On The Deflationary Theory

[tagriffy]

I think this is a wonderful discussion because in fact it follows the progression of this idea historically in the history of philosophy

It's like we have ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny mixed with Yogi Berra and deja vu all over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

 

In effect we are interpersonally repeating the history of how this idea evolved.

 

We have now arrived at how Wittgenstein and Rorty spoke about the problem- and it is now clear in our discussion that the problem between us is "semantic"- we are discussing language itself and how these ideas are expressed.

 

 

Well, I certainly agree that a problem in our discussion is semantics.   But I'm not talking about language itself, I'm talking about myth. Of course, myth has to be expressed through language, and so there is interaction. Anyway, the question is, "What does saying 'It is true' add to the statement 'Snow is white'?" My answer to that question is it adds "reality" to the discussion. Without reality, there is no language. Just random sounds, random markings on a page, random whatever have you.

 

In this sense, saying language is something humans do to cope with their environment is kind of a "well, duh" statement. We're hungry, and we see a deer coming. You say, "I'll hide behind this rock, you hide behind that rock, and we'll clobber the deer when it comes by and have good eating." Well, it had better be true that there is a rock here and a rock there, and more importantly it had better be true that a deer is coming this way because it certainly is true that I am hungry. Otherwise, natural selection will take care of us both. It may be impossible to step out of our skins, but it is just as impossible remove environment from the equation. Language is a tool, but it must be remembered tools are used for something, they don't exist independent of the task it was designed to deal with. In this case, language is a tool designed to deal with reality. (In this sense, one can inquire whether language is an adequate tool for achieving our purposes. I don't think I'm actually contradicting Rorty as such, though. Exactly how one could go about accomplishing that inquiry would probably result in a circular argument.)

[Mormonmaniac]

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a famous phrase which says that the development of a baby in the womb repeats evolutionary stages.  At one point, the embryo has gills like a fish and then develops other characteristics of higher animals etc as it develops.

 

Yogi Berra was a baseball player famous for his poor grammar mixed with brilliant insights on the human condition.  Deja vu is the experience that "we have been through this all before".  So Yogi was essentially making a joke in saying "we have experienced this before, all over again".  The repetition of the phrase echoes the idea that it has happened before, so it is operating on three levels of saying the same thing- the words "deja vu", the words "all over again" and indeed the link between the two shows another repetition.

 

The point I was making was that the discussion itself was repeating the history of philosophy, starting with the question of what "reality" is and then progressing to realizing that the very question itself was a linguistic one- and indeed philosophy has ended in linguistic discussion.  Philosophy is over.  All people talk about in philosophy departments is how we talk about philosophy, not philosophy itself.

 

So I was drawing a parallel between the development of an embryo repeating the development of the species with what was happening in the discussion- we were repeating the history of philosophical discussion right here in this thread.

 

But it is becoming clear that this is not a discussion for most on the board, but a few who are interested in these things.

 

You know, kind of like a discussion of gay marriage.  

 

Participation is not required.

The whole discussion is kind of stupid. I mean really- what on this green earth are you guys discussing?

[mfbukowski]

Well, I certainly agree that a problem in our discussion is semantics.   But I'm not talking about language itself, I'm talking about myth. Of course, myth has to be expressed through language, and so there is interaction. Anyway, the question is, "What does saying 'It is true' add to the statement 'Snow is white'?" My answer to that question is it adds "reality" to the discussion. Without reality, there is no language. Just random sounds, random markings on a page, random whatever have you.

 

In this sense, saying language is something humans do to cope with their environment is kind of a "well, duh" statement. We're hungry, and we see a deer coming. You say, "I'll hide behind this rock, you hide behind that rock, and we'll clobber the deer when it comes by and have good eating." Well, it had better be true that there is a rock here and a rock there, and more importantly it had better be true that a deer is coming this way because it certainly is true that I am hungry. Otherwise, natural selection will take care of us both. It may be impossible to step out of our skins, but it is just as impossible remove environment from the equation. Language is a tool, but it must be remembered tools are used for something, they don't exist independent of the task it was designed to deal with. In this case, language is a tool designed to deal with reality. (In this sense, one can inquire whether language is an adequate tool for achieving our purposes. I don't think I'm actually contradicting Rorty as such, though. Exactly how one could go about accomplishing that inquiry would probably result in a circular argument.)

Well I was trying to get this out of metaphysics, but I guess I let it get off track.

 

When you are going out to clobber a deer, the farthest thing from your mind is whether or not it is "real".  That is totally mixing contexts to the point where things become unintelligible.   We cannot mix contexts and get anything but confusion.

 

Wittgenstein speaks of "language games", and you understand myths and paradigms - you cannot mix metaphors or paradigms or myths- whatever your preferred word is. 

