Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I like it! I mean, yeah, true is the same thing as real, to me. But not what is dependent on me or what someone else thinks or says.

That was a point mski didn't seem to agree with when I said truth/reality is independent of what someone says or thinks.

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I like it! I mean, yeah, true is the same thing as real, to me. But not what is dependent on me or what someone else thinks or says.

That was a point mski didn't seem to agree with when I said truth/reality is independent of what someone says or thinks.

There's a problem that some who admit the subjective element in knowing what to say that's all there is. Yet again the question of why we are led to make the same statements about phenomena has to be explained. Particularly in physics.

 

 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's a problem that some who admit the subjective element in knowing what to say that's all there is. Yet again the question of why we are led to make the same statements about phenomena has to be explained. Particularly in physics.

To put it simply, some people experience some things that other people do not experience. Not because they can't, necessarily, but because they just haven't, or at least not at the same time as some other people.

I think of it as a huge bell curve in the education process, as it was explained to me by some of my teachers when I was much younger.  Some people are perfect and already knows everything there is to be learned, while others know next to nothing or very little. And in between those 2 extremes there are perhaps an infinite number of degrees of glory/intelligence.

We shouldn't expect people to know what they do not know, yet, or for everybody to already agree on everything.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Coherence theories do not require "external reality"- simply agreement between propositions

Quote

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.

I think that is perhaps begging the question - semantic internalist theories do not require signs.  And of course if you are Rorty you see things as Rorty sees them- but I still have not seen a reason to reject that view.  I see social constructivism as particularly compatible with the idea of a council of gods..

Quote

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.

And of course no one can know which it is, so then there is no reason to be a Mormon because Joseph's vision was therefore "unreliable".  Of course it was "unreliable" unless God caused it and God is invisible and has no external cause, therefore we have no reason to believe in Him.

Quote

If visions are a communication between God to a person then that has far more justification.

How?  How does one know it is a communication from God?  How is my assertion that I have had a communication from God justifiable?

Quote

There's still the problem of interpretation and justification of course.

We agree on that one.

Quote

But looking at the situation from a logical analysis from a third person perspective then it matters what causes the vision.

How does that help though?  How does it help with Joseph Smith?  What caused his vision?

Quote

 

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.

 

Visions are real if they are causally caused by a vision producing process?  This appears to be a virtus dormitiva.  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/virtus_dormitiva

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

Quote

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

So we do not get the ex-mo back simply because we lack a logical explanation, and we lose the opportunity to give a world an intellectual justification for Mormonism.

Quote

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)

Yes of course that is what happens

But of course that is not the only way of seeing reality and I have yet to see a refutation of Rorty's approach.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How does one know it is a communication from God?

Are you asking as someone who has received communication from God, or someone who hasn't?

As someone who has, God assured me he was communicating with me, but I don't expect you to just take my word for it. You'll have to find out what that is like for yourself, if you haven't already.

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 How is my assertion that I have had a communication from God justifiable?

It is only if you really have had, not if you haven't.

 

That's it from me, for now. I'd rather just watch you and clark have at it.

 

[SmileyMcGee]

On 4/13/2017 at 0:38 PM, 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.

I don't think you could give up talking about it  It's too much fun. I would be all for a discussion on how to communicate these ideas effectively. Message boards can be tough for philosophical discussion. For one I personally find much of "Philosophy" to be inaccessible to a layman, such as myself. I can't tell you how many Philosophy books I have left very much unfinished because of technical jargon that, for me, just muddied the waters. I much more prefer dumbed-down scenarios that walk me through concepts, and simple thought experiments (I love thought experiments) that allow me to explore and challenge my beliefs. Taking the time to clarify terms, walk through thought processes in detail and propose some challenging thought experiments could be very useful to this board.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

I don't think you could give up talking about it  It's too much fun. I would be all for a discussion on how to communicate these ideas effectively. Message boards can be tough for philosophical discussion. For one I personally find much of "Philosophy" to be inaccessible to a layman, such as myself. I can't tell you how many Philosophy books I have left very much unfinished because of technical jargon that, for me, just muddied the waters. I much more prefer dumbed-down scenarios that walk me through concepts, and simple thought experiments (I love thought experiments) that allow me to explore and challenge my beliefs. Taking the time to clarify terms, walk through thought processes in detail and propose some challenging thought experiments could be very useful to this board.

