Pre-Adamites?

[ERayR]

By definition

oxymoronic

Web definitions

(oxymoron) conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence').

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

How does this show that Elder Nelson holds contradictory (oxymoronic) views? Please demonstrate.

Edited June 24, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

I don't know what you mean by validated other than we now know how to produce RNA, an important precursor to DNA, from chemical compounds. It is equally true that we haven't yet reproduced DNA in the lab.

http://www.livescien...reated-lab.html

OK, so the answer is "no". (I realize that is a painful admission, in the context of his argument, and his neglect to mention that)

Anyway, Let me see if I cut thru all this stuff and understand his argument. He is rebutting an argument by the "other" side that says the probability is extremely high (unlikely within our present universe) for random events to create life. His killer argument is that the probability is actually unknown, (?!) and that we are unable to duplicate the process in laboratory conditions (!!????) with our current state of technology.

So his profound conclusion is that the "other" side may be _right, or they may be W R O N G.

Edited June 24, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

But "metaphysical", the word, has signified to my mind a whole reality outside of the five physical senses of the human body; a "realm" of existence that is just as real, or more real, than "being there" (here), but not discernible through the five physical senses - and that science is wholly devoted to the five physical senses and has nothing whatsoever to do with studying or even admitting the existence of the "metaphysical"....

Now there is PRECISELY the problem and it is not with you or your fault.

If you have not taken at least upper division philosophy classes in a secular university (and how many have?) you are probably unaware of this issue.

The issue is that because science has limited itself to what is observable and verifiable to everyone, it has distorted our perception of what is "real".

What is needed is a different paradigm which includes ALL of human experience as legitimate areas of inquiry and a theory of truth which can accommodate different methods of justifying propositions based on your personal experiences.

You speak of a world BEYOND the five senses but yet it is a world you have experienced due to personal revelation. It is as "real" a world as any- but for some reason you limit your reality to only what others can verify for you scientifically.

Why not postulate that you have 6 senses- or 87 if you wish- ALL OF WHICH are "legitimate" ways of comprehending God's universe? Some of those are scientifically verifiable and others are not, yet all are "real" because all are part of human experience?

Why say that there "is a world beyond the 5 senses" when in fact the "world" is unified - not dual- into one place we can experience with ALL OF OUR SENSES including spiritual senses? (as many as you like if you want to number them!)

This is why "metaphysics is dead" because philosophers now largely agree that SUBJECTIVE experience of the world "counts" at least as much as objective experience- if not more (which is what I would argue)

All of what is called "Continental philosophy", including Existentialism and Phenomenology belong in this category as well as in Anglo-American philosophy what is know as "Pragmatism" and "Constructivism" and "Anti-realism" take this basic assumption.

So your world "beyond the senses" is just as "real" it is now just part of reality and is no longer considered "beyond the senses". Subjective experiences are just as "real" as those which are verifiable scientifically, so there is no longer a reason to postulate that such areas of inquiry are "beyond the senses".

If you want to say that the "senses" have been re-defined to include all of human experience-including spiritual- go ahead and think of it that way

So "metaphysics" is dead. All of human experience is now a legitimate area of inquiry. There is nothing "beyond" human experience to talk about- literally. The fact that we can talk about it means it is part of human experience.

On the other hand if you don't or can't experience it, it is regarded typically as a linguistic construct. So God can be seen as "real" because he can be experienced.

This explanation of course is highly simplified - I know that someone will take me to task for it on the other board, but I really don't care.

Edited June 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

OK, so the answer is "no". (I realize that is a painful admission, in the context of his argument, and his neglect to mention that)

Anyway, Let me see if I cut thru all this stuff and understand his argument. He is rebutting an argument by the "other" side that says the probability is extremely high (unlikely within our present universe) for random events to create life. His killer argument is that the probability is actually unknown, (?!) and that we are unable to duplicate the process in laboratory conditions (!!????) with our current state of technology.

So his profound conclusion is that the "other" side may be _right, or they may be W R O N G.

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Of course they may be wrong, but the evidence so far presented doesn't point that direction.

[Stone holm]

Actually, as I recall about 30 years ago they figured out the problem with creating the building blocks was that the atmosphere of the Earth had changed, they created a controlled experiment with the altered atmosphere fired a bolt of electricity through it and wallah they had the macro-molecules. Where are we going with this argument?

[Questing Beast]

...

So "metaphysics" is dead. All of human experience is now a legitimate area of inquiry. There is nothing "beyond" human experience to talk about- literally. The fact that we can talk about it means it is part of human experience.

On the other hand if you don't or can't experience it, it is regarded typically as a linguistic construct. So God can be seen as "real" because he can be experienced.

This explanation of course is highly simplified - I know that someone will take me to task for it on the other board, but I really don't care.

I am surprised by the response. The trouble in discussing this online especially is that I am expecting "scientists" and their disciples to take issue with anything "metaphysical" that I assert to be real. On this board I get usually negative response to my concepts for "God", because, it seems to me, it is too open-ended, too undefined to suit Mormonism's dogmatic assertions defining GtF and the Godhead. Similarly, science does not "go there" when discussing "God". Yet you are saying that "metaphysics is dead" because, as a separate study from science it no longer flies? It has been taken into the whole realm of human studies?