 

And I think that is what you are doing in worrying about reality when you are planning to clobber a deer.  I would suggest you also do not worry about it in virtually any other activity either.  Building a building is tough if you are wondering if it is "real" or not, and so is driving a car etc.

 

You cannot mix paradigms or language games, or "myths" if you like that word.

 

Imagine going back to Newton's time and discussing relativity theory.  They would think you are bewitched or something,  The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says that the observer affects the observed.   Essentially that is what I am saying here as well.  But take that discussion back to Descartes and try to explain that the observer actually changes "reality" and see how far you get.  Even with a brilliant mind like Descartes.   He would just not be ready for it.

 

Newtonian mechanics worked just fine for the time and the demands placed on it.  But we moved beyond its usefulness as a tool.

 

Correspondence is an old paradigm and no longer works. 

 

Correspondence cannot deal with God and spirituality.  Correspondence cannot deal with Heisenberg.  Correspondence has never ever come up with a viable theory of truth that stands up to serious scrutiny.

 

If you think God is "real" and quantum mechanics is "real" then correspondence theory cannot deal with "reality". 

 

You can't fix a software problem with a monkey wrench.  That doesn't make software "unreal" because you can't hammer on it.  When you are talking about snow being white, you are not talking about "reality", you are talking about snow.

 

Is snow "really" white?  No, it reflects certain wavelengths of light which we perceive as "white".  Why does it do that?  Due to certain atomic phenomena I am not able to describe I am sure. 

 

So in what sense is "snow is white" really "true"??  All that means is that we perceive frozen crystals of H2O as "white".   Is it "really white"??  

 

We can carry that discussion on forever.  Is the "sky" "really blue"?   All it is is air.  Air has no color.  Pile enough up and certain wavelengths get absorbed- whatever!  What is ANYTHING "REALLY"???

 

How far should we take this "reality" thing before it becomes totally meaningless?  For me it is meaningless from the beginning.  It's all myths and interpretations and what works to express the job at hand.

 

Ultimately what is reality?  How do you know what is "real"??   I can debate that as far as anyone wants to take it.

 

I am a total skeptic.  Pragmatism is all that works for real skeptics.  If you think you know what reality is, correspondence is for you.  It is hard and fast and gives easy answers.

 

Unfortunately in my opinion those answers are far too easy and don't really answer anything.

 

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-boy-of-physics-extreme-physics-special/

 

And he isn't the only one.

 

The old way of speaking about reality just doesn't work any more.  Philosophers know that, physicists know that.   This board serves its purpose but it is hardly on the cutting edge of anything, much less "reality".

[mfbukowski]

Read this and then tell me that "The snow is white" is true.

 

In speaking about "reality" that is far from "true"- it is a woeful over simplification.  This is the correspondence principle, not the correspondence theory.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/
 

 

It is important to recognize that Bohr discovered and wrote about all these correspondence relations; the disagreement among Bohr scholars is simply which (if any) of these correspondence relations Bohr meant to designate as the correspondence principle. Some scholars have even gone so far as to doubt whether Bohr ever had a well-defined and unvarying definition of the correspondence principle at all. These and other interpretations of the correspondence principle are elaborated in more detail in Section 5 below.

 

So what is reality?

 

If Bohr had trouble explaining it, can we explain it?

Edited July 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

"It's like we have ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny mixed with Yogi Berra and deja vu all over

I don't think anyone can interpret this sentence.

I am more convinced now that no one can make any sense of this entire dialogue on this thread.

Sounds like evolutionary theory to me.

Basically it's about how this convo is evolving, as philosophy evolved, too.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Mfbukowski, that IS what I thought it was. I tried memorising that phrase once, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, the applicable concepts were so cool.

For anyone interested more about perception, watch the video "Stroke of insight" by Jill Bolte Taylor. It's easy to find, and it's her experience as a neuranatomist who strokes on one side of her brain, perceiving consciously without it. It demonstrates,imo in a fascinating and moving way, how our brains are filters.

I've thought of truth as what is Really real. It means I assume that what I see is perception subject to limits and error, and supposes that without those, there'd be something to see. Like an earlier poster, we just "keep looking," which includes but is not exclusive to listening to what others seem to see and say they see.

The concept in Calculus of a function approaching but never arriving at a limit is something I visualize when thinking of our perception of Truth.

I also like to imagine Truth as a sphere, and we're all at different locations outside it at any given moment. We see the sphere and observe, we my think we see everthing or may think it's only a portion.

Thing is, none of us can see the entire sphere all at once. However, by moving around and listening to others, we can perhaps see more of it. We check answers with those close to us because we're close enough to have a common understanding of the sphere.

