Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

No, it just shows that the Universe is fundamentally rational and comprehensible via reason.  You can argue that the interpretation is us looking in the mirror but the truth is the image in the mirror not only accurately represents us but it accurately predicts events in the Universe when we have the necessary data.

 

Can you prove this without using any sensory information (since they require assumption)?

 

Reality is not an illusion. It is just the only way we have of perceiving the data.

 

 

Mmm... I would digress.  For instance, one other way of perceiving data is solipsism.  Another is idealism.  And those are only the base ideologies, they have many sub-categories inside themselves.

 

I admit I hate this kind of thinking. It seems designed to demean the knowledge of God and man and replace it with a sense of oblivious unawareness as if that is some profound discovery.

 

Not really, imho.  It's just admitting how much we do not know for certain.  Note though that our lack of perfect knowledge (or even lack of most knowledge) doesn't prevent us from believing in things.  We can justify belief for ourselves, even without evidence or proof.  All this type of thinking does is help us recognize the assumptions in our thought process, so we aren't so quick to criticize other's assumptions.  In other words, it is a good counter to people who are too aggressive in asserting that other people's beliefs are wrong.  Perhaps it's not your flavor though.

Link to comment

I don't think so since most insanity is chosen as the lazy way out.

 

CFR?

 

 

You can choose any paradigm you like to believe just as you can choose to worship a yellow dog.

 

Correct, you can.  And that is my point.  You are free to choose.  Just choose responsibly.

 

 

I do not believe it is an innocent error to choose a paradigm that defies reality.

 

But it is their choice regardless, right?  Innocent or not, we cannot make that choice for them.

 

 

Laman could have argued that the angel was a group hallucination but I doubt God excused his sins simply because he chose to believe that.

 

I rather doubt it too, but it doesn't take away Laman's right to choose between the options available with his own free will.  Agency is quite important.

 

 

 

Things are ultimately useful only when they are true.

 

And how do you know they are true?  Because you interpret them from your sensory data?  And how do you know that your interpretation is correct?  You cannot, you can only assume so.  And how do you know that your sensory data is correct?  You cannot, you can only assume so.  But do these things stop us from believing in a physical, breathable reality?  Not at all.  Because we prefer this option over the alternatives.  The other options simply aren't worth worrying about.

 

And it's important to discuss this; it's important to realize these assumptions are being made, because by being aware of them, you will realize that your point of view isn't the only one.  Most of the time, this won't change your opinion, especially on issues of moral right and wrong.  But sometimes it does.  Though most of the time it doesn't.

 

 

 

Believing a lie because it is "useful" will eventually burn you.

 

Isn't it that person's choice to get burned though?  That's what agency is; to make your own choices of your own will, and to face the consequences according to God's laws and mercy.  If they want to believe a lie, let them.  You can say they are wrong.  You can even tell them that.  But to claim they are insane goes too far for a position which is quite logically consistent with itself.  Instead, use other arguments to convince them that your point of view has more advantages than theirs.  Or at least that's what I would do.  As always in agency, the choice is up to you.  And there aren't only two of them.  There are many paths.  Find the one that you are willing to follow, as I hope I can.

 

EDIT:  After feeling the Spirit for a bit; I feel obligated to say this:  I don't come to create contention but to form a better understanding between two of God's children.  Sorry if my posts sounds a bit harsh or strong in certain portions of it's contents.

 

Best of Wishes to You,

-TAO

Edited by TAO
Link to comment
You can argue that the interpretation is us looking in the mirror but the truth is the image in the mirror not only accurately represents us but it accurately predicts events in the Universe when we have the necessary data.

Unfortunately you cannot know that.

 

In order for you to know that you would have to step outside of the interpretation and check it against "interpretation -free" reality to show that the interpretation "corresponds"

 

"See- look right here- here is interpretation free reality- independent of human perception- and here is what I said about it!  They correspond perfectly!"

 

Can you see the problem there?  YOU CANNOT SEE "reality" as it is - you can only see it as humans perceive it. And even if you could, what you would say about it is nothing more than a linguistic, symbolic representation of the representation which might or might not even "correspond" to the representation. 

