarded knowledge. I'm not saying this doesnt happen under some circumstances, but fundamentally... I have to stick with the "e" word.

All things are material in the sense that they are either matter or energy, imo. Knowledge/information could therefore be stored in either energy or matter. Knowledge can be shared by transmitting energy that then excites or alters the state of the matter into a new configuration that then stores the information as apparently is done in our brains and is done in computers, information that then deciphered by having corresponding language with the matter states. Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I think it is from the idea that all things are material, and so knowledge (light) as a material must be conveyed from one generous being to another receptive being. Since the same particle cannot be in two places at once, it has to either move very fast (in which case both minds have to be slower than the traveling particle so as to perceive it as a simultaneously placed piece of something) or be replicated (in which case it isn't really shared directly from one mind to the other) or as the higher intelligence is moving foward the lesser intelligence catches up and takes its discarded knowledge. I'm not saying this doesnt happen under some circumstances, but fundamentally... I have to stick with the "e" word.

Really? You think that's it??

So two people cannot know the same thing at the same time? That is a weird hypothesis- but if that is the problem it needs to be addressed!

I mean when I am in a metaphysical mood I think maybe that all there is is consciousness- or light and truth- in an elemental sense and we are like nodes of consciousness receiving and radiating - taking it in and shaping and putting it out.

But seeing it as little balls that if I have the ball you cannot have the same idea- that is pretty weird to me. I virtually never speak that way because it is totally unintelligible logically but maybe if we are on the same wavelength that might work.....

[Calm]

Really? You think that's it??

So two people cannot know the same thing at the same time? That is a weird hypothesis- but if that is the problem it needs to be addressed!

I mean when I am in a metaphysical mood I think maybe that all there is is consciousness- or light and truth- in an elemental sense and we are like nodes of consciousness receiving and radiating - taking it in and shaping and putting it out.

But seeing it as little balls that if I have the ball you cannot have the same idea- that is pretty weird to me. I virtually never speak that way because it is totally unintelligible logically but maybe if we are on the same wavelength that might work.....

Wavelength is right.

[mfbukowski]

All things are material in the sense that they are either matter or energy, imo. Knowledge/information could therefore be stored in either energy or matter.

Like a vinyl phonograph record or the light through a fiber optic cable?

Man we are getting out there. I am gonna get a nosebleed soon!

[mfbukowski]

Wavelength is right.

Yep- modulated like radio waves AM or FM

That's kind of like how I see it. We are radio transceivers putting out and receiving info and influence to the horizon

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Like a vinyl phonograph record or the light through a fiber optic cable?

Man we are getting out there. I am gonna get a nosebleed soon!

Or how DNA stores info....that will cause a nosebleed everytime.

By the way, I added a bit to explain more of what I meant.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Or how DNA stores info....that will cause a nosebleed everytime.

By the way, I added a bit to explain more of what I meant.

Ok I see how that could be certainly.

[Calm]

Ok I see how that could be certainly.

It is all about how one 'stores' language.

Oh, and transmitts it....

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

All things are material in the sense that they are either matter or energy, imo. Knowledge/information could therefore be stored in either energy or matter. Knowledge can be shared by transmitting energy that then excites or alters the state of the matter into a new configuration that then stores the information as apparently is done in our brains and is done in computers, information that then deciphered by having corresponding language with the matter states.

OK I get that- as long as that pesky "correspondence" is not a Montague thing like we recently saw- I like "interpreted" in there somewhere

[Calm]

OK I get that- as long as that pesky "correspondence" is not a Montague thing like we recently saw

No....please no.

[Gervin]

I am gonna get a nosebleed soon!

to go with my ice cream headache

[Calm]

to go with my ice cream headache

I'd go for an ice cream headache over a nosebleed anytime....

And I don't really think the two go together that well, especially if one is still trying to consume the ice cream inspite of the pain.

[brainburn]

You guys are all loonies thinking that your brain is in a vat or something? Don't you know that what is real is outside your minds? What's wrong with you?

All your thoughts are observable chemical brain states and nothing more. You are automotons subject to the observable scientific laws of the universe and your silly spiritual experiences are just chemicals knocking around in your brains! If it is not measurable and observable it is not "real". To think otherwise is just superstition!

Reality is what is outside of you- that is all there is- what science can see and measure! The rest is superstition! Language and your thoughts are just representations which correspond to reality and are caused by what is outside you- you are just little chemical factories without spirit or any of this mumbo jumbo you believe in! You are the product of the godless evolution of chemicals- that is all!

This is hardcore scientism. I'm an agnostic atheist. If you think my position has anything to do with the former (or anything to do with your very unrealistic fakebukowski), then I'm certain you have no idea what I'm talking about. You're just inventing another "brainburn" in your mind and arguing against it.