However, it's worth noting that not everyone has the same vantage point. It's worth noting that the perception and vantage point of some is so very foreign that even the language we use to describe our perceptions is almost inaccessible to them.

The structure we build is not always accessible and does alienate some. Like Calmus said, we are tryibg to make sense out of absurdities, it shouldn't be too surprising that the sense we construct isn't usable for everyone.

So, we must leave some space available whenever we build things, whether we're building in our minds or with our hands.

[tagriffy]

The whole discussion is kind of stupid. I mean really- what on this green earth are you guys discussing?

 

Truth, of course.

[Ahab]

...

Correspondence is an old paradigm and no longer works.

Correspondence cannot deal with God and spirituality. Correspondence cannot deal with Heisenberg. Correspondence has never ever come up with a viable theory of truth that stands up to serious scrutiny.

Prove that. Don't just make assertions. Prove them. Show by some analogy or example how what you are stating is true. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

I've learned that people commonly make false assertions often enough that I can pretty much ignore them when they state something that contradicts what I have learned is true when what I know is true corresponds to what God knows is true. Even when they have doctorate degrees from very prestigious universities, and even when many such people get together with other such people who also agree with them. And especially when those people also are known as theoretical physicists.

If you think God is "real" and quantum mechanics is "real" then correspondence theory cannot deal with "reality".

I'll leave it to you to figure out why some theories and philosophies of men don't agree with reality, what really is true.

...

Ultimately what is reality? How do you know what is "real"?? I can debate that as far as anyone wants to take it.

Just give the best answer you can when someone asks you how you know what is true, and good, and real. I know how I know when I do.

The old way of speaking about reality just doesn't work any more. Philosophers know that, physicists know that. This board serves its purpose but it is hardly on the cutting edge of anything, much less "reality".

All of the ways to speak about reality are old. Even eternal. We've never come up with anything totally new on this planet. Just new to some of us here, sometimes, but all of the ideas and arguments and philosophies have been around forever and never will end. Just concentrate on learning all the truth that you can while focusing primarily on only the truths, or aspects of the truth, that are good.

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski, that IS what I thought it was. I tried memorising that phrase once, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, the applicable concepts were so cool.

For anyone interested more about perception, watch the video "Stroke of insight" by Jill Bolte Taylor. It's easy to find, and it's her experience as a neuranatomist who strokes on one side of her brain, perceiving consciously without it. It demonstrates,imo in a fascinating and moving way, how our brains are filters.

I've thought of truth as what is Really real. It means I assume that what I see is perception subject to limits and error, and supposes that without those, there'd be something to see. Like an earlier poster, we just "keep looking," which includes but is not exclusive to listening to what others seem to see and say they see.

The concept in Calculus of a function approaching but never arriving at a limit is something I visualize when thinking of our perception of Truth.

I also like to imagine Truth as a sphere, and we're all at different locations outside it at any given moment. We see the sphere and observe, we my think we see everthing or may think it's only a portion.

Thing is, none of us can see the entire sphere all at once. However, by moving around and listening to others, we can perhaps see more of it. We check answers with those close to us because we're close enough to have a common understanding of the sphere.

However, it's worth noting that not everyone has the same vantage point. It's worth noting that the perception and vantage point of some is so very foreign that even the language we use to describe our perceptions is almost inaccessible to them.

The structure we build is not always accessible and does alienate some. Like Calmus said, we are tryibg to make sense out of absurdities, it shouldn't be too surprising that the sense we construct isn't usable for everyone.

So, we must leave some space available whenever we build things, whether we're building in our minds or with our hands.

The issue that seems to hang everyone up on the "appearance vs reality" discussion are perceptual errors.

 

For some reason we have developed a whole metaphysics based on what are essentially typographical errors.  Does a misspelled word make a statement "false"?

 

Yes sometimes we make mistakes and see a mirage, (that's one reason I brought up mirages earlier- what ARE mirages?  An error or a "true" perception- the whole idea is just playing with language- it kind of doesn't matter how we characterize them) or make another error in perception.

 

So what?  We made a mistake.

 

Does that now cause us to come up with a cosmology of errors?  Why would we use that to differentiate between "truth" and "falsity"?  Truth and falsity are properties of sentences, not the world.   A perceptual illusion IS an "illusion".  And the consequences could be huge.  We think the road to the right is the one and we go over the cliff.  We pick the wrong religion and burn in hell forever. 

 

Oh well.  A really bad day. 

 

But does knowing that we make mistakes help us in the quest for "truth"?  No.  What good does it do us to know that there are false paths to help us find true paths? 

 

How many elements did Edison burn through before he found the material that "worked"?  Do we want to call the ones that did not work "false"?  What good does it do us to make up a name for what does NOT work?