 

There is no way around that.  If we know it, we know it in a human brain/mind /spirit -take your pick and it has to get "in there" somehow.

 

The whole point of whether or not what we see "represents" reality "as it is" is totally moot.  We see what we see and sometimes we are mistaken or misinterpret what we see.

 

And yes, of course it has predictive value- we would fall off cliffs regularly if it didn't.  But there is no rational way to show that what we perceive "represents" anything.  It has survival value, but is it "reality as it is"?  One cannot show that.  And that is precisely why religious experience is "real".

 

Please show me what religious experience "corresponds" to or "represents".  You cannot show me that either, therefore by your definition religious experience is not "reality as it is".

 

For some reason I like to think that religious experience is "real", and I would suppose you would as well.  But under your theory of truth, you cannot do that.

 

I just like to say that reality IS what we perceive or experience.  No "Correspondence"  no "representation".  It is what we see, and we can never be quite certain about what we see or know.  Religious experience is just as real as any other experience, and just as certain or uncertain.

 

All you are giving up is the illusion of certainty, that we can "know" anything for certain, except tautologies like A=A, which are "true by definition" and not illuminating.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I think I am going to bow out of the thread. It has switched over from science to philosophy and I have to admit that I find these discussions incredibly dull though I am not knocking those who enjoy them.

 

Have fun.

We will, but thinking clearly is important, and I am not sure how you can think clearly about religious matters without looking at philosophy.

 

The truth of religious experience is not going to go away as a problem by us hiding our heads in the sand.

Link to comment
Reality is not an illusion. It is just the only way we have of perceiving the data.

 

I admit I hate this kind of thinking. It seems designed to demean the knowledge of God and man and replace it with a sense of oblivious unawareness as if that is some profound discovery.

I never said that reality is an illusion, not once, not ever.

 

And it is correspondence that demeans religious knowledge as "all in your head" and therefore not real.  In my opinion, you have it exactly backwards.

Link to comment
Reality is not an illusion. It is just the only way we have of perceiving the data.

That is exactly what I am saying- reality is the only way we have of perceiving the data- it doesn't "correspond" or "represent" anything, but sometimes we get it wrong and the way we perceive it is conditioned by other factors as well, including our prejudices etc.

Link to comment

We will, but thinking clearly is important, and I am not sure how you can think clearly about religious matters without looking at philosophy.

 

The truth of religious experience is not going to go away as a problem by us hiding our heads in the sand.

 

The hilarity of this kind of philosophical investigation is that it argues our thoughts are not entirely trustworthy so let's think about it some more. More philosophical thinking is not the answer. I would argue revelation is.

 

I admit I am somewhat arrogant in this area. I have been blessed with the ability to sense and recognize the divine or call up the Holy Ghost almost at will. I cannot force answers or revelation but I can request the Holy Ghost and get a minor experience of the divine. Every time I pray with intent I experience a kind of sublime manifestation of God.

 

Coupled with much more spectacular spiritual experiences I no longer have any doubts about the existence of God or that spiritual and revelatory experiences are a valid indicator of objective truth. Hence, I find philosophical arguments about it pointless.

 

I have since learned all members do not have this gift. I do not imagine myself superior because of it. I am reminded that sometimes spiritual gifts are given because of our weaknesses. If I were stronger I could endure much more with much less support. It does mean that most philosophy (especially about the validity of spiritual experiences and the nature of truth) seem to me to involve a lot of navel-gazing. There just seem to be much more interesting avenues of study that lead to much more substantial answers.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment

The hilarity of this kind of philosophical investigation is that it argues our thoughts are not entirely trustworthy so let's think about it some more. More philosophical thinking is not the answer.

 

Eh, not precisely.  Instead, I'd say it argues is that our thought process is quite possibly fallible, and that we should recognize that it could every well be imperfect.

 

 

 

 I would argue revelation is.

 

Mmmm... Revelation is 'sensory data', so it'd technically be under the same strain as other sensory data but beyond that, not everybody knows how to recieve revelation, and you can't exactly blame them for being skeptical, persay.  Wish they were more trusting, yes, but not much further than that.