I use the word "metaphysical" to describe what lies outside of current scientific observation, i.e. what we could also refer to as paranormal experiences, or supernatural experiences. But I don't like those words, as I said, because "metaphysical" to me means other-worldly, or beyond the physical, empirical world as observed by science, yet every bit as real as this empirical world. Is there a better word, in your opinion or experience, to describe that "other-worldly" existence than "metaphysical"?...

Edited June 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

https://www.google.c...lient=firefox-a

I love his accent

I tried to sit through the accent, but eventually gave up. My caution is that you should always be careful in pronouncing any discipline dead.

[mfbukowski]

I am surprised by the response. The trouble in discussing this online especially is that I am expecting "scientists" and their disciples to take issue with anything "metaphysical" that I assert to be real. On this board I get usually negative response to my concepts for "God", because, it seems to me, it is too open-ended, too undefined to suit Mormonism's dogmatic assertions defining GtF and the Godhead. Similarly, science does not "go there" when discussing "God". Yet you are saying that "metaphysics is dead" because, as a separate study from science it no longer flies? It has been taken into the whole realm of human studies?

I use the word "metaphysical" to describe what lies outside of current scientific observation, i.e. what we could also refer to as paranormal experiences, or supernatural experiences. But I don't like those words, as I said, because "metaphysical" to me means other-worldly, or beyond the physical, empirical world as observed by science, yet every bit as real as this empirical world. Is there a better word, in your opinion or experience, to describe that "other-worldly" existence than "metaphysical"?...

You understood perfectly what I said, but I caution you that only certain schools of scientists, but now I would say "many" or perhaps even the majority of philosophers feel this way, again, mostly of those schools of philosophy I mentioned.

In Europe, Phenomenology and related philosophical schools take it as basic, that the goal of human inquiry should be all of human experience, not just what is scientifically observable. The other view- that all which is "real" is verifiable scientifically- has mostly been abandoned. Virtually all Anglo-American philosophers are more interested in the way we SPEAK about philosophical issues- not some underlying "reality beyond" what we as humans can experience.

This is not to say by a long shot that there are no atheists among philosophers- probably the vast majority are atheists or agnostics. Yet there are even atheists who see the value of "religion" based on the richness it gives our lives, and speak "religiously" about issues like social justice.

It is really a small step philosophically from saying that beliefs about the solidarity of mankind can be "true" to saying that beliefs about God can be just as "true".

Existentialists express very well the "reality" of what it is to be human, including moments of joy as well as dread and loneliness, and the need to connect with an "other" in human relations.

Is there a better word? The word Pragmatists would use is just "experience"- which covers all that we can know is real for us. William James speaks of the "Varieties of Religious Experience" and explores the implications of just the kind of experiences to which you are referring.

Fairly recently James' views have been noticed by Mormons, and his philosophy, along with that of continental Phenomenologists- championed by BYU prof James Faulconer and others - is slowly entering Mormon thought- and that type of thought is what I am here to promote.

Increasingly as well, science is no longer seen as a study of "reality" but of linguistic models which work for a while and then are supplanted by a model which works better than the previous one.

So both of these trends come together in the idea that human experience is a vast area which encompasses everything we can know about- including what used to be "metaphysics".

We don't speak about what is "real" but what we experience AS "real"

Edited June 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I tried to sit through the accent, but eventually gave up. My caution is that you should always be careful in pronouncing any discipline dead.

OK

I will take your advice and take up Phrenology and the study of phlogiston immediately

[cdowis]

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

I came to a couple of conclusions.

Of course they may be wrong, but the evidence so far presented doesn't point that direction.

Of course, anything is possible. And that is the point. This is not a "killer" argument, it is not a refutation of the probability argument. (Conclusion #1)

Cutting thru all the tecno babble, it just comes down to "I disagree". It is not a matter whether he is "wrong", just that he merely says that the probablity is unknown, rather than impossbily low. (Conclusion #2a)

He is not pointing in any direction, except "We don't know". (Conclusion #2b) He tells us about the mechanics of DNA but has nothing to add about the actual probability argument.

Are you able to see that?

Edited June 25, 2013 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

OK

I will take your advice and take up Phrenology and the study of phlogiston immediately

There you go that is the spirit. Actually, was thinking of Creationism and fundamentalism.

[Questing Beast]

You understood perfectly what I said, but I caution you that only certain schools of scientists, but now I would say "many" or perhaps even the majority of philosophers feel this way, again, mostly of those schools of philosophy I mentioned.

...

We don't speak about what is "real" but what we experience AS "real"

That sounds like a distinction that science could not make. Most or all of what we experience AS real is subjective to the individual, and cannot be replicated or even shown, only asserted through communication using the five empirical senses. If what you are saying is true (the shift is generally toward the study of reality as all-encompassing) then that looks like increased enlightenment to me. It allows individuals to have their own reality that cannot be demonstrated because it is ineffable....