Go for it! What would you like to discuss?

What is weird to me is it almost seems like people have a genetic disposition to go one way or the other.  There are some who take to it instantly even though they have no training in philosophy. But I guess that's the way everything works. We all have our strong points and aptitudes.

But I think we need to be discussing philosophical ideas that are relevant to Mormonism, not just a litany of this ism vs that ism without tying it back to anything having to do with spirituality.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Are you asking as someone who has received communication from God, or someone who hasn't?

As someone who has, God assured me he was communicating with me, but I don't expect you to just take my word for it. You'll have to find out what that is like for yourself, if you haven't already.

It is only if you really have had, not if you haven't.

 

That's it from me, for now. I'd rather just watch you and clark have at it.

 

The question was a philosophical one - I would not be here if I didn't know the answer.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

I don't think you could give up talking about it  It's too much fun. I would be all for a discussion on how to communicate these ideas effectively. Message boards can be tough for philosophical discussion. For one I personally find much of "Philosophy" to be inaccessible to a layman, such as myself. I can't tell you how many Philosophy books I have left very much unfinished because of technical jargon that, for me, just muddied the waters. I much more prefer dumbed-down scenarios that walk me through concepts, and simple thought experiments (I love thought experiments) that allow me to explore and challenge my beliefs. Taking the time to clarify terms, walk through thought processes in detail and propose some challenging thought experiments could be very useful to this board.

By the way, I recall some discussions with you about these issues and "objective evidence" for the gospel- how did you come to your present understanding?

I can understand that is personal- skip it obviously if that's too personal.

But yeah- you know me- I like to spout off if I know what I am talking about or not

 

[mfbukowski]

error

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's a problem that some who admit the subjective element in knowing what to say that's all there is. Yet again the question of why we are led to make the same statements about phenomena has to be explained. Particularly in physics.

No one is saying that there is no "outside world" or that experiences are not consistent.  I walk around my house just fine knowing where things are, etc. But I know that it is my mind that is formulating what I see.  I know that because if I do it in the middle of the night my toes may have a painful experience that my mind did not predict due to my eyes not being operational in the dark.   Even worse I might step into a sensation of water on the floor which is a good predictor of a couple hours of what my mind thinks is "plumbing work", but first I have to turn on my sight organs by flipping a wall switch and experiencing what we call "the light turning on" to assess what my senses tell me is the "cause".   Of course the mental  experience I call a "plumbing leak" may actually, though further experience, turn out to cause more mental effort than my first assessment would predict.

Edited April 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SmileyMcGee]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But I think we need to be discussing philosophical ideas that are relevant to Mormonism, not just a litany of this ism vs that ism without tying it back to anything having to do with spirituality.

Agreed. Luckily Mormonism provides a rich context.

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The question was a philosophical one - I would not be here if I didn't know the answer.

I think you know the answers too which is why I sometimes wonder why you talk as if you don't know.

My preferred method of teaching is to speak as one wgo has authority, not needing to be taught as other men who haven't learned what God has taught me and authorized me to teach.

You seem to prefer to play ignorant, sometimes.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The real is what determines the true as true.

Uh oh.

 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you know the answers too which is why I sometimes wonder why you talk as if you don't know.

My preferred method of teaching is to speak as one wgo has authority, not needing to be taught as other men who haven't learned what God has taught me and authorized me to teach.

You seem to prefer to play ignorant, sometimes.

Oh I can do method one, trust me, but this is philosophy, not preaching 101.

And in a discussion that makes one a blowhard know it all who may be only showing his own ignorance and I don't want to do that.  

At some point it becomes an issue of social graces.

Edited April 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Agreed. Luckily Mormonism provides a rich context.

So where do we start?

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Agreed. Luckily Mormonism provides a rich context.