 

Coupled with much more spectacular spiritual experiences I no longer have any doubts about the existence of God or that spiritual and revelatory experiences are a valid indicator of objective truth. Hence, I find philosophical arguments about it pointless.

 

I'll tell you, I think you are right; in the sight of God philisophical condrums ARE ultimately pointless.  God's goal in my limited human perspective, seems to be simply getting the work done (in a sense, it's almost better to ask questions later; this is the time to work, and for men to become like God).  But there are also people out there who do worry about these sort of things.  You need to be able to communicate with them, so that way the gospel can be shown to them.

 

One thing I have found (especially on this forum =p) is that people are very concerned about evidence.  For me, I sort of take the opposite approach.  I guess the reason is because I have found that the best way to gain evidence that the Church is true is to simply live the life the Church teaches us too.  Pray daily, read your scriptures, go to church, partake of the sacrament, accept callings in Church, provide help to others, be more charitable every day, listen to the prophets and apostles God has put on the Earth for us.  I have found far more proof that the Church is true by acting on these things than by any scientific evidence ever given.  Focusing too much on objectivity, at least for me, takes away from my ability to have faith in the Lord.  Perhaps that is just my weakness, that I have to conquer, that I am so trusting and yet untrusting of other peopel to the point I have to use these complex logical constructs to defend my point of view.  My belief, ironically, is hinged on my rather obsessive questioning of myself... by questioning many things that others don't want to question (or aren't really concerned with), I come to conclusions that differ from what they have.  One of those conclusions is about the taste of the gospel.  I have concluded it is tasty.  VERY tasty. =D

 

There just seem to be much more interesting avenues of study that lead to much more substantial answers.

 

 

You are probably in a way right.  Philosophy is more of a way to answer random questions that come to your head, and to help you organize your thoughts in ways that make it easier for you to work through the world.  It doesn't usually create all that much in terms of practical results beyond how you use it in your head, really.  I guess that's one reason I'm going for a CompSci degree, not one in Philosophy lol ;-).

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

 

 

I don't think that's a good definition of insane.  Ever heard the quote, "Ever tried.  Ever failed.  No matter.  Try again.  Fail again."  It is often voiced in inspirational speeches, that if you failed once, to try again.  Even if there is sometimes no changes, you can try again.  Trying the same thing over and over is not a good definition for insanity, I think.

 

 

Naturally.  But I don't think I did this.

 

 

Cause and effect. The only way to change the effect is to change the cause. Sometimes a small change, sometimes a big change.

Link to comment

The hilarity of this kind of philosophical investigation is that it argues our thoughts are not entirely trustworthy so let's think about it some more. More philosophical thinking is not the answer. I would argue revelation is.

 

I admit I am somewhat arrogant in this area. I have been blessed with the ability to sense and recognize the divine or call up the Holy Ghost almost at will. I cannot force answers or revelation but I can request the Holy Ghost and get a minor experience of the divine. Every time I pray with intent I experience a kind of sublime manifestation of God.

 

Coupled with much more spectacular spiritual experiences I no longer have any doubts about the existence of God or that spiritual and revelatory experiences are a valid indicator of objective truth. Hence, I find philosophical arguments about it pointless.

 

I have since learned all members do not have this gift. I do not imagine myself superior because of it. I am reminded that sometimes spiritual gifts are given because of our weaknesses. If I were stronger I could endure much more with much less support. It does mean that most philosophy (especially about the validity of spiritual experiences and the nature of truth) seem to me to involve a lot of navel-gazing. There just seem to be much more interesting avenues of study that lead to much more substantial answers.

Great thoughts, and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

I would like to think that I can help people with philosophical problems which, according to Wittgenstein and you, are a bunch of bunk anyway.  I could not agree more.

 

For some reason a lot of Mormons seem to feel convinced that this church rides on whether or not it is "true" and because they have misguided conceptions of what that word means, it seems to confuse them.