Edited June 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

That sounds like a distinction that science could not make. Most or all of what we experience AS real is subjective to the individual, and cannot be replicated or even shown, only asserted through communication using the five empirical senses. If what you are saying is true (the shift is generally toward the study of reality as all-encompassing) then that looks like increased enlightenment to me. It allows individuals to have their own reality that cannot be demonstrated because it is ineffable....

Really. Is this iPad a subjective experience, kind of like the original owners of those fossilised bones?

[Questing Beast]

You cannot show that anyone you converse with via your iPad is not merely a randomly scattered collection of yourselves texting each other....

[mfbukowski]

That sounds like a distinction that science could not make. Most or all of what we experience AS real is subjective to the individual, and cannot be replicated or even shown, only asserted through communication using the five empirical senses. If what you are saying is true (the shift is generally toward the study of reality as all-encompassing) then that looks like increased enlightenment to me. It allows individuals to have their own reality that cannot be demonstrated because it is ineffable....

Yes! That is step one.

Step two is the realization that ALL we know or can know is limited by our very humanity ourselves- it is all filtered through our collective human experience, some of which is written in language and some of which is just inside of us, as you say, and "ineffable".

And even that is limited because only certain things can be put into language. If you have not read this, you absolutely must: http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

[Stone holm]

You cannot show that anyone you converse with via your iPad is not merely a randomly scattered collection of yourselves texting each other....

So the bones are what?

[Questing Beast]

Yes! That is step one.

Step two is the realization that ALL we know or can know is limited by our very humanity ourselves- it is all filtered through our collective human experience, some of which is written in language and some of which is just inside of us, as you say, and "ineffable".

And even that is limited because only certain things can be put into language. If you have not read this, you absolutely must: http://www.peterbyrn...d0711Byrn3p.pdf

"Today he insists that reality may forever

be beyond reach of our understanding"

Right at the getgo, he's on the same page with me. I'll get to it when I can....

[mfbukowski]

The key insight is that some experiences are reproducible ( the ipad- the chair you are sitting in, the rock you kicked this morning, the boiling point of water) and some are not. (The pain in my toe that only I can feel- the feel of the leather of the chair, the fact that I hate that color, or the spirit testifying to me that what you write on your ipad is true)

All are just as "real" but some of those experiences are open to us all, and some are not. I can never feel your pain, but if I kick the same rock I will feel something very similar, or perhaps identical, but how similar we can never know.

[mfbukowski]

"Today he insists that reality may forever

be beyond reach of our understanding"

Right at the getgo, he's on the same page with me. I'll get to it when I can....

It's great stuff- the key though is what he means by "reality". It could be a game changer for you!

[Stone holm]

The key insight is that some experiences are reproducible ( the ipad- the chair you are sitting in, the rock you kicked this morning, the boiling point of water) and some are not. (The pain in my toe that only I can feel- the feel of the leather of the chair, the fact that I hate that color, or the spirit testifying to me that what you write on your ipad is true)

All are just as "real" but some of those experiences are open to us all, and some are not. I can never feel your pain, but if I kick the same rock I will feel something very similar, or perhaps identical, but how similar we can never know.

Ah, that may just be a technological inadequacy, I am sure that someday we can wire people so that all those sensory experiences are transferrable -- except maybe the spirit testifying.

[Questing Beast]

So the bones are what?

"The bones, tell me, nothing." (forgive the irresistible quote)

Quite literally, though, "bones", any evidence from the ground as it were, tell us very limited things. All that any of us can derive from "evidence from the ground" is that most of the Earth is layered out of our purview, containing stuff that defies categorization and even description. What we have seen, thus far, is not even a measurable percentage point of what there is, and what there Is off-world is just that much more yet to discover. Anyone who believes that they are finally onto something, finally "getting it" (at the truth) is in a state of massive hubris....

[Stone holm]

"The bones, tell me, nothing." (forgive the irresistible quote)

Quite literally, though, "bones", any evidence from the ground as it were, tell us very limited things. All that any of us can derive from "evidence from the ground" is that most of the Earth is layered out of our purview, containing stuff that defies categorization and even description. What we have seen, thus far, is not even a measurable percentage point of what there is, and what there Is off-world is just that much more yet to discover. Anyone who believes that they are finally onto something, finally "getting it" (at the truth) is in a state of massive hubris....

Unfortunately, all progress is probably dependent upon having a sufficient number of people with massive hubris.

[mfbukowski]

Ah, that may just be a technological inadequacy, I am sure that someday we can wire people so that all those sensory experiences are transferrable -- except maybe the spirit testifying.

Suppose that is true that experiences can be transferred.

It changes nothing.

Suppose that it is false.

It changes nothing

[mfbukowski]

The bones just are for all to see.

It's up to us to make stories about what they are and how they got there.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, all progress is probably dependent upon having a sufficient number of people with massive hubris.

No, just people who like to create order from matter unorganized. That's what humans do, isn't it?