Agreed, and this all has to do with a principle we refer to as "faith" which we are authorized to teach as much as we can.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I can do method one, trust me, but this is philosophy, not preaching 101.

And in a discussion that makes one a blowhard know it all who may be only showing his own ignorance and I don't want to do that.  

At some point it becomes an issue of social graces.

I can share what I know while being nice. The former is sometimes easier than the latter but I can do both at the same time.

 

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Coherence theories do not require "external reality"- simply agreement between propositions

But many coherence theories have a thought of why they cohere. So Spinoza or Hegel have pretty concrete views on reality. Putnam's realism is a kind of variant on Peirceanism which many take to ultimately be a coherence theory.

Quote

I think that is perhaps begging the question - semantic internalist theories do not require signs.  And of course if you are Rorty you see things as Rorty sees them- but I still have not seen a reason to reject that view.  I see social constructivism as particularly compatible with the idea of a council of gods..

Hmm. I don't see how it's question begging so much as noting a problem that when you create a simple taxonomy you still attempt to explain everything in terms of that taxonomy regardless of how well it works. The problem with the linguistic model here is that it can't explain why we experience surprise or agreement. So I definitely don't think I'm begging the question.

Quote

And of course no one can know which it is, so then there is no reason to be a Mormon because Joseph's vision was therefore "unreliable".  Of course it was "unreliable" unless God caused it and God is invisible and has no external cause, therefore we have no reason to believe in Him.

This confuses what is knowable with what we know know. So I don't accept the premise you make that these things are unknowable. But you're right that people adopt the position that only public reproducible knowledge is reliable. But that is their flaw of course in that that is an unsupportable claim. That is the fact one person doesn't know says nothing about whether an other person can know. I know what I am looking at right now and others don't. It doesn't mean my knowledge isn't knowledge.

Of course the more sophisticated naturalistic skeptic then changes the debate to classes of phenomena. So if I'm looking at my computer the class of knowledge I claim is supported but the class of visions as knowledge is not supported. But while it takes a little longer that's easy to dismiss too by a simple appeal to the progress of knowledge. At some point unsupported classes of beliefs become knowledge and we have to explain that transition which can't be purely on classes of knowledge.

Quote

How?  How does one know it is a communication from God?  How is my assertion that I have had a communication from God justifiable?

Well of course that needs to be established just as the origin of any communication's object has to be determined. There's nothing unique here about God being the object other than his not being a public object. So we do the same sorts of things we do for new knowledge of testing, inquiring, looking for patterns, making predictions, seeing if the patterns persist and so on. I'm certainly not arguing for an unique religious epistemology. Quite the contrary. 

Quote

How does that help though?  How does it help with Joseph Smith?  What caused his vision?

Well I believe God did. My point is though that the cause matters. Justifying that determination is an other matter. 

Quote

Visions are real if they are causally caused by a vision producing process?  This appears to be a virtus dormitiva.  

Not at all. It simply points to the process mattering and that ought be our focus whereas you are saying that shouldn't be the focus. So it's a rather modest and defensible claim.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh oh.

Of course this isn't a Cartesian type of correspondence though but one in terms of signs in an externalist scheme. A sign relates the interpretant to the object. Both reality and truth can be dealt with in terms of signs without necessarily invoking humans except by way of analogy.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Hmm. I don't see how it's question begging so much as noting a problem that when you create a simple taxonomy you still attempt to explain everything in terms of that taxonomy regardless of how well it works. The problem with the linguistic model here is that it can't explain why we experience surprise or agreement. So I definitely don't think I'm begging the question.

You know, by citing the problem of surprise, on second thought, I think you are right.  It's clear to me that Rorty is lacking in that area and I have mentioned before here and in other places that the problem of surprise- or I often to a sense of awe at coming over the top of a hillside and experiencing a sudden pre-linguistic sense of awe at say perhaps a beautiful vista, is a flaw in Rorty's contingency of language and therefore of the self.  So I think I was right that your comment was question begging for a militant Rorty follower, but I think that Rorty is wrong on that point anyway.  Rorty can be interpreted as thinking that there is no such thing as a "pre-linguistic" experience.  This has tremendous ramifications for him- it means that even our sense of "self" is contingent on language.   In fact his notion of a "strong poet"- which he got from Harold Bloom- is one who can rise above this contingency and become an "Ironist"who somehow- and I think this becomes a contradiction- rises above her own contingency and can create her own "vocabulary" meaning for all practical purposes, her own world/world view.  How a contingent being is supposed to become non-contingent I think presents a problem.

