On The Deflationary Theory

[Spammer]

It's pretty hard to share God's atoms if he is not physical.

That's why I wrote atoms as "atoms".

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski i think it's possible to have false ideas

 

e.g. ideas that later prove to be incorrect but at the time you thought were completely true and valid

 

the idea that the earth is flat is a false one

 

but i suppose it's more accurate to say that the perceptions and observations that lead a person to conclude that the earth is flat are not the end of the story.  until the various observations and experiments that prove the earth is round were done, they were 'true.'  once performed, they became 'false.'  but i guess that kinda puts the kart before the horse, talking about the ideas that way.  you can't really separate an idea from where you got it.  or rather, you shouldn't...

This is the problem with metaphysics.    Are ideas "real"?  Uh oh- not that again!

Rorty:

 

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

 

What's the classic line that leads us to solve every problem?   "It all depends on what you mean by......."

 

So maybe an idea is a "sentence in your head".  Maybe not.  If you want to say that OK I guess.  I am not the thought police- my license expired.

 

Is the "idea" that the "earth is round" a human creation?  Does that idea "correspond to reality"?

 

I am sorry, you are preaching false doctrine. 

 

Seriously it all depends on how you feel like seeing it.   For me, there are no "false ideas" because like many sentences, that makes no sense to me.  I really DO think only sentences can be true or false based on what they are designed to do.

 

The earth being round has nothing to do with a 20 mile bike trip and just complicates the issue if you want to do that. Get out the old sextant.....

 

On the other hand if you want to get to Moscow from LA, you better postulate the earth is round or you will be flying a whole lot of extra miles using your flatland map.

 

See why it is hard for me to talk??     I drive my wife crazy slicing and dicing.

[mfbukowski]

It's pretty hard to share God's atoms if he is not physical.

That's why I wrote atoms as "atoms".

Fair enough.

[mfbukowski]

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

[mfbukowski]

"Time flies while you're having fun."

(two nerdy engineers having fly races with flies trained to fly around pylons, timing them to see which is fastest....)

I pride myself on finding ambiguity and drive my family crazy.

[mfbukowski]

False ideas = believing false sentences

[Spammer]

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

 

I like it.  Very Orthodox.  In our thought, each of us individually and as a totality mystically are Adam, just as through baptism and Eucharist each of us individually and as a totality mystically are the very Body of Christ in the world. 

[Ahab]

False ideas?

Please tell me one. Remember you can't use language because then it would be a false sentence.

Think of a false idea for yourself.

If I gave you an example of a false idea you would probably blame it on me or my sentence.

[Spammer]

"Time flies while you're having fun."

(two nerdy engineers having fly races with flies trained to fly around pylons, timing them to see which is fastest....)

I pride myself on finding ambiguity and drive my family crazy.

 

Me too.  Not only do I drive my wife crazy with my religious and philosophical gibberish, I also subject her to such questions as "who conducted the research; what comprises the sample population; how was it selected; what's the method; what statistical techniques were used; did you consult the statistical appendix; was the research replicated and vetted by peers?" when she shares something about some new research finding she came across online that she's excited about.  Annoyed eyerolls and deep sighs ensue.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Spammer

[Ahab]

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

I like it. Very Orthodox. In our thought, each of us individually and as a totality mystically are Adam, just as through baptism and Eucharist each of us individually and as a totality mystically are the very Body of Christ in the world.

So you agree that we are God, too.

Good to know.

[Ahab]

"Time flies while you're having fun."

(two nerdy engineers having fly races with flies trained to fly around pylons, timing them to see which is fastest....)

I pride myself on finding ambiguity and drive my family crazy.

Me too. Not only do I drive my wife crazy with my religious and philosophical gibberish, I also subject her to such questions as "who conducted the research; what's the method; what comprises the sample population; how was it selected; was the research replicated and vetted by peers?" when she shares something about some new research finding she came across online that she's excited about. Annoyed eyerolls and deep sighs ensue.

I think that's called romance.

Or bromance. Something like that.

[Spammer]

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

I like it. Very Orthodox. In our thought, each of us individually and as a totality mystically are Adam, just as through baptism and Eucharist each of us individually and as a totality mystically are the very Body of Christ in the world.

So you agree that we are God, too.

Good to know.

Yes, but not in a pantheistic sense. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. We all share in God and in each other in Christ, but we and God all remain distinct beings even while together we baptized humans comprise the very Body of Christ in the world. We Orthodox love our mysteries.

[Spammer]

Here's a quote from the prophet himself

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/01/living-the-abundant-life?lang=eng

 

Have a Positive Attitude

A in my ABCs refers to attitude. William James, a pioneering American psychologist and philosopher, wrote, “The greatest revolution of our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.”¹

 

 

Yep.  Change our thoughts and we change our lives.