Here's the difference:

You guys are all loonies thinking that your brain can "know" something it doesn't experience? Don't you know that what is real is only inside your minds? What's wrong with you?

We can't be certain of anything but our subjective experience and nothing more. Anything in the future is absolutely unknowable before it happens! If it is not measurable and observable inside your mind, it is not "real". To think otherwise is just superstition!

Reality is what is inside of you- that is all there is- what you happen to see and measure! The rest is superstition! Language and your thoughts are just representations which we can never know correspond to reality! Not even if God tells you so! That is all!

Mfb, I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but this is an essential premise in the philosophy of the Anti-Christ. Here's your proof: https://www.lds.org/...osophy?lang=eng

Pragmatism determines whether something works. The business world is often pragmatically oriented, focusing on whether a new product or marketing strategy actually produces the desired results. If it works, it is valid; if it doesn’t, it is rejected.

Empiricism uses observation or personal experience to arrive at truth. This knowledge is gathered primarily through the senses—through what one sees, touches, hears, smells, and tastes.

Which of these systems do Latter-day Saints subscribe to? The answer, of course, is all of them. But we also rely on another way of knowing truth: divine revelation. In this method, truth comes either directly from God or indirectly through his prophets.

Divine revelation is another way of knowing truth than empiricism and pragmatism. They work differently.

For example, Korihor’s argument that “ye cannot know of things which ye do not see” (Alma 30:15) reveals his epistemology—his system of determining truth—to be primarily empirical, or based on observation and use of the senses. (See chart 1.) However, the Apostle Paul says, “Faith is … the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1; italics added.) Korihor’s stance, however, is, “If you can’t see it, you can’t know it.” He therefore rejects prophecy because prophecy deals with the future, and you cannot “see,” or experience, the future with the physical senses. Consequently, all talk of a future Savior and redemption is to be rejected on principle.

Tell me, mfb. How is Korihor's argument not exactly the same as your argument?

How is “ye cannot know of things which ye do not see” exactly the same as “ye cannot know of things which ye do not experience”, your position?

How is "you cannot “see,” or experience, the future with the physical senses" not exactly what you just said to me about the future?

Before you respond, I'm not implying that you and the Anti-Christ accept the same philosophy on every level.

>>>>>>I'm only pointing out one thing: You're position that you can't know anything you don't experience is officially discredited by the BoM and authoritative LDS interpretation

There is one line of logic I'm accusing you of holding:

[Calm]

Korihor discounted spiritual experience. mfb does not. Therefore mfb's position is not of the Anti-Christ.

[brainburn]

Korihor discounted spiritual experience. mfb does not. Therefore mfb's position is not of the Anti-Christ.

I never implied or suggested such. If you read my post closely I only accused him of one line of logic.

[Calm]

I answered this:

Tell me, mfb. How is Korihor's argument not exactly the same as your argument?

Spiritual experience makes all the difference.

Korihor makes a fundamental assumption: "Only physical experience exists". Everything that follows is based on that assumption. mfb disagrees profoundly with that assumption. Therefore anything that Korihor has to say is irrelevant to mfb's beliefs.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[brainburn]

From the same article:

• 
  They refused “to believe in things to come, which they knew nothing about.” (Alma 31:22.)
  

Familiar echoes? Indeed. The Zoramites represent the end product of Korihor’s own philosophy. How ironic that Korihor should meet his death at the hands of a people who practiced what he preached!

Korihor’s teachings were based on lies.

[Calm]

See above addition.

[brainburn]

I answered this:

Spiritual experience makes all the difference.

I was talking about one thing and it was very clear. The argument that you can't know something you haven't experienced. There is no room for your interpretation in my words. You're inventing my position before knocking it down.

Edited December 15, 2012 by brainburn

[Calm]

I was talking about one thing and it was very clear. The argument that you can't know something you haven't experienced. There is no room for your interpretation in my words. You're inventing my position before knocking it down.

But that is not the same as Korihor's argument. Korihor's argument was that there was no spiritual experience and therefore one couldn't truly experience and therefore know prophecy. Since mfb believes in spiritual experience and if someone experiences prophecy as a spiritual experience, therefore in his worldview prophecy can be known, there is no correlation between Korihor's and mfb's argument simply because some of the phrasing is similar.

If you want to state that one of the assumptions of Korihor's is "you can't know what you don't experience" and one of the assumptions of mfb's argument is the same, I will grant you that, but claiming therefore that mfb is following an anti-christ argument or his position is similar to Korihor's is like claiming that glue is the same thing as a waffle just because both can be made from milk. One similar ingredient/assumption doesn't make for similar arguments. If one of the assumptions---in this case the existence of spiritual experience---is fundamentally different, so is the argument.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah