Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yikes, this post is condescending. 

Regardless, it is a given that absolute objectivity is impossible. But that does not doom the concept to uselessness, on the contrary.

Objectivity is used constantly and to productive ends. 

Try "if, then," for instance.

Yes I have heard of "if then" and I think one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, Richard Rorty has as well but he still said

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  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.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

So you can't fix your roof with "If then".  If then does not exist without language and has nothing to do with anything independent of the human mind.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know what?  I think I figured this out.  You and I understand what WE mean by "objective"- for us it is a theoretical construct of a world of "truth" which supposedly exists independent of human perception- and we recognize that ever word we say and everything we see, hear, etc is filtered through a human system of sensation of unknowable outside stuff which we acknowledge as outside stuff.  We don't drive off cliffs but we know that what we see nevertheless is mediated and constructed by a human mind.

THESE FOLKS however - probably most readers of this thread and definitely Ahab and hope are using THIS definition of "objective" which begs the question in its very defininition of their point of view.  For them, "objective" is a good thing- for us, it is a ridiculous impossible notion.

This is the only definition they use or think in terms of:

So we see how language itself controls the mind.  For them "objective" is a good thing- it is a balanced view of the world, for us, that very notion is an illusion.

They CANNOT see it that way.  How can we communicate with them or should we just give up?  i know we have discussed this before but I don't think from this perspective    Incidentally pogi sees it our way too... that might be an interesting three way thread- how do we communicate with these folks?   I think it is important that we do.  I think we see things "as they are" and they just can't get those filters off.  Brutal I know - but we both get frustrated.  You just want to slap somebody....  in a nice way of course.

Yep I think you're getting at least a little bit closer at understanding my view of objectivity...how everything is or was or will be. 

Like salt, for example. Objectively it is a substance. Some people like it, or the flavor of it, and some people do not like it. Nevertheless it still is what it is and it always will be salt... even if it loses its savor.

Savy now?

I like to wave at these moments as they pass by.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I have heard of "if then" and I think one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, Richard Rorty has as well but he still said

So you can't fix your roof with "If then".  If then does not exist without language and has nothing to do with anything independent of the human mind.

Sure I can, and we'll be fixing our roof within the next few months.

Transcend components and then explore relationships. 

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure I can, and we'll be fixing our roof within the next few months.

Us too. Not looking forward to it either but we are looking forward to it being finished.

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Transcend components and then explore relationships. 

Not sure what you mean but it sounds like it might be a good thing.

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Us too. Not looking forward to it either but we are looking forward to it being finished.

Not sure what you mean but it sounds like it might be a good thing.

Cartesian thought broke identifiable things down into components. It's been helpful for centuries but to continue growing, humanity must do a better job of thinking systemically, of relationships.  (Attribution to Mindwalk, a fascinating philosophical film.)

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This second part I have highlighted in blue is not a response to me, but I am sure you are trying to include it to support your position. I entirely disagree. To merely accept scholarship because scholars say so is a huge mistake. Using this criterion you should become agnostic or atheist, since perhaps a majority of scholars believe the Torah is made up, and there was no exodus, etc.

Do you not accept the scholars when it comes to the science of how your car works?  What about the doctor you visit, do you not accept the scholarship of medicine?  What about psychology?  What about electricity?  What other avenues do you reject mainstream scholarship besides biblical scholarship?  

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Secondly, you ignore the conclusions of Christian scholars strictly in favor of secular scholars.

Those same Christian scholars often reject things like evolution or the age of the earth.  I do think its important to consider all the arguments, however it is apparent to me that what you're promoting is a theologically driven argument rather than a follow the evidence argument.  This goes for your 3rd and 4th points as well, but I'm not well read on this Daniel issue as I mentioned earlier.  

Sounds like a difference in our methods of reasoning.  Its impossible for anyone to become an expert on every subject.  I'm in the habit of trusting that the mainstream scholarship on subjects that I'm not extremely informed on.  I believe these experts will statistically be closer to the truth than those outside the mainstream.  This level of trust is not a 100% sure method.  Certainly there may be a technique for treating a disease today in 2017 that is later proven to be detrimental and overturned.  The same would be true with Biblical scholarship.  I trust the mainstream scholarship that has been done and that is widely accepted.  There are plenty of Christian scholars who are in line with the majority of mainstream biblical scholarship who don't identify as Atheists.  

You obviously have strong feelings about these Daniel passages and you don't trust the system of Biblical scholarship.  It sounds like you view this particular field of study as corrupt or pushing an agenda.  I just don't see it from my vantage point, and I don't see any reason to reject the mainstream work and those trusted experts that I've read and listened to.  They accept the mainstream scholarship and I view them as people of integrity, so I accept it and then let that new information influence my personal belief paradigm.  This is how I choose to learn and grow and I see it as consistent with how I view other disciplines that I'm not an expert on.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

By your definition, yep, guilty as charged and proud of it.

And now I understand the problem- I was using your definition of objectivity to apply to my subjective vision as "fair and balanced".

For me, knowing before the journey began, knowing it from my philosophy studies, that there WAS no such thing as "objective", let's say I went in search of all the possibilities to find the subjectively best flavor for me in the most fair and balanced way I could.

In our silly chocolate cake analogy, I had fairly and without prejudice subjectively evaluated all the flavors of cake known to my experience and of those, after years of deliberation discovered with certainty that my preference was chocolate and joined with others who had presumably done the same.

But then I came to understand that some of them had only tasted chocolate because all other flavors were forbidden to them and their parents had told them that chocolate was the one true flavor and now they thought themselves to be adventurous to go out and objectively taste everything - not understanding that even their alleged "objectivity" was an illusion and was still merely a quest for their own preference which was totally subjective.

And yea, it came to pass that I did go on their message board and I said unto them by the words of my mouth: "Hearken to the words of my mouth!"

And it came to pass that I did say unto them "Thou art foolish for thinking that you have objective evidence for your belief in chocolate, for verily I say unto thee that there is no such thing as a world which cannot be seen or felt, verily not even felt in your heart, which shows unto you that chocolate is the best, for verily I say unto you, you must listen to the spirit which our Creator hath given unto you to find for yourselves whether or not these things are not true, that if you plant in your hearts the knowledge of chocolate you will finde that it is sweet unto you and that taste for chocolate will grow delicious unto your soul and you will see that chocolate will bring you much peace in your life.

And thus did I speak these things unto them.

And they did scoff and did throw stones at me and did say unto me "Thou false prophet! " 

Ha!  Creative stuff, I don't see it as condescending, just trying to be funny. 

Question:  What if your preference changes?  I will give a personal example.  All my life I shunned dark chocolate.  I thought it tasted bitter, I couldn't stand it.  If anyone gave me dark chocolate I gave it to my wife or kids.  I never ate it.  I didn't even like milk chocolate that much.  

Then about 2 years ago something clicked in my mind.  I decided to give dark chocolate a realistic try.  I decided I would let the flavors settle in my mouth and explore the bitter notes.  I started seeking out dark chocolate recipes for things.  I started looking for good quality dark chocolate.  And guess what, I started to like it.  In fact, I never before understood what it meant to have a chocolate craving, but now I have them.  I have chocolate cravings and I appreciate really good quality dark chocolate.  A whole new world has opened up to me.  My wife is still in shock because she remembers all those years when I didn't like chocolate and wouldn't touch dark chocolate.  

Preferences change, they aren't static.  There isn't one true religion or one immoral religion.  They are all immoral to a certain degree.  I would think you could see this as is so obvious of a statement.  I honesty think you know this already, but for whatever reason, perhaps you don't want to state in writing on an internet forum that there are immoral elements of the LDS faith.  Of course there are, perfection for human-run institutions is impossible.    

But all of that is really besides what I was hoping you could show me.  I was hoping you could make a case for why aligning with the institutional church is better than standing outside it.  You explained why it works for you, which I guess is all I should have expected.  But I was hoping your argument might be more persuasive.  Don't worry, I'm not going inactive again just because of this conversation, I'm still learning and plodding along and wondering whether the cons of religion don't outweigh the pros. 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

You are right, morality is largely a social construct in society.  Should popular opinion and behavior decide what is morally right for you though?    Is the most popular moral the one worthy of adopting?  If so, why?  If not, why?  Lets reason about this if that is what you want.  What can intellectual objectivity really tell you about what is morally right or wrong for you?    All that your brain can discover through study etc. is the subjective opinions of others.  How should morality ultimately be judged by the individual though?  If you are looking for morality outside of yourself, who is the authority that you can turn to and why?  Lets see how far our objective intellectual brains can take this without relying on internal feelings of conscience.

I'll try a couple of your questions, but this could get pretty lengthy.  

Quote

Should popular opinion and behavior decide what is morally right for you though? 

Popular opinion influences everything whether we consciously know it or not.  We've evolved this way to consider the opinions of the group and to conform.  I don't think we can remove ourselves from this bias.  That being said, I would try not to just accept something because its supported by popular opinion.  I would want to learn more.  This why developing critical thinking skills is so important.  Questioning assumptions, analyzing things like motivations, audience, cultural influence, conscious and unconscious bias, and really trying to think through the issues at hand.  I would try to never automatically accept the popular opinion just on face value, but take more time to think through the situation and consider different sides of the issue. 

Quote

How should morality ultimately be judged by the individual though? If you are looking for morality outside of yourself, who is the authority that you can turn to and why? 

I would try to not automatically bias myself towards authority figures just because they are authority figures.  I try to give preference for expertise in a field of study and I build up trust for individuals who I evaluate by listening to their arguments and testing them against the arguments of others to see how they hold up.  At the end of the day we have to make a decision, whether we know it or not there are many forces that influence the decisions we make.  There are some arguments that sometimes we're not completely in control of the decisions we make based on the way our minds work and the biases and environmental factors at play.  I'm not talking about addictions to substances, but things that affect our subconscious that we're unaware of.  So that makes this a conundrum of sorts, how much agency do we as individuals realistically have?  I don't know, but its not 100%. 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For me, knowing before the journey began, knowing it from my philosophy studies, that there WAS no such thing as "objective"...

I still don't quite understand how you knew or what it was that led you to think that there was no such thing as an objective.  Did you just decide to believe someone who said there wasn't, or isn't?  And why do you capitalize the letters in WAS now? Do you now believe there IS an objective out there? For you? In reality? Out there?

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...let's say I went in search of all the possibilities to find the subjectively best flavor for me in the most fair and balanced way I could.

Let's say instead that you went in search of all the possibilities to find the objective flavors there are out there, not just the ones you like, but the ones you don't like as well.  ALL flavors, or at least all the ones you could find. And since this could have conceivably taken forever, with you ever looking for all flavors but never being able to come to a knowledge of all flavors, let's say you have a time limit to find the flavors you can find, and that you have a life that requires you to do more than ONLY look for flavors every moment of your waking day, at least Mondays through Fridays, until you retire from your job, which would then give you more time to look for flavors.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In our silly chocolate cake analogy, I had fairly and without prejudice subjectively evaluated all the flavors of cake known to my experience and of those, after years of deliberation discovered with certainty that my preference was chocolate and joined with others who had presumably done the same.

But then I came to understand that some of them had only tasted chocolate because all other flavors were forbidden to them and their parents had told them that chocolate was the one true flavor and now they thought themselves to be adventurous to go out and objectively taste everything - not understanding that even their alleged "objectivity" was an illusion and was still merely a quest for their own preference which was totally subjective.

And yea, it came to pass that I did go on their message board and I said unto them by the words of my mouth: "Hearken to the words of my mouth!"

And it came to pass that I did say unto them "Thou art foolish for thinking that you have objective evidence for your belief in chocolate, for verily I say unto thee that there is no such thing as a world which cannot be seen or felt, verily not even felt in your heart, which shows unto you that chocolate is the best, for verily I say unto you, you must listen to the spirit which our Creator hath given unto you to find for yourselves whether or not these things are not true, that if you plant in your hearts the knowledge of chocolate you will finde that it is sweet unto you and that taste for chocolate will grow delicious unto your soul and you will see that chocolate will bring you much peace in your life.

And thus did I speak these things unto them.

And they did scoff and did throw stones at me and did say unto me "Thou false prophet! " 

You kinda lost me there.

So have you found all of the objective flavors or not? Or at least found enough to know there really are objective flavors out there?

[SmileyMcGee]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Are you calling me the kettle of long-windedness or the kettle of firsthand accounts?

That hurts, man. You cut me deep.

J/k

Fortunately, I'm made of stronger mettle than that, tee hee.

 

Oh no! Ha! I'm a jerk. Well played pun by the way. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly.  See immediately above

I see it this way too, but you all are saying it well enough and I am involved in enough threads right now, I am lurking here.  But count me in as supporter from the sidelines.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Popular opinion influences everything whether we consciously know it or not.  We've evolved this way to consider the opinions of the group and to conform.  I don't think we can remove ourselves from this bias.  That being said, I would try not to just accept something because its supported by popular opinion.  I would want to learn more.  This why developing critical thinking skills is so important.  Questioning assumptions, analyzing things like motivations, audience, cultural influence, conscious and unconscious bias, and really trying to think through the issues at hand.  I would try to never automatically accept the popular opinion just on face value, but take more time to think through the situation and consider different sides of the issue. 

Ok, lets say you have boiled it all down and weighed every reason, intention, influence, and bias.  What do you objectively have to show for it all?  What has all of your critical thinking told you about morality?  If you are looking outside of yourself, who are you going to trust and why?  Give me something "objective" to work with here to help in my quest to intellectually find the better morality.  I am only getting vague ideas from you ("analyze, test, research, etc.") without anything objective to look for.  What am I looking for exactly in all of these intellectual processes?

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would try to not automatically bias myself towards authority figures just because they are authority figures.  I try to give preference for expertise in a field of study and I build up trust for individuals who I evaluate by listening to their arguments and testing them against the arguments of others to see how they hold up. 

What makes someone an "expert" in the field of morality?  What objective arguments and tests can be made in subjective matters?

Expert 1 - "Oranges taste better than bananas."

Expert 2 - "Nuh-uh, bananas taste better than oranges...taste it!"

Expert 1 - "I did, I tested both and you are wrong, oranges still taste better."

Expert 2 - "You must have not tested it objectively then.  Go back and study, research, test, analyze, and consider cultural bias and influence.  Really think about these things in an intellectual way.  Use your God given brain.  Give ear to the experts.  Only then can you decide which is the better tasting."

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by pogi

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you not accept the scholars when it comes to the science of how your car works?  What about the doctor you visit, do you not accept the scholarship of medicine?  What about psychology?  What about electricity?  What other avenues do you reject mainstream scholarship besides biblical scholarship?  Those same Christian scholars often reject things like evolution or the age of the earth.

I pursue truth HfT. Do I disagree with "experts?" Somewhat frequently. However, I wouldn't call a scientist a scholar. I don't disagree with aspects of evolution,  but I don't believe life just happened to spontaneously appear on this earth. I believe evolution and genetics are consistent with the Bible. The Bible merely says that God created the creatures each to bring forth after their kind. That is basically because they are governed by their genetics designed by God. If you calculate the probabilities of a planet forming like this earth, and the probabilities of even the simplest group of proteins spontaneously forming to start life, you arrive at something damn near impossible. I accept that medical doctors generally have good training, but I don't believe they do very well at preventive or health medicine. I had an appendectomy which about killed me, and afterwards all the doctors did was to prescribe super doses of antibiotics which almost finished killing me. It was my recourse to taking what are now called "probiotics" and repeatedly using cleansers which returned me to health. Psychology - if they don't believe pedophilia is an aberrant psychological malady, I think there is something wrong with them. Electricity - yeah I think our country has sadly moved down the wrong path to electric generation. We are starting to use some solar, but to break the dependence on coal, oil, and fossil fuels we should have pursued thorium MSR plants. Instead they bought the farm for political reasons - but that was largely Nixon's fault. Since that time, our country has continued down a very short-sighted path to electrical generation, and made some Muslims very rich. I do not reject all Biblical scholarship HfT - only that which is not soundly based.

Quote

 I do think its important to consider all the arguments, however it is apparent to me that what you're promoting is a theologically driven argument rather than a follow the evidence argument.  This goes for your 3rd and 4th points as well, but I'm not well read on this Daniel issue as I mentioned earlier.  

I'm a scripturian HfT. One of the problems with accepting the scholarly late dating of the gospels is that I basically have to believe that either Jesus was lying, or his apostles were lying, and putting words in his mouth after the fact. In other words the scholars don't believe the scriptures that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed. They think this is made up, and inserted afterwards. Thus, to believe them is to believe the scriptures are lying to us. Do you believe the NT is lying to us? Do you realize that if you accept their conclusions that you are admitting that the NT is lying to us? On the other hand I believe Daniel 9 clearly prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem. The scholars are stuck with that one, since even they admit Daniel was written before it happened. Yeah, so God knew it was going to happen, and so did Jesus. The scholars are wrong. How is that for an evidentiary argument? My argument is not theologically based. I explained that the textual scholarship argument is not consistent with the text of Daniel 11 itself. That has nothing to do with theology.

Quote

Sounds like a difference in our methods of reasoning.  Its impossible for anyone to become an expert on every subject.  I'm in the habit of trusting that the mainstream scholarship on subjects that I'm not extremely informed on.  I believe these experts will statistically be closer to the truth than those outside the mainstream.  This level of trust is not a 100% sure method.  Certainly there may be a technique for treating a disease today in 2017 that is later proven to be detrimental and overturned.  The same would be true with Biblical scholarship.  I trust the mainstream scholarship that has been done and that is widely accepted.  There are plenty of Christian scholars who are in line with the majority of mainstream biblical scholarship who don't identify as Atheists.  

You are welcome to always believe scholars if you wish, but I take exception to accusing me of misleading people by showing them where scholars are wrong or at least could be wrong. Indeed, I believe that is how scholarship advances - through critical analysis. To accuse me of misleading people because I want their scholarship to survive a little critical analysis, I believe is very short-sighted. Basically, I expect you to challenge my reasons why the scholars are wrong rather than just siding with scholars because they are scholars. Scholars have been wrong many times before my friend.

Quote

You obviously have strong feelings about these Daniel passages and you don't trust the system of Biblical scholarship.  It sounds like you view this particular field of study as corrupt or pushing an agenda.  I just don't see it from my vantage point, and I don't see any reason to reject the mainstream work and those trusted experts that I've read and listened to.  They accept the mainstream scholarship and I view them as people of integrity, so I accept it and then let that new information influence my personal belief paradigm.  This is how I choose to learn and grow and I see it as consistent with how I view other disciplines that I'm not an expert on.  

I don't trust any scholarship 100% - including Church scholarship. To me all scholarship is subject to scrutiny, and must hold up under close scrutiny to be accepted as probable truth in my mind. That is the way I operate. You of course are free not to operate that way. I don't set out to prove scholars wrong, but I will apply my own analysis to the scriptures, and then weigh it against what various scholars have said - sometimes. Sometimes I believe I have the privilege of revelation on the scriptures, and don't really care what various scholars have opined. I particularly have favored the Historicist scholarship of the scriptures, but that started because I felt at least they got many things right about Daniel and Revelation. I then add to that understanding provided by Latter Day Revelation, and my understanding has continued to grow, and has sometimes been propelled by the Lord.

God Bless HfT - I really kind of like you, and I hope I haven't put a bad taste in your mouth, but I will defend my positions rigorously - usually.

Cheers Rev

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I see it this way too, but you all are saying it well enough and I am involved in enough threads right now, I am lurking here.  But count me in as supporter from the sidelines.

OH yeah- hey you are still in my siggy right in there with Rorty

And there are many others through the years, 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Ok, lets say you have boiled it all down and weighed every reason, intention, influence, and bias.  What do you objectively have to show for it all?  What has all of your critical thinking told you about morality?  If you are looking outside of yourself, who are you going to trust and why?  Give me something "objective" to work with here to help in my quest to intellectually find the better morality.  I am only getting vague ideas from you ("analyze, test, research, etc.") without anything objective to look for.  What am I looking for exactly in all of these intellectual processes?

What makes someone an "expert" in the field of morality?  What objective arguments and tests can be made in subjective matters?

Expert 1 - "Oranges taste better than bananas."

Expert 2 - "Nuh-uh, bananas taste better than oranges...taste it!"

Expert 1 - "I did, I tested both and you are wrong, oranges still taste better."

Expert 2 - "You must have not tested it objectively then.  Go back and study, research, test, analyze, and consider cultural bias and influence.  Really think about these things in an intellectual way.  Use your God given brain.  Give ear to the experts.  Only then can you decide which is the better tasting."

 

I wish we had something stronger than rep points.  Wonderful stuff!

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Oh no! Ha! I'm a jerk. Well played pun by the way. 

You don't seem like a jerk to me!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/12/2017 at 8:46 AM, clarkgoble said:

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was more trying to explain my view here not criticize you has having mentioned those other groups.

Right my point is that the excuse is just that: an excuse not the cause.

But most people aren't platonists. Truth can be explicated without appeal to timeless platonic forms.

Claims about "objective reality" end up determining claims about future experience. To the degree they make accurate predictions they are more apt to be correct. While I've not read all the posts in this thread, the arguments you've been making more or less appear to largely neglect that predictive power.

Since Peirce thought there was truth and had an extensive theory about it I think he would find a practical difference. (grin) He clearly thought truth and fallibilism were compatible. The SEP has a reasonably good discussion of this although it avoids some of the nuance of his mature phase.

 

OK I have had time to thoughtfully consider this response and the quotes it contained which are not quoted here.

I will simply cut and paste the relevant quotes as I discuss them, labeling their sources in your original post without putting quote boxes within quote boxes, etc.  That can get very confusing!

Re: Platonic forms

I think Platonism is the root of the correspondence theory- that somehow true statements or "truth" corresponds to a realm beyond experience, and yes most people are not Platonists, but ARE believers in the correspondence theory.  My arguments center around the correspondence theory.  

Re: Future experience

Certainly you are right, and I have not mentioned predicting future experience because I kind of presumed it. I agree with that and have no problem with it.  My contention is that all we can know is human experience, not “the world” but only human experience.  The fact that useful statements about human experience which predict further human experience are regarded as true has nothing to do with the simple fact that ALL statements are still about human experience and not “the world as it is” independent of human experience.

As Rorty says

Quote

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  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."

The fact that statements we regard as "true" have predictive value about future human experience is itself true, but those statements are still statements about human experience and nothing "more".  But there IS nothing more we can discuss anyway.  And visions still ARE human experiences, and visions might predict future states of affairs, our whole belief in prophets relies on that notion.  

So on that basis I can see no reason to reject visions which predict future experience as in any way not "real". They are human experiences which predict future events.  A Catholic with this view could argue strongly in favor of the visions of Fatima being objectively true, I think, as well as Mormons who affirm the "reality" of prophets etc.

Re: Truth, Falliblism and the SEP quote

Well yes, I certainly also believe in the "compatibility of truth and falliblism" since I believe that the truth is fallible.

Thanks for the SEP quote to which I will link for other readers, and quote below, including a bit you did not quote.  The indented part is a quote from Peirce, the rest is from the encyclopedia https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/

Quote

 

Peirce had presented this way of thinking about reality seven years earlier when he described it as the ‘realist conception of reality’ (EP1:88–9). In doing this, he contrasts it with another ‘nominalist’ conception of reality, which he thinks is flawed, but which many earlier philosophers had accepted. In a review of a new edition of the writings of Berkeley—a philosopher who, according to Peirce, was in the grip of this misleading picture—Peirce asks ‘where the real is to be found’, observing that there must be such a ‘real’ because we find that our opinions (the only things of which we are immediately aware) are constrained. While acknowledging that there is ‘nothing immediately present to us but thoughts’, he continues:

These thoughts, however, have been caused by sensations, and those sensations are constrained by something out of the mind. This thing out of the mind, which directly influences sensation, and through sensation thought, because it is out of the mind, is independent of how we think it, and is, in short, the real. (EP1: 88)

We can then think of the real only as the cause of the (singular) sensations which, in turn, provide our sole evidence for beliefs about the external world, and this naturally leads to both nominalism about universals and skepticism about empirical knowledge. Peirce's pragmatist clarification of truth offers an alternative conceptualization of ‘being constrained by reality’. It is explained in terms of this fated agreement of convergence through the process of inquiry rather than in terms of an independent cause of our sensations. Although the nominalist theory is not clearly worked out here, it is clearly related to the ‘intellectualist’ or ‘copy’ theory of truth attacked by other pragmatists. It articulates a metaphysical picture that all pragmatists tried to combat. See (Misak 2007, 69f) where Cheryl Misak emphasises that Peirce does not offer a traditional analysis of truth. Rather, he provides an account of some of the relations between the concepts of truth, belief, and inquiry, She describes this as a naturalistic understanding of truth, and calls it an anthropological account of how the concept is used.

 

I think the idea that sensations are "constrained" by something outside the mind and therefore THAT is the "real" is problematic, and that is why I prefer Rorty's idea, also quoted above.  It's great to compare them together, directly.

To me it seems clear that what "constrains" experience is not something "outside the mind" but the EXPERIENCE of something outside the mind.  Perhaps that seems a trivial distinction but I do not see it that way.  We are driving along a dirt road and see a cliff ahead.  What we are experiencing is NOT something outside the mind but our experience of a cliff ahead that we had better avoid or die.

We see "a cliff" but that is still a human mind SEEING.

If we are together and drive over the cliff, it will be YOUR experience of driving over a cliff and your perspective of that that will matter to you.  You may see YOUR life flash before your eyes- you will not see my life.  You might think of your family, while I may be thinking of mine.

The constraint is just as much a humanly defined experience in humanly defined colors of perception, in humanly defined sounds, perhaps the screech of the tires, etc, the human INTERPRETATION of the frequencies of sound and light as perceived by humans that we will experience, still not "reality as it is" if such a phrase even makes sense, since we will never know such a thing (in this life, for believers).  The blood will still be experienced as "red" even as our lives perhaps are ending, 

So though without a doubt, Peirce puts these ideas out there for the first time- a tremendous contribution to philosophy, I believe that Rorty represents the full flowering of the seed Peirce planted.

And I think Rorty's interpretation helps us better to find a way to justify visions etc. since he does not have Peirce's veneration for science, but puts science squarely into the category of highly codified information which still comes entirely from human experience as described ambiguously in human language.

As noted in the article, it still involves metaphysics which disappears in Rorty.

Others on this board in the past have presented Mormonism as a "metanarrative" and perhaps they are right.  But certainly I think, Rorty avoids metanarratives while Peirce does not.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think Platonism is the root of the correspondence theory- that somehow true statements or "truth" corresponds to a realm beyond experience, and yes most people are not Platonists, but ARE believers in the correspondence theory.  My arguments center around the correspondence theory.  

I suspect the trajectory of philosophy Plato introduced is behind a lot. That doesn't mean we can simply dismiss the differences though. Fundamentally I'd say the main question is one of internalism vs. externalism. If we take up the trajectory Descartes puts philosophy on there's a fundamental cleft between mental stuff and 'outside' stuff. That causes lots of problems which is why I find correspondence a problematic theory. But by and large Cartesian metaphysics have been rejected and the correspondence theory of today no longer has the same metaphysical roots. Fundamentally it's not a claim about something 'otherworldly.' To the degree ones arguments depend upon that 'other world' conception one is attacking a strawman. IMO.

To the externalist regardless of type the object of experience and the object in question are the same object. The whole cleaving Descartes requires is missing. Therefore there's no problem. 

Quote

My contention is that all we can know is human experience, not “the world” but only human experience.

That assumes I think we can only know what is directly given not inferred. My knowledge of atoms is not direct but inferred, yet I'd say I encounter atoms in my experience. To make a divide between experience and the world is, I think, to make claims about what experience is that may not be accurate. Again, we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of Cartesianism with regards to experience. That is to criticism correspondence but maintain it merely cutting off the 'other worldly' part. The problem is the conception of philosophy Descartes set up.

Put simply, I think we need to unpack how you are using experience. 

Quote

The fact that statements we regard as "true" have predictive value about future human experience is itself true, but those statements are still statements about human experience and nothing "more".

Why can't I talk of my dog's experiences the same way I can talk of yours? This is not me trying to be cute but to get at the social aspect of experience itself. Again I'm pushing against the Cartesian conception where experience is a mind-like impression from a realm I'm forever cut off from.

Quote

Well yes, I certainly also believe in the "compatibility of truth and falliblism" since I believe that the truth is fallible.

Ah, but Peirce thinks people, not truth, is fallible. That is unlike Rorty he makes a distinction between claims for truth and truth itself. Indeed it was James not keeping that clear that often annoyed Peirce. 

Quote

I think the idea that sensations are "constrained" by something outside the mind and therefore THAT is the "real" is problematic, and that is why I prefer Rorty's idea, also quoted above.  It's great to compare them together, directly.

I should note that in that quote Peirce is more speaking of a human mind. In terms of his metaphysics it's all mind. 

Quote

To me it seems clear that what "constrains" experience is not something "outside the mind" but the EXPERIENCE of something outside the mind.  Perhaps that seems a trivial distinction but I do not see it that way.  We are driving along a dirt road and see a cliff ahead.  What we are experiencing is NOT something outside the mind but our experience of a cliff ahead that we had better avoid or die.

But that experience itself is mediated I think Peirce would point out. Put an other way, we again have to unpack what we mean by experience. Peirce's point is just that there is something to explain about how we come to have similar experiences, converge on beliefs, and encounter surprise. That suggests reality. Certainly it is in experience all this is experienced. But it points to a reality independent of any finite group of people. That's the key question. What is causing the experience.

This again is why I think asking about the distinction between inference and direct experience is important.

Quote

So though without a doubt, Peirce puts these ideas out there for the first time- a tremendous contribution to philosophy, I believe that Rorty represents the full flowering of the seed Peirce planted.

The place Rorty goes astray is in logic. (James too)

Again, what do we mean by experience? And are we able to make inferences?

Quote

As noted in the article, it still involves metaphysics which disappears in Rorty.

The problem is you never can get rid of metaphysics. You can only get rid of paying attention to metaphysics which typically means metaphysics is about to bite your assumptions in the behind. (grin)

Quote

But certainly I think, Rorty avoids metanarratives while Peirce does not.

I think Peirce wants to put all narratives under question. I'm not sure it makes much point to distinguish between narratives and metanarratives. To the degree the difference is just what is about what's in a particular experience verses bigger claims then the question ends up just being whether there are real structures at work. It's perhaps worth noting that Rorty is at his strongest when dealing with arguments regarding human thinking and at his weakest when discussing physics and chemistry. There's a reason for that I think. Peirce was a physicist, logician and chemist with an appreciation of the problems therein. Rorty on the other hand was more about politics and human experience.

It's worth noting that it's here that I think Rorty breaks quite a bit with both Peirce and Dewey. Rorty thinks that both would have benefited from the linguistic turn philosophy took in the post-war era. Whereas both Peirce and Dewey were concerned with practical methods as part of inquiry, Rorty emphasized lucky vocabularies. The pragmatic maxim with its concern with practical effects becomes just linguistic. The problem of course is that if Cartesianism is just an other vocabulary, why fight it? If experience vs. things is just an other way of talking, what makes Rorty's way of talking better? To answer that question is to make a claim that goes beyond language invalidating Rorty's approach.

My problem with Rorty is mainly that when he talks about experience what he's really talking about is a particular language game. But this is to ironically constrain the vocabulary without being able to justify why it is constrained.

Edited April 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Ahab]

I'm liking the things I am hearing about this Peirce fellow and am waiting for more instructions from our Father with metaphysical popcorn at the ready.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect the trajectory of philosophy Plato introduced is behind a lot. That doesn't mean we can simply dismiss the differences though. Fundamentally I'd say the main question is one of internalism vs. externalism. If we take up the trajectory Descartes puts philosophy on there's a fundamental cleft between mental stuff and 'outside' stuff. That causes lots of problems which is why I find correspondence a problematic theory. But by and large Cartesian metaphysics have been rejected and the correspondence theory of today no longer has the same metaphysical roots. Fundamentally it's not a claim about something 'otherworldly.' To the degree ones arguments depend upon that 'other world' conception one is attacking a strawman. IMO.

To the externalist regardless of type the object of experience and the object in question are the same object. The whole cleaving Descartes requires is missing. Therefore there's no problem. 

That assumes I think we can only know what is directly given not inferred. My knowledge of atoms is not direct but inferred, yet I'd say I encounter atoms in my experience. To make a divide between experience and the world is, I think, to make claims about what experience is that may not be accurate. Again, we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of Cartesianism with regards to experience. That is to criticism correspondence but maintain it merely cutting off the 'other worldly' part. The problem is the conception of philosophy Descartes set up.

Put simply, I think we need to unpack how you are using experience. 

Why can't I talk of my dog's experiences the same way I can talk of yours? This is not me trying to be cute but to get at the social aspect of experience itself. Again I'm pushing against the Cartesian conception where experience is a mind-like impression from a realm I'm forever cut off from.

Ah, but Peirce thinks people, not truth, is fallible. That is unlike Rorty he makes a distinction between claims for truth and truth itself. Indeed it was James not keeping that clear that often annoyed Peirce. 

I should note that in that quote Peirce is more speaking of a human mind. In terms of his metaphysics it's all mind. 

But that experience itself is mediated I think Peirce would point out. Put an other way, we again have to unpack what we mean by experience. Peirce's point is just that there is something to explain about how we come to have similar experiences, converge on beliefs, and encounter surprise. That suggests reality. Certainly it is in experience all this is experienced. But it points to a reality independent of any finite group of people. That's the key question. What is causing the experience.

This again is why I think asking about the distinction between inference and direct experience is important.

The place Rorty goes astray is in logic. (James too)

Again, what do we mean by experience? And are we able to make inferences?

The problem is you never can get rid of metaphysics. You can only get rid of paying attention to metaphysics which typically means metaphysics is about to bite your assumptions in the behind. (grin)

I think Peirce wants to put all narratives under question. I'm not sure it makes much point to distinguish between narratives and metanarratives. To the degree the difference is just what is about what's in a particular experience verses bigger claims then the question ends up just being whether there are real structures at work. It's perhaps worth noting that Rorty is at his strongest when dealing with arguments regarding human thinking and at his weakest when discussing physics and chemistry. There's a reason for that I think. Peirce was a physicist, logician and chemist with an appreciation of the problems therein. Rorty on the other hand was more about politics and human experience.

It's worth noting that it's here that I think Rorty breaks quite a bit with both Peirce and Dewey. Rorty thinks that both would have benefited from the linguistic turn philosophy took in the post-war era. Whereas both Peirce and Dewey were concerned with practical methods as part of inquiry, Rorty emphasized lucky vocabularies. The pragmatic maxim with its concern with practical effects becomes just linguistic. The problem of course is that if Cartesianism is just an other vocabulary, why fight it? If experience vs. things is just an other way of talking, what makes Rorty's way of talking better? To answer that question is to make a claim that goes beyond language invalidating Rorty's approach.

My problem with Rorty is mainly that when he talks about experience what he's really talking about is a particular language game. But this is to ironically constrain the vocabulary without being able to justify why it is constrained.

I have a busy day/afternoon and have only skimmed your reply and I will make a detailed commentary later BUT to a degree, I see this as mostly a semantic difference which I have struggled with and I appreciate the chance to interact about it in detail

In other words, one can place "reality" as a mental phenomenon - as Rorty tacitly does by putting it in language- or take the externalist view about reality BUT in the long run they are the same position: that EXPERIENCE IS what we call "reality".  The other possibility remains Cartesian dualism and correspondence.

So both Rorty and Peirce are in the "experience is reality" camp (agreed?) - the issue is which position helps Mormonism more.

The problem is which semantic difference communicates best to Mormons.  If the truth be told I am more a follower of Dewey than I am Rorty, but which vocabulary communicates better regarding why visions can be called "real"

THAT is the question for me which it seems you are avoiding- you are an excellent scholar of pragmatism but this is not a scholarly question about who believed what, but a theological and apologetic question- which idea fits better for a theory justifying visions?

Externalism and internalism are two sides of the same coin - it just depends on which explanation would make the average Mormon understand that visions can be justified as true or false

At some place, what is important is how we define "Visions are real because humans experience them"

We can say that visions are external and that humans experience them and therefore real or that visions are internal and that humans experience them and are therefore real.

If you say the first (visions are external and that humans experience them ) to an atheist he is unlikely to accept that.  (to say the least because he is probably a correspondence dualist)

If you say the second (visions are internal and that humans experience them and are therefore real) to the same atheist he may scratch his head but yet give you the opportunity to explain Rorty's position as a fellow atheist and perhaps hear you out.  THAT has been my strategy so far.

So for me- that is the issue- it is a strictly practical and rhetorical strategy question- which is the pragmatically better way of explaining visions and personal revelations to the non-believing public?  And to questioning Mormons for that matter?

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have a busy day/afternoon and have only skimmed your reply and I will make a detailed commentary later BUT to a degree, I see this as mostly a semantic difference which I have struggled with and I appreciate the chance to interact about it in detail

In other words, one can place "reality" as a mental phenomenon - as Rorty tacitly does by putting it in language- or take the externalist view about reality BUT in the long run they are the same position: that EXPERIENCE IS what we call "reality".  The other possibility remains Cartesian dualism and correspondence.

So both Rorty and Peirce are in the "experience is reality" camp (agreed?) - the issue is which position helps Mormonism more.

The problem is which semantic difference communicates best to Mormons.  If the truth be told I am more a follower of Dewey than I am Rorty, but which vocabulary communicates better regarding why visions can be called "real"

THAT is the question for me which it seems you are avoiding- you are an excellent scholar of pragmatism but this is not a scholarly question about who believed what, but a theological and apologetic question- which idea fits better for a theory justifying visions?

Externalism and internalism are two sides of the same coin - it just depends on which explanation would make the average Mormon understand that visions can be justified as true or false

At some place, what is important is how we define "Visions are real because humans experience them"

We can say that visions are external and that humans experience them and therefore real or that visions are internal and that humans experience them and are therefore real.

If you say the first (visions are external and that humans experience them ) to an atheist he is unlikely to accept that.  (to say the least because he is probably a correspondence dualist)

If you say the second (visions are internal and that humans experience them and are therefore real) to the same atheist he may scratch his head but yet give you the opportunity to explain Rorty's position as a fellow atheist and perhaps hear you out.  THAT has been my strategy so far.

So for me- that is the issue- it is a strictly practical and rhetorical strategy question- which is the pragmatically better way of explaining visions and personal revelations to the non-believing public?  And to questioning Mormons for that matter?

My question to your question then is how do you think I should define what is real?

Try to bear in mind that in my mind I equate what is real with what is true and that does NOT mean that I think what is true/real is necessarily good.

Reality/truth can be good, or it can be bad, instead, or it can also be a mix of both with some good and some bad.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

My question to your question then is how do you think I should define what is real?

Try to bear in mind that in my mind I equate what is real with what is true and that does NOT mean that I think what is true/real is necessarily good.

The real is what determines the true as true.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In other words, one can place "reality" as a mental phenomenon - as Rorty tacitly does by putting it in language- or take the externalist view about reality BUT in the long run they are the same position: that EXPERIENCE IS what we call "reality".  The other possibility remains Cartesian dualism and correspondence.

I'm not sure that's right. For one I think there are a lot more options. Coherence theories of truth for instance. 

Second I don't think they are the same position in that we can and should distinguish firstly between language and signs with the former being much more limited. Further Peirce allows for there to be an 'other' to language - the things themselves - which Rorty seems to struggle with. So I tend to see Rorty's particular appropriation of Wittgenstein and to a degree Davidson as problematic. It's the old "when you're a hammer everything is a nail" problem. Indeed often when Rorty says two things are the same it's precisely because he rejects out of hand anything other than language.

Quote

So both Rorty and Peirce are in the "experience is reality" camp (agreed?) - the issue is which position helps Mormonism more

Well they both use the same word. I'm far from convinced they mean the same thing by the word.

Quote

The problem is which semantic difference communicates best to Mormons.  If the truth be told I am more a follower of Dewey than I am Rorty, but which vocabulary communicates better regarding why visions can be called "real"

THAT is the question for me which it seems you are avoiding- you are an excellent scholar of pragmatism but this is not a scholarly question about who believed what, but a theological and apologetic question- which idea fits better for a theory justifying visions?

What justifies visions is what causes visions. If it's caused purely by the person and not something external to the person then it's unreliable.

If visions are a communication between God to a person then that has far more justification. There's still the problem of interpretation and justification of course. But looking at the situation from a logical analysis from a third person perspective then it matters what causes the vision.

Quote

Externalism and internalism are two sides of the same coin - it just depends on which explanation would make the average Mormon understand that visions can be justified as true or false

Externalism and internalism matters primarily in terms of the splitting of reality by Descartes and the problems it causes. That is it matters for the types of arguments we provide. More particularly, linguistically it allows us to distinguish two phenomena that language from a Cartesian perspective can not distinguish. (This is what Putnam's take on externalism shows)

Relative to the vision thing, it's rather analogous to the two earth situation that Putnam presents. While the presentation may "appear" the same there is a significant difference over whether they are the same thing. As Peirce notes for a difference to be a difference it must make a difference and the externalism/internalism divide shows exactly what difference it makes. My sense (perhaps incorrect since I've only read a few posts in this thread) is that your argument hinges upon effacing that distinction. So going back to Putnam's externalism, you'd say it doesn't matter whether what we experience is water or merely water in the matrix. But of course it does matter. When I talk about water I want to refer to H2O and not the mere bit simulation of water.

Quote

At some place, what is important is how we define "Visions are real because humans experience them"

Why would I want to say that? Visions are real if they a causally caused by a vision producing process. They'd be just as real if experienced by a dog or anything else or (I'd argue) nothing at all. In the same way that a message I write is real because it is written and not because it is read.

Quote

If you say the first (visions are external and that humans experience them ) to an atheist he is unlikely to accept that.  (to say the least because he is probably a correspondence dualist)

If you say the second (visions are internal and that humans experience them and are therefore real) to the same atheist he may scratch his head but yet give you the opportunity to explain Rorty's position as a fellow atheist and perhaps hear you out.  THAT has been my strategy so far.

An atheist is apt to disagree because they don't think there are visions. But so what?

The the second case the atheist is apt to just say they are unreliable because they are produced by the person's subconscious independent of any communication. Thus they can't be distinguished from dreams, delusions, or creative thought. (Except to the degree we may be able to make distinctions due to brain processes but I think even the questionable arguments based upon fMRIs don't claim that level of differentiation yet)

The atheist may hear you out in the second case, although I doubt many will. But what will matter is the content and the content simply is different if it's completely originating out of my creative mind as opposed to a communication from an external source. The atheist may concede that dreams and creativity are useful things, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to concede they're useful in a religiously relevant sense. Further if you get them to say it is useful you've cut off the most important aspects of the vision - their connection to reality even if reality is merely defined as what determines future experiences.

You've got a hearing from the atheist but not a terribly useful one that I can see.

Quote

So for me- that is the issue- it is a strictly practical and rhetorical strategy question- which is the pragmatically better way of explaining visions and personal revelations to the non-believing public?  And to questioning Mormons for that matter?

But the cost is being unable to explain why they are trustworthy.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The real is what determines the true as true.

Cool. Already what I believe, unless maybe there are some language game going on here that I am not aware of 

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Cool. Already what I believe, unless maybe there are some language game going on here that I am not aware of 

An other way to put it is that the real is what is represented in true statements that don't depend upon what any finite group thinks of them. This is important since one part of the realist/anti-realist distinction is to simply distinguish what beliefs depend upon the person who believes them. By tying it to a finite group it avoids things that are true but in a social sense.