 

http://www.sainthermanmonastery.com/product-p/thoughts.htm

[Mars]

false idea:

 

the earth is flat

 

it's false because there are other perceptions that contradict the ones that would support the idea that it's flat

 

how do you know when a new perception is justified in supplanting an old one?

[mfbukowski]

 

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

 

I like it.  Very Orthodox.  In our thought, each of us individually and as a totality mystically are Adam, just as through baptism and Eucharist each of us individually and as a totality mystically are the very Body of Christ in the world. 

 

You can consider yourself AS someone else and identify with them without mumbo jumbo. 

 

In fact we are encouraged to do that, and to "liken" the scriptures to us.

[Spammer]

If we are all Adam, then we share God's Adams.

How about that?

I like it. Very Orthodox. In our thought, each of us individually and as a totality mystically are Adam, just as through baptism and Eucharist each of us individually and as a totality mystically are the very Body of Christ in the world.

You can consider yourself AS someone else and identify with them without mumbo jumbo.

In fact we are encouraged to do that, and to "liken" the scriptures to us.

Lol. One persons mumbo jumbo is another person's rich and compelling theology. Darn paradigms.

[Ahab]

false idea:

the earth is flat

it's false because there are other perceptions that contradict the ones that would support the idea that it's flat

Actually that's not a very good example of a false idea because it is flat in some places. And little e earth isn't necessarily the same thing as the big E Earth.

Would you like to try again?

how do you know when a new perception is justified in supplanting an old one?

When you don't see anything false about the new one. No more nits to pick, or at least none you can see.

[Ahab]

Saw the Minions movie tonight.

Your guess is probably as good as mine on what they are really saying.

And those things were created by a member of the Church.

Fun movie.

[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.

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.

 

 

The idea of the sphere basically reminds me to be humble about my own views and respectful of others.  Also, to have some confidence in myself and my own convictions.

 

The Calculus analogy, yep, is about building on what I already know so that I can know more.  Example, letting a good friendship grow and seeing that the goodness of that person springs from a whole other good way of living and seeing the world.  Then, I want to be like them.  Seeking one goodness leads to another.

 

I totally agree that there's no difference between the science and the gospel, other than the way they are popularly seen to diverge. The faith cycle in Almas 32 is to me a spiritual version of the scientific method.  (Except I'm the only subject and it's old and new experiences which form the test and control groups...this also forces me to be humble about others because my results and theirs cannot possibly duplicate each other all the time because our experiences are different.)

 

Sidenote: my mother says that memory began with words.  Because we can extract a thought by virtue of a word, we can look at it, turn it around, and share it with someone else.Doing those things with a thought engender memory. And they build and build, and we create things transcending ourselves.  I also think opposable thumbs have something to do with our brains.  Because we can use them, our brains grow because of those experiences.  The hands we use as tools create tools, which, also like words, build things.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Mars]

Actually that's not a very good example of a false idea because it is flat in some places. And little e earth isn't necessarily the same thing as the big E Earth.

Would you like to try again?

 

not really.  but for the record, i meant the Earth.  Terra.  The big blue ball upon which we reside.

 

ahab i'm kinda trying to see things your way, here...  you said there were false ideas - i'm not exactly sure that there are - but i gave an example TRYING to see it your way and then you say 'no, wrong.  try again.'  do me a solid and work with me.

 

i don't think there are false ideas.  or true ones.  there are just ideas that are formed after perception.  that perception might not be complete as evidenced by objective and communal and unequivocal further observance by the community at large.  for something like "what are rocks made of?"  or "is the Earth flat?" (See?  capital E?)  or "where does rain come from?" - we can rely on shared experience and communal observation.  as long as two people agree upon the rules of observation, they can calibrate their perceptions and be wrong or right together.

 

for things like "did this come from God?"

 

imo, there is most definitely not a false or true idea.  there is only what we are able to perceive and understand given holy writings, oracle sayings, or personal experiences with Deity.  my experiences and understanding, being firmly Christian, are not loath to say that non Christian experiences are "true."  but to the person having them, i can't tell them they're "false."  i can only tell them things and they can consider them and do what they like with them.  the converse is true.

[Ahab]

Actually that's not a very good example of a false idea because it is flat in some places. And little e earth isn't necessarily the same thing as the big E Earth.

Would you like to try again?

not really. but for the record, i meant the Earth. Terra. The big blue ball upon which we reside.

ahab i'm kinda trying to see things your way, here... you said there were false ideas - i'm not exactly sure that there are - but i gave an example TRYING to see it your way and then you say 'no, wrong. try again.' do me a solid and work with me.

i don't think there are false ideas. or true ones. there are just ideas that are formed after perception. that perception might not be complete as evidenced by objective and communal and unequivocal further observance by the community at large. for something like "what are rocks made of?" or "is the Earth flat?" (See? capital E?) or "where does rain come from?" - we can rely on shared experience and communal observation. as long as two people agree upon the rules of observation, they can calibrate their perceptions and be wrong or right together.

for things like "did this come from God?"

imo, there is most definitely not a false or true idea. there is only what we are able to perceive and understand given holy writings, oracle sayings, or personal experiences with Deity. my experiences and understanding, being firmly Christian, are not loath to say that non Christian experiences are "true." but to the person having them, i can't tell them they're "false." i can only tell them things and they can consider them and do what they like with them. the converse is true.

Thank you for trying to convey your ideas to me in such a nice way. I'm really not trying to be stubborn or rude, just true to my own perspective.

To offer an example of what I consider a false idea, how about:

The Book of Mormon is NOT true

or

Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God

or

We are NOT the same kind of being as God our Father

or

There is no such thing as a false idea

Basically just about any idea we would be getting from Satan that is not really true although there may be some elements of truth in his message.

Like when he told Adam and Eve that they would not die...

Basically a false idea is also known as a lie.

And I think we can even lie to ourselves before transforming our own ideas into sentences, but maybe I am wrong about that

[mfbukowski]

like this

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I am glad you like it, but why did you write it in Latin?

The problem with this is that you don't know who wrote it or the context

[Calm]

"my mother says that memory began with words."

But my dog has memory. She recognizes that when she is put in the car and driven a certain way, something unpleasant is coming. The reverse of the drive is all mellow because she understands the hard part is over with and we are going home.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for trying to convey your ideas to me in such a nice way. I'm really not trying to be stubborn or rude, just true to my own perspective.

To offer an example of what I consider a false idea, how about:

The Book of Mormon is NOT true

or

Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God

or

We are NOT the same kind of being as God our Father

or

There is no such thing as a false idea

Basically just about any idea we would be getting from Satan that is not really true although there may be some elements of truth in his message.

Like when he told Adam and Eve that they would not die...

Basically a false idea is also known as a lie.

And I think we can even lie to ourselves before transforming our own ideas into sentences, but maybe I am wrong about that

 

But you see you are ignoring the deflationary theory here.

 

Let me take just one of your assertions -"The Book of Mormon is not true"

 

First again let me affirm that the Book of Mormon is true.  You know I know that, I hope.  But let's look at the philosophical statement "The BOM is not true"

 

Is that statement true or false or is it a "false idea"??

 

We go back to the formula- what does "true" mean in a philosophical sense?  On the deflationary theory it doesn't mean much.  It does not give us useful information.

 

On the correspondence view, saying something is NOT true says it "doesn't correspond to reality".  And now we are back to what reality is and what correspondence is.

 

So on the correspondence theory - where is the correspondence with reality?  Where are the plates?  Where is the evidence that it is a translation?  Where is Reformed Egyptian?

 

Nowhere!

 

So on the correspondence theory, is the BOM "True"?  NO!   So now you have scholars trying to dig up evidence because they believe the correspondence theory is relevant to proving that the BOM is true.

 

I have convinced myself there IS evidence but that doesn't prove it true!  Was Jesus really on this continent?  Where is the evidence of that?

 

But on the deflationary theory, correspondence is unintelligible, so what "true" means about a spiritual book is that it works in my life.  My life is a thousand percent better for my belief that the BOM is true.  THAT is what matters and makes it spiritually true.

 

So is your question a "false idea" that the BOM is false?  NOT talking about the truth of the book, but talking about the truth of the idea - the sentence "the bom is false"?

 

As usual, it all depends on what "truth" means!

 

This post presumes that all your questions have answers that "correspond to reality" and can be true or false in that sense.

 

Your questions do not have answers that "correspond to reality" as shown in this thread, therefore they are unanswerable.   It is like your mind snapped back to the old paradigm.

 

How do we show that "Joseph was a prophet" corresponds to reality?

That we are or are not the same kind of being as God?

 

How do we prove that there is such things as ideas?  How can they be true or false?  How can they correspond to reality or not?

 

There's an Ahab in there somewhere who understands the other paradigm- I want to talk to HIM instead of this Ahab! 

[mfbukowski]

Note to all:

The multiple quote situation is pretty bad for the way I respond to this forum.  I have set up my notifications to tell me when someone quotes one of my posts- and the way it is now, I get a notification of every post of mine that someone quotes in the CHAIN of posts to which they are responding.

 

So if Ahab responds to Mars and Mars had responded to me, I get a notification of Ahab's response to Mars as if Ahab is responding to me.

 

Very confusing and a big waste of time and my email is overflowing.   I get a notification for virtually every post on this thread.

 

And then I get to play with the quote function to get it to only quote the quote I want to quote

 

It takes like 15 minutes to dash off a one line quote and response if the quote of the quote is quote of a quote etc.

 

So if I missed anything, just ask me and I will get back to you