 

Are we going to define "truth" as the negative of "False"?   It seems that is what we do.  We know what it is to make a mistake and we don't want to make a mistake so all cases  which are not a mistake are "true".   That is what it means to many people, because they cannot show it any other way.

 

And I agree with you that what we are doing really is gathering and cataloging perceptions.  That is what astronomers do that is what all scientists do.  Then they make up a theory to explain the perceptions.

 

They create a linguistic story or myth to explain and interpret what they and others have "seen".   The explanation works until it doesn't and more perceptions cause them to refine the explanation.

 

Is it "closer to reality"?   Now the question is- What is reality?  Physicists can't tell us.  Guess what?   All the experts in "reality" have is more myths and theories

 

So what are we closer to?  

 

Closer to giving us practical solutions that help us solve problems and live better?  Yep.

 

So what does the church give us?  More practical solutions to problems that helps us live better.

 

So what is the difference between science and the gospel?

 

None.

 

PS- I love that ted video as well.  Watched it a hundred times over the years.  Here's a link. http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight?language=en

Call it brainstates call it the spirit receiving messages- it's all the same "really", it just becomes a question of the language game we use to define it.

Edited July 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Prove that. Don't just make assertions. Prove them. Show by some analogy or example how what you are stating is true. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

 

Oh gosh, not double dog.  You got me running scared now. 

Read the article.  I don't have to reinvent the wheel.  This is hundred year old stuff.

What do you think this thread is about?  Get out your glasses and read.

 

If you give further comments which have no substance I will not respond.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

Of course I know what's "true".   The point is, that it cannot be defined precisely.  You know it when you see it.  Wake up and read the thread- that's the whole point.

Edited July 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mormonmaniac]

This thread cannot truly be for real.

[Ahab]

Oh gosh, not double dog. You got me running scared now.

Read the article. I don't have to reinvent the wheel. This is hundred year old stuff.

What do you think this thread is about? Get out your glasses and read.

If you give further comments which have no substance I will not respond.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Of course I know what's "true". The point is, that it cannot be defined precisely. You know it when you see it. Wake up and read the thread- that's the whole point.

So now you want to make sure I know this thread is (primarily) about the 'Deflationary Theory'? I admit I don't totally understand what that is all about but that doesn't negate the fact that what YOU said about the correspondence theory is wrong. Truth does in fact correspond to reality. So you were wrong to say the correspondence theory does not work.

Nice try to avoid proving your point, though.

I suppose now you're going to stop talking to me, again, huh.

[mfbukowski]

Think of Wittgenstein's idea of "language games" which we might call paradigms or myths.

 

If you start playing chess in the middle of a checkers game, it doesn't work.  If you start talking Newtonian mechanics within a Quantum mechanics discussion, it doesn't work..

 

You can't break the rules of the game.  That is why discussions of religion and science don't mix.  It's not that one is right and the other is wrong, it's not a question of true or false, it's a question of mixing baseball with soccer, or driving lessons with impressionist painting.   "Truth" is always in a context, in a language game and what "truth defines" is what works in that game.

 

Hitting the ball with your head may work well in soccer but I would not recommend it in baseball. 

[mfbukowski]

This thread cannot truly be for real.

It's not.

 

This is linguistic therapy and has nothing to do with anything else.  This is remedial language skills 101.  Are you registered?

[mfbukowski]

So now you want to make sure I know this thread is (primarily) about the 'Deflationary Theory'? I admit I don't totally understand what that is all about but that doesn't negate the fact that what YOU said about the correspondence theory is wrong. Truth does in fact correspond to reality. So you were wrong to say the correspondence theory does not work.

Nice try to avoid proving your point, though.

I suppose now you're going to stop talking to me, again, huh.

I like you but probably for this thread, yes.  If you actually read the thread I think you would understand that what we are discussing is what is wrong with correspondence.

 

But it seems you won't read it, so no, we don't have anything more to talk about here at least until you read it.

[Ahab]

This thread cannot truly be for real.

You mean is not for real? Of course it could be, and therefore can be, and therefore you are wrong to say it cannot be.

This thread is (primarily) to discuss the Deflationary Theory, though. That what it be for.

And you might as well not even mention what it "truly" cannot be for. Just say it cannot be for real. You would still be wrong but the Deflationary Theory is all about reducing or even eliminating the mentioning of what truly is and just making some assertions instead.

You know, like comedians do when making up stories.

[Mormonmaniac]

You mean is not for real? Of course it could be, and therefore can be, and therefore you are wrong to say it cannot be.

This thread is (primarily) to discuss the Deflationary Theory, though. That what it be for.

And you might as well not even mention what it "truly" cannot be for. Just say it cannot be for real. You would still be wrong but the Deflationary Theory is all about reducing or even eliminating the mentioning of what truly is and just making some assertions instead.

You know, like comedians do when making up stories.

Get real.

[Mormonmaniac]

It's not.

 

This is linguistic therapy and has nothing to do with anything else.  This is remedial language skills 101.  Are you registered?

This thread is truly unreal.

[Mormonmaniac]

In fact, this thread is truly deflating.

[mfbukowski]

Now after all this consider the brilliance of Alma 32.  I am not editing out the footnotes so there will appear to be misspellings in the scriptural portions.

 

 26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 

Everything we learn begins with faith and experiment.  We see the mirage.  Is it a mirage?  How does it change as it grows closer?  We cannot know at first- we must experiment on the hypothesis that it IS or is NOT a mirage to find out more.

 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 

We plant the hypothesis in our hearts- we take action on it to see if it works or not.  If it is "true" it will be "sweet"- it will work for us and give us the results we want.

 

Spiritual knowledge that "swells" within you is no different than scientific knowledge- it is what works for us to take us to the next level.  There is no discussion of "reality" because it cannot be defined.  "Reality" at this stage is not worth talking about- reality is what works to enable us to progress.

 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

 

We have feed back.  "This is great- it seems to be working- let's keep it up and see if it continues!"

 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

 

More feedback.  The experimental data is coming in.  It is working in my life.  It is giving me what I need.  This could be spiritually or scientific- same process.

 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

 

It is a mirror of my desires.  I want this result and I am getting it.  This is sweet.  It is working.

 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 

If it doesn't work, we drop it.  No good. No need for it.  It does not solve the problem.  It has no pragmatic use.  Fergitaboutit.
 

 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

 

"Good" morally and otherwise is defined by what works in our lives, both scientifically and spiritually.  "Is that lightbulb good?  No, it's bad- it just went out and I am changing it."  Is it good to have a family?  Yes- it leads to happiness and peace.

 

 34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

 

We grow from principle to principle, always open to new changes and mid-course corrections as needed.  It has worked in the past and will continue to work, probably, but if it doesn't we will have to make some changes.

 

Open canon.  Occasionally changes need to be made, but overall, the plan is a good one.

 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

 

THE FIRST MENTION OF THE WORD "REAL"!  What is real is what works.  We have shown and determined experimentally that this principle is real.

 

It is not a real "thing" it is a real principle that has been tested as working.  Reality is not static- it is conceptual,  Principles change according to what is working now.  Reality itself changes according to what is sweet and what works- WHAT IDEAS WORK not things.  Reality is conceptual, not lumps of matter.  It is what you do with the matter that counts.  It is DISCERNIBLE - it can been "seen" and defined as "working".  Reality is a process of verification on the sweetness scale- it is not lumps of matter, it is thoughts and concepts that work for us to achieve a purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

 36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

 37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

 

But even after all this, we have not arrived at "perfect knowledge".  We have some theories/ideas which seem to work and be "sweet" but they are not absolute.  They are subject to change according to how they bear fruit.

 38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

 40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

If we do not act on the hypothesis, it has no value.  Quantum mechanics is nice, but if we do not tests its subtheories then it is useless and we might as well not have it.  If we do not test the gospel in our lives, it is of no value.  It is words on a page of no use but to debate.  Words words words!  The proof is in the pudding, but we must actually MAKE the pudding to test the recipe.

 

Sweet principles that work enhance our lives.  They have "survival value".  Laws and commandments make life peaceful and secure, and society can grow in peace if people follow the law.  Without the law, there is murder and chaos.   If we do not know that, we cannot have a fulfilling life. 

 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life.

 

And there are greater rewards we are promised- spiritual rewards.  But the process is the same in science as it is in religion.  No difference.  We find what is sweet and what works- what it is that we desire to make us happy and fulfilled.  THEN we are promised eternal life.  This is a promise we must accept on faith and try the principle and see if the Grand Experiment works or not!! 

 42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

 

Gotta give a plug for the temple.  There is no sweeter spirit on earth, in my not so humble opinion.

 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

 

The sweetness of "joy in your posterity" are the rewards of living a gospel centered life.  The fruit is sweet beyond sweet- no question.

 

But notice- the word "truth" APPEARS NOWHERE in this section.

 

It is not relevant.  The word "REAL" appears once- not in the context of lumps of matter- chairs and tables-  but in the context of belief in true principles.

 

No mention of "truth corresponding to reality". 

 

What it says is live the principles you have found sweet and you will know that they work.   That, my friends, is pure Pragmatism.  No substance, no essence, no mumbo jumbo.  Life your life to be happy spiritually and physically.  Learn what works and what God wants you to do, and do it.

 

It's as simple as can be!

 

When you think about it what the deflationary theory shows us is that philosophies about truth are nothing, and it shows that philosophically.

 

We cannot think any way but linguistically so we are forced to go through all these hoops to show they are all smoke and mirrors.  The only thing real is what is inside you.  Words explain nothing- what works is living well.

 

The restoration shows that there is no need for the philosophies of men, and so does the deflationary theory of truth.  The secular transcendent nonsensical god of substance and essence is dead, but Our Father in Heaven lives as he always has.  Theories of truth do not work.  Living well does.

 

You didn't think it was going that way, did you??  
 
 

[mfbukowski]

In fact, this thread is truly deflating.

Reality is what you make of it.

[tagriffy]

Well I was trying to get this out of metaphysics, but I guess I let it get off track.

 

When you are going out to clobber a deer, the farthest thing from your mind is whether or not it is "real".  That is totally mixing contexts to the point where things become unintelligible.   We cannot mix contexts and get anything but confusion.

 

Wittgenstein speaks of "language games", and you understand myths and paradigms - you cannot mix metaphors or paradigms or myths- whatever your preferred word is. 

 

And I think that is what you are doing in worrying about reality when you are planning to clobber a deer.  I would suggest you also do not worry about it in virtually any other activity either.  Building a building is tough if you are wondering if it is "real" or not, and so is driving a car etc.

 

You cannot mix paradigms or language games, or "myths" if you like that word.

 

I'm not mixing them. I'm pointing out how they interact. Are we products of our genes or our environment? Neither, really. We are products of the interaction between our genes and our environment. With relatively few exceptions, we can't pull genes and environment apart and say it is this or it is that.

 

In any case, I'm not saying we are wondering whether the rock and the deer are "real." I'm saying that the sound or the scribble or the whatever we assign to mean "rock" and "deer" and "clobber" has to refer to something real. Language is a consequence of the fact we are a social species that needs to cooperate in order to survive. Whether we are talking about humans or dolphins or lions or wolves, they have to communicate and the referents of their "languages" have to be real. Otherwise we don't survive long enough to wonder whether saying "It is true" to an expression adds anything meaningful. Of course, we humans have gone beyond mere survival needs and moved on to other things and language has come along. That creates new problems.

 

 

Imagine going back to Newton's time and discussing relativity theory.  They would think you are bewitched or something,  The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says that the observer affects the observed.   Essentially that is what I am saying here as well.  But take that discussion back to Descartes and try to explain that the observer actually changes "reality" and see how far you get.  Even with a brilliant mind like Descartes.   He would just not be ready for it.

 

Newtonian mechanics worked just fine for the time and the demands placed on it.  But we moved beyond its usefulness as a tool.

 

Correspondence is an old paradigm and no longer works.

 

It depends on what you are talking about. You're speaking as if relativity replaced Newtonian physics when in fact relativity incorporates Newtonian physics. Once you get past the quantum level, Newtonian physics still work just fine, and will work just fine until you get to the mass scales of relativity. [Note: I am oversimplifying quite a bit with this statement. It would probably be more accurate to say they all meld into each other somewhere along the way.] We've gotten to the moon and sent things to other parts of the solar system based on good old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics in a post-relativity and post-quantum mechanics era. Indeed, the world we work and live and breathe in is still overwhelmingly Newtonian. And let's face the basic fact that quantum mechanics and relativity succeeded because they fit the observational and experimental evidence. IOW, because they correspond to reality.

 

This isn't to say there aren't limits to correspondence. Perhaps, like Netwtonian physics, there are going to be points where it breaks down. And if it does break down at certain points, it would still be an open question whether it needs to be replaced entirely (Ptolemaic to Copernican) or just modified (Newtonian to Einsteinian). Either way, reality is still going to be the checkpoint.

 

 

Correspondence cannot deal with God and spirituality.  Correspondence cannot deal with Heisenberg.  Correspondence has never ever come up with a viable theory of truth that stands up to serious scrutiny.

 

If you think God is "real" and quantum mechanics is "real" then correspondence theory cannot deal with "reality".

 

It is quite possible that correspondence cannot deal with God and spirituality. Perhaps God and spirituality and morality move to a scale akin to the point where Newtonian physics breaks down and relativity takes over. That's one of the reasons I've starting concrete things firmly within the realm of logos and haven't yet gone on to areas that put us in the realm of mythos. Correspondence may or may not be able in itself to come up with a viable theory of truth, but a viable theory of truth will still have to incorporate correspondence just as Copernican theory had to account for the same facts as Ptolemaic theory.

 

But since mythos goes beyond logos in a similar manner that relativity goes beyond Newtonian physics, I wouldn't be surprised and we shouldn't be surprised if we have to move beyond the tools we use to deal with logos. As you said, we can't use a monkey wrench to work on software.

 

 

Is snow "really" white?  No, it reflects certain wavelengths of light which we perceive as "white".  Why does it do that?  Due to certain atomic phenomena I am not able to describe I am sure. 

 

So in what sense is "snow is white" really "true"??  All that means is that we perceive frozen crystals of H2O as "white".   Is it "really white"??  

 

We can carry that discussion on forever.  Is the "sky" "really blue"?   All it is is air.  Air has no color.  Pile enough up and certain wavelengths get absorbed- whatever!  What is ANYTHING "REALLY"???

 

What does it matter? The world is held up by a turtle which is held up by another turtle which is held up by another turtle and so on into infinity. Trace it all back far enough and it resolves into a number of brute facts. In terms of Mormon mythology, you have space, you have matter, you have intelligences. Mormonism also hints at the possibility there are other brute facts as well. Be it as it may the brute facts of the universe operate and interact in such a way that it results in snow "really" being white. To be sure, saying "Snow is white" is a shorthand statement that requires due caveats. But Mormons are materialists and therefore shouldn't be afraid to say that snow is white because it reflects reality.

 

To be continued. Right now I have to get to work.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not mixing them. I'm pointing out how they interact. Are we products of our genes or our environment? Neither, really. We are products of the interaction between our genes and our environment. With relatively few exceptions, we can't pull genes and environment apart and say it is this or it is that.

 

In any case, I'm not saying we are wondering whether the rock and the deer are "real." I'm saying that the sound or the scribble or the whatever we assign to mean "rock" and "deer" and "clobber" has to refer to something real. Language is a consequence of the fact we are a social species that needs to cooperate in order to survive. Whether we are talking about humans or dolphins or lions or wolves, they have to communicate and the referents of their "languages" have to be real. Otherwise we don't survive long enough to wonder whether saying "It is true" to an expression adds anything meaningful. Of course, we humans have gone beyond mere survival needs and moved on to other things and language has come along. That creates new problems.

 

 

It depends on what you are talking about. You're speaking as if relativity replaced Newtonian physics when in fact relativity incorporates Newtonian physics. Once you get past the quantum level, Newtonian physics still work just fine, and will work just fine until you get to the mass scales of relativity. [Note: I am oversimplifying quite a bit with this statement. It would probably be more accurate to say they all meld into each other somewhere along the way.] We've gotten to the moon and sent things to other parts of the solar system based on good old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics in a post-relativity and post-quantum mechanics era. Indeed, the world we work and live and breathe in is still overwhelmingly Newtonian. And let's face the basic fact that quantum mechanics and relativity succeeded because they fit the observational and experimental evidence. IOW, because they correspond to reality.

 

This isn't to say there aren't limits to correspondence. Perhaps, like Netwtonian physics, there are going to be points where it breaks down. And if it does break down at certain points, it would still be an open question whether it needs to be replaced entirely (Ptolemaic to Copernican) or just modified (Newtonian to Einsteinian). Either way, reality is still going to be the checkpoint.

 

 

It is quite possible that correspondence cannot deal with God and spirituality. Perhaps God and spirituality and morality move to a scale akin to the point where Newtonian physics breaks down and relativity takes over. That's one of the reasons I've starting concrete things firmly within the realm of logos and haven't yet gone on to areas that put us in the realm of mythos. Correspondence may or may not be able in itself to come up with a viable theory of truth, but a viable theory of truth will still have to incorporate correspondence just as Copernican theory had to account for the same facts as Ptolemaic theory.

 

But since mythos goes beyond logos in a similar manner that relativity goes beyond Newtonian physics, I wouldn't be surprised and we shouldn't be surprised if we have to move beyond the tools we use to deal with logos. As you said, we can't use a monkey wrench to work on software.

 

 

What does it matter? The world is held up by a turtle which is held up by another turtle which is held up by another turtle and so on into infinity. Trace it all back far enough and it resolves into a number of brute facts. In terms of Mormon mythology, you have space, you have matter, you have intelligences. Mormonism also hints at the possibility there are other brute facts as well. Be it as it may the brute facts of the universe operate and interact in such a way that it results in snow "really" being white. To be sure, saying "Snow is white" is a shorthand statement that requires due caveats. But Mormons are materialists and therefore shouldn't be afraid to say that snow is white because it reflects reality.

 

To be continued. Right now I have to get to work.

OK we are getting somewhere I think

 

I'm not mixing them. I'm pointing out how they interact. Are we products of our genes or our environment? Neither, really. We are products of the interaction between our genes and our environment. With relatively few exceptions, we can't pull genes and environment apart and say it is this or it is that.