But if there are such things as pre-linguistic "raw feels"- qualia- as Rorty would call perhaps the experience of surprise- then Rorty is wrong. He feels that qualia or raw feels are still linguistically contingent.  His view is more complex than this simple explanation but he would deny that there is any experience which is fully independent of linguistic contingency.  So I have always felt that this ultimately leads to full determinism which I see as incompatible with Mormonism- so this part of Rorty's position I have always rejected.

So good point- I will have to re-evaluate that and re-integrate that in my views.

Quote

 

This confuses what is knowable with what we know know. So I don't accept the premise you make that these things are unknowable. But you're right that people adopt the position that only public reproducible knowledge is reliable. But that is their flaw of course in that that is an unsupportable claim. That is the fact one person doesn't know says nothing about whether an other person can know. I know what I am looking at right now and others don't. It doesn't mean my knowledge isn't knowledge.

 

 

 

I think this was a misunderstanding- I was assuming a atheist stance here, trying to see how you would address it- the question essentially being how we rationally justify visions.

My point was that people adopt only reproducible knowledge as reliable.  I have of course personally no problem with "the spirit" confirming spiritual matters- or your defense of your knowing what others may not know.  I should have more direct with my question- it was really, and I have asked it before- how Perice would justify reports of Joseph's vision as "reliable" or "true"

Again- I am trying to see if Peirce's view helps justify a Mormon position and I am still not seeing the answer.  I don't see how he helps the Mormon cause

Quote

 

Of course the more sophisticated naturalistic skeptic then changes the debate to classes of phenomena. So if I'm looking at my computer the class of knowledge I claim is supported but the class of visions as knowledge is not supported. But while it takes a little longer that's easy to dismiss too by a simple appeal to the progress of knowledge. At some point unsupported classes of beliefs become knowledge and we have to explain that transition which can't be purely on classes of knowledge.

 

I would point to Dewey's "On Certainty" where he essentially- as I recall and I am probaby oversimplfying here to a fault- says that "knowledge" is a synonym for "certainty" and has nothing to do with "external reality" but with our psychological internal state of being certain about something whether or not it is even "true".  So "I know the church is true" is perhaps synonymous with something like "I am certain that the teachings of the church have helped my life"

Quote

 

Well of course that needs to be established just as the origin of any communication's object has to be determined. There's nothing unique here about God being the object other than his not being a public object. So we do the same sorts of things we do for new knowledge of testing, inquiring, looking for patterns, making predictions, seeing if the patterns persist and so on. I'm certainly not arguing for an unique religious epistemology. Quite the contrary. 

 

But God's not being a "public object" is precisely THE problem and what differentiates it from "any communication".  Of course as a Mormon- I feel I "know God's voice" but my question is a philosophical justification 

Quote

 

Well I believe God did. My point is though that the cause matters. Justifying that determination is an other matter. 

Not at all. It simply points to the process mattering and that ought be our focus whereas you are saying that shouldn't be the focus. So it's a rather modest and defensible claim.

 

Yeah- again. I am looking for a philosophical justification, perhaps from Peirce.

Mine would rely on a postmodern approach and a deflationary position on truth.  I don't think anything else works philosophically and we need something that works imo.

Edited April 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

On 4/15/2017 at 9:51 AM, mfbukowski said:

error

 

Now, that is rep-worthy. Someone who admits he is in error!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/15/2017 at 10:29 AM, clarkgoble said:

Well of course that needs to be established just as the origin of any communication's object has to be determined. There's nothing unique here about God being the object other than his not being a public object. So we do the same sorts of things we do for new knowledge of testing, inquiring, looking for patterns, making predictions, seeing if the patterns persist and so on. I'm certainly not arguing for an unique religious epistemology. Quite the contrary. 

Well I believe God did. My point is though that the cause matters. Justifying that determination is an other matter. 

Not at all. It simply points to the process mattering and that ought be our focus whereas you are saying that shouldn't be the focus. So it's a rather modest and defensible claim.

See what I am looking for is a way to justify every proposition here quoted, below, and I want to do it philosophically.

I think my way of seeing it does just that.

Well except maybe for President Hinckley's use of one word- "humanism"

He does not see a THEISTIC humanism but I would like to suggest that is exactly what Mormonism is.

Amazingly I got this from THIS WEEK'S Priesthood lesson.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-7-the-whispering-of-the-spirit?lang=eng

Quote

 

A scholar once expressed the view that the Church is an enemy of intellectualism. If he meant by intellectualism that branch of philosophy which teaches “the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason” and “that reason is the final principle of reality,” then, yes, we are opposed to so narrow an interpretation as applicable to religion. (Quotations from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. 738.) Such an interpretation excludes the power of the Holy Spirit in speaking to and through [us].

Of course we believe in the cultivation of the mind, but the intellect is not the only source of knowledge. There is a promise, given under inspiration from the Almighty, set forth in these beautiful words: “God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost.” (D&C 121:26.)

The humanists who criticize the Lord’s work, the so-called intellectualists who demean, speak only from ignorance of spiritual manifestation. They have not heard the voice of the Spirit. They have not heard it because they have not sought after it and prepared themselves to be worthy of it. Then, supposing that knowledge comes only of reasoning and of the workings of the mind, they deny that which comes by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The things of God are understood by the Spirit of God. That Spirit is real. To those who have experienced its workings, the knowledge so gained is as real as that which is acquired through the operation of the five senses. I testify of this. And I am confident that most members of the Church can so testify. I urge each of us to continue to cultivate a heart in tune with the Spirit. If we will do so, our lives will be enriched. We will feel a kinship with God our Eternal Father. We will taste a sweetness of joy that can be had in no other way.

Let us not be trapped by the sophistry of the world, which for the most part is negative and which so often bears sour fruit. Let us walk with faith in the future, speaking affirmatively and cultivating an attitude of confidence. As we do so, our strength will give strength to others.15

I make a plea that we constantly seek the inspiration of the Lord and the companionship of His Holy Spirit to bless us in keeping our efforts on a high spiritual plane. Those prayers will not go unanswered.16

 

I don't know that Peirce's view of reality can justify that, but I think Rorty's view of anti-realism can come close.  Admittedly with tweaks.

Edited April 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/14/2017 at 7:50 PM, clarkgoble said:

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.

I think as stated that this would include Mormons who believe their testimony experiences to be "real" and "true" since Mormons are definitely a finite group, from having "real" and "true" experiences?

I think it is clear that most of the rest of the world would find their claims unreliable?  Am I missing something?

Edited April 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think as stated that this would include Mormons who believe their testimony experiences to be "real" and "true" since Mormons are definitely a finite group, from having "real" and "true" experiences?

I think it is clear that most of the rest of the world would find their claims unreliable?  Am I missing something?

I must be missing something key here as I'm not following your question or argument. The issue for anyone claiming facts whether by spiritual methods, scientific methods, or other methods is whether what is represented by the facts are themselves real. i.e. not dependent for their being upon the person thinking about them

The reason most people think Mormon claims are false (and by extension methodology unreliable) is because they don't think the objects are real. i.e. Nephites, god, miracles, etc. This seems fairly straightforward. I think those skeptics wrong although I can completely understand why they are skeptical.

Quote

See what I am looking for is a way to justify every proposition here quoted, below, and I want to do it philosophically.

I think most philosophies can. Rationalism died in philosophy centuries ago. Most dominant philosophies have to engage empiricism in various ways (whether Hegel, Kant, the Empricists or especially the pragmatists). I take spiritual manifestations to be empirical. My experiences certainly are.

So I think you're setting a pretty low bar.