 

Whatever your idea of truth is, it obviously works for you spiritually and that is all that matters

 

I know I have helped some.  Wittgenstein believed that philosophers were kind of like doctors in that their mission was to put themselves out of business by healing, not bodies, but confusion which leads to life problems.  I think maybe I see myself as a junior level nurse trainee working in Wittgenstein's hospital.

Link to comment

Eh, not precisely.  Instead, I'd say it argues is that our thought process is quite possibly fallible, and that we should recognize that it could every well be imperfect.

 

 

Mmmm... Revelation is 'sensory data', so it'd technically be under the same strain as other sensory data but beyond that, not everybody knows how to recieve revelation, and you can't exactly blame them for being skeptical, persay.  Wish they were more trusting, yes, but not much further than that.

 

 

I'll tell you, I think you are right; in the sight of God philisophical condrums ARE ultimately pointless.  God's goal in my limited human perspective, seems to be simply getting the work done (in a sense, it's almost better to ask questions later; this is the time to work, and for men to become like God).  But there are also people out there who do worry about these sort of things.  You need to be able to communicate with them, so that way the gospel can be shown to them.

 

One thing I have found (especially on this forum =p) is that people are very concerned about evidence.  For me, I sort of take the opposite approach.  I guess the reason is because I have found that the best way to gain evidence that the Church is true is to simply live the life the Church teaches us too.  Pray daily, read your scriptures, go to church, partake of the sacrament, accept callings in Church, provide help to others, be more charitable every day, listen to the prophets and apostles God has put on the Earth for us.  I have found far more proof that the Church is true by acting on these things than by any scientific evidence ever given.  Focusing too much on objectivity, at least for me, takes away from my ability to have faith in the Lord.  Perhaps that is just my weakness, that I have to conquer, that I am so trusting and yet untrusting of other peopel to the point I have to use these complex logical constructs to defend my point of view.  My belief, ironically, is hinged on my rather obsessive questioning of myself... by questioning many things that others don't want to question (or aren't really concerned with), I come to conclusions that differ from what they have.  One of those conclusions is about the taste of the gospel.  I have concluded it is tasty.  VERY tasty. =D

 

 

You are probably in a way right.  Philosophy is more of a way to answer random questions that come to your head, and to help you organize your thoughts in ways that make it easier for you to work through the world.  It doesn't usually create all that much in terms of practical results beyond how you use it in your head, really.  I guess that's one reason I'm going for a CompSci degree, not one in Philosophy lol ;-).

Nailed it!

Link to comment

...  YOU CANNOT SEE "reality" as it is - you can only see it as humans perceive it. And even if you could, what you would say about it is nothing more than a linguistic, symbolic representation of the representation which might or might not even "correspond" to the representation. 

 

...

Existence is inarguable. This is the "world of humans". "God" is a human for us, therefore it is reasonable to assume that reality for humans inside the world of humans is as we perceive it. We have an incomplete picture, given our limited senses and knowledge. But to assume that the reality is something other than that created for this world has no basis in evidence let alone fact. You are simply running amok with your 'satiable imagination unchecked. I am not suggesting that you withhold your imagination, far from it, go with it as far and as fast as you can. But don't expect imagination to correspond  to the reality inside the world of humans. Unless or until we have some evidence that "God" alters the rules and laws of this world, we will always be able to check our imaginations against the reality imposed by those created rules and laws....

Link to comment

“Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"

Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure.

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?”
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Link to comment

Cause and effect. The only way to change the effect is to change the cause. Sometimes a small change, sometimes a big change.

 

This is only the case in a perfect universe where you can observe and manipulate all of the variables that effect a result.  There are many, many variables which go into results, and they are not precisely the same each time you try it (if they were, it'd be a miracle).  Note, that doesn't mean changing it up is a bad thing, but it doesn't mean people who don't change it up are insane.

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

Existence is inarguable. This is the "world of humans". "God" is a human for us, therefore it is reasonable to assume that reality for humans inside the world of humans is as we perceive it. We have an incomplete picture, given our limited senses and knowledge.

Agreed.

 

 

 

But to assume that the reality is something other than that created for this world has no basis in evidence let alone fact.

Contradicts previous sentence, "reality is as we perceive it".  The only evidence is what we perceive, remember?

 

 

You are simply running amok with your 'satiable imagination unchecked. I am not suggesting that you withhold your imagination, far from it, go with it as far and as fast as you can. But don't expect imagination to correspond  to the reality inside the world of humans. Unless or until we have some evidence that "God" alters the rules and laws of this world, we will always be able to check our imaginations against the reality imposed by those created rules and laws....

I never said any of those things and if there is imagination running amok, it is not mine.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

“Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"

Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure.

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?”

J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

By Jove, he's got it!

 

If it ain't happening in somebody's head we call it "unknown".  If it's "known" it IS happening in somebody's head, even if it is only Galileo's when he first put his eye to his telescope.  When he told others to do the same, it became an "observation".  Many observations and a good theory to weld them together becomes "science".

 

But put together a string of cockeyed observations and that theory could go out the window.

Link to comment

This is only the case in a perfect universe where you can observe and manipulate all of the variables that effect a result.  There are many, many variables which go into results, and they are not precisely the same each time you try it (if they were, it'd be a miracle).  Note, that doesn't mean changing it up is a bad thing, but it doesn't mean people who don't change it up are insane.

 

The universe doesn't have to be perfect to effect change. The more variables the more changes have to occur for an event to happen.

 

A  good example is that in the multitude of times high school chemists have burned hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. They always get water. If they expect to get miniture flying pink elephants. Then they need to talk to me in my professional capacity. :)

Link to comment

The universe doesn't have to be perfect to effect change. The more variables the more changes have to occur for an event to happen.

 

A  good example is that in the multitude of times high school chemists have burned hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. They always get water. If they expect to get miniture flying pink elephants. Then they need to talk to me in my professional capacity.  :)

 

I don't see how this addresses my comment, to be honest.  I was pointing out that you can never have a 'perfectly the same' experiment.  And so, under the definition you suggested, 'insanity' would not exist (because no experiment is ever exactly the same).

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

I never said any of those things and if there is imagination running amok, it is not mine.

 

 

I am ascribing those things that you have said to your imagination. You make a big point that we cannot actually know what reality could be since there is a bigger world than that of our senses. Our machines and inventions have augmented our existing senses and even provided us, through them, with knowledge of the world that our senses cannot even detect. So you are correct to assert that our senses are inadequate to detect the fullness of reality. But to imagine that what we have not as yet discovered is some kind of reality that is contradictory or "other" to the reality we as a species have determined and defined, is not based on anything but imagination. Why discuss this at all, unless you think that this world is not reality? So what if we can't know all of it, and possibly never will know all of it, even as "gods". The entire ball of wax baby was created by "God", not by us. We were placed in the world of humans as human spirits, i.e. sent here as GtF's children. GtF is human because we are, and we are because GtF Is. We can imagine forever how different things might be elsewhere, but in the world of humans we have our reality, and it is increasingly revealed as we learn more about it. A thing does not suddenly exist because we detected it, it was always there, but we didn't know it before....

Edited by Questing Beast
Link to comment

I don't see how this addresses my comment, to be honest.  I was pointing out that you can never have a 'perfectly the same' experiment.  And so, under the definition you suggested, 'insanity' would not exist (because no experiment is ever exactly the same).

 

It doesn't have to be perfectly the same. Whether you fall 5280 ft or 5281 ft  it is still going to hurt when you hit the ground. In terms of mental illness whether you hallucinate about flying pigs or flying elephants it is still a visual hallucination. Whether you think you are Nepolean or Jesus the Christ it is still a delusion of grandeur. Even

Link to comment

But to imagine that what we have not as yet discovered is some kind of reality that is contradictory or "other" to the reality we as a species have determined and defined, is not based on anything but imagination. Why discuss this at all, unless you think that this world is not reality?

Never said that either.

 

I always speak of what we know, not some metaphysical realm we do not know.

 

There is a reason we call new observations and new knowledge "discoveries" and put them in their own category.  Perhaps you do not fully understand the difference between epistemology and metaphysics- I have no interest in metaphysics whatsoever.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...