 

In any case, I'm not saying we are wondering whether the rock and the deer are "real." I'm saying that the sound or the scribble or the whatever we assign to mean "rock" and "deer" and "clobber" has to refer to something real. Language is a consequence of the fact we are a social species that needs to cooperate in order to survive. Whether we are talking about humans or dolphins or lions or wolves, they have to communicate and the referents of their "languages" have to be real. Otherwise we don't survive long enough to wonder whether saying "It is true" to an expression adds anything meaningful. Of course, we humans have gone beyond mere survival needs and moved on to other things and language has come along. That creates new problems.

I have no argument with what you are saying it's just words getting in the way.  The problem word is "real" and that messes everything up.  Honestly deep inside I have no idea whatsoever of what "corresponds with reality" means.

 

I really don't.  Perhaps I once did but no longer.  I don't know what reality IS or how squggles on a page of grunts in my ears could "correspond" to a chair.  I cannot explain what that means and no one else can also.  Obviously I know what the word means and overall I get the concept obviously but I cannot define how it works. No one can and that's the problem.  What does the grunt have to do with a piece of wood?  Does the grunt draw a picture?  And why is a piece of wood "real" when all I know is what wood looks like and feels like?  All I know are the sights and sounds- appearances if you want to use that word.

 

Joni Mitchel:  "I've looked at clouds from both sides now from up and down and still somehow it's clouds illusions I recall- I really don't know clouds at all".

 

We both want the deer because we are hungry.  The word "real" is irrelevant just as "truth" is irrelevant.  We are going after what we want and will fill our bellies and we use the tools at our disposal to get it.

 

What is real is the ache in our bellies.  We cooperate to fix that.  The word or idea "real" isn't even relevant.   It is only sitting around the fire after some roast venison that we might (probably not) talk about it.   It is abstract.  "Reality" is unreal.  We never worry about it, we just do things.  We are manufacturing an artificial problem to discuss.

 

Some of those comments on this thread show that perfectly, and they are not wrong or stupid.  They have a good point, they just do not understand the discussion or its worth.  They do not realize that these issues lead to errors of major importance that have poisoned Western culture, but they are right in that these are not "real" issues that get something in your stomach.  

 

ab·strac·tion

abˈstrakSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: abstraction

1.

the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

 

 

All this stuff is in our heads, not our stomach.  "Reality" is not real!  It's just somebody talking.  It's like substance and essence and Being.  Just somebody talking.

 

The Eagles:

And freedom, oh freedom well, that's just some people talkin' Your prison is walking through this world all alone. Don't your feet get cold in the winter time?

WHAT IS "REAL" IS WHAT WE WANT OUT OF LIFE.   It is a result- not a thing or a word- none of that is relevant.  We want peace.  We want freedom.  We want love.  VERY basic stuff.  We all want that- all of humanity wants that and the question is what is the best path to achieve it.

 

Words just tend to get in the way- words like "truth" and "real" and all the other sectarian words.  They are not definable.  Talking about them just makes us go in circles.

 

And yes now I too have to go- my wife broke off her car key in the door.   Reality is EVENTS, not words.  Reality is problems to be solved as we perceive them to be problems.

 

I am a simple guy- I want simple definitions for everything.  I can sling the B.ovine S.hovelables with the best of them but in the final analysis, I just want peace and a simple way to explain it.  If you want to say that "truth corresponds to reality" and do all the mental gymnastics attached to that, that's fine with me.

 

I just like a good shave with Occams Razor to make me confortable.   Science works- I like my air conditioning.  The gospel works- I love the temple AND the ac.

 

I like driving in a nice car- science- and the Mo Tabs on the sound system.  Peace.  Nice stuff.  It all fits together for me- it all works.  One myth, one simple theory works for me.  No reality, no correspondence, just peace and freedom and love.  It all works

 

Can't complain.

 

Until a problem arises- like every day.    But trust me, I never worry about "Truth" or "Reality".

 

The truth is that Wittgenstein believed he solved all the problems of philosophy, and dang it, I think he was right.  I dropped out of my Masters program on the spot because there was no point in going forward.    I did not want to teach Plato for the rest of my life in philosophy 101.

 

So those that think there is something to "Reality" and "substance" and "Correspondence to Reality" and want to worry about it, be my guest and I will try to show you how you are wrong.

 

But for now, I need some AC and Mo Tabs while I rescue my wife. 

[Mormonmaniac]

Reality is what you make of it.

My reality is having a truly hard time trying to believe people are really debating what truth is. Are we really, truly, that stupid?

[Ahab]

My reality is having a truly hard time trying to believe people are really debating what truth is. Are we really, truly, that stupid?

I can see why philosophers philosophize about things like this. It's because they don't agree because they don't see things in the same way.

But to answer your question, well, how do YOU define what stupid is? Lacking intelligence, maybe? All or just some? Would having more intelligence solve the problem, here, now, do you think? Like maybe if we all knew and agreed on what the truth is?

I think it would be nice if we all agreed on what is good, too.