Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Visions are human experience, therefore in a sense and in a qualified way, they are as "real" as science.

Great. How are we supposed to substantiate visionar's experience? Without any opportunity to test, duplicate it?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Tell it anyway!

This isn't duplicable. My Mum had a ton of relatives that fought in WW1. In 1915 my Mum's Grandma was sitting by herself in an upstairs room doing whatever and all of a sudden she felt that her son was there with her, even though he was in France and so when they got the news a few days later that he'd been killed she wasn't surprised and I hope she found comfort that he was in a monumentally better place that WW1 France

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your philosophy whittles down reality so much that me having a dream of a plane crashing into my house is as real as a plane crashing into my house.

If your response is the same (say the shock leads you to have a heart attack and die), would it matter to you which one was 'true'?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

mistake

Edited April 8, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your philosophy whittles down reality so much that me having a dream of a plane crashing into my house is as real as a plane crashing into my house.

Of course it doesn't.  Read the Rorty quote in my siggy until you comprehend it.

Common sense tells us there is a world out there not caused by human consciousness.  If one believed what you said above, they would have to be locked up in the funny farm.

Is the sensation of red real? 

Describe it in words.  How is it different than blue?  Do not use comparisons to red or blue objects like saying "Blue is like the sky"

The point is that we all have subjective experiences we describe in language that does not describe the experience at all, but we all know what the other person is talking about.

Reality as we speak about it is a social phenomenon known only to humans- and we believe- to God.

For me the experience of communication with God is as real as the color red- but I cannot use words to tell you about it.   So even the EXPERIENCE of God is not "objective" in the sense that you could not know what I know about that experience.

People are often not diagnosed with color blindness because they have no idea they experience color differently than most people- they learned the names of colors as THEY saw colors- not as other saw them

I have very bad astigmatism in one eye, and the other is perfect.  I was 6 years old before I knew that most people could see the leaves on tree tops with BOTH eyes and it took an eyetest at school to figure that out.

But I am still looking for YOUR theory about why your Mormon nonsense makes sense out of visions that clearly are not real.

Go ahead give it to me with no jokes if you have one.  

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

If your response is the same (say the shock leads you to have a heart attack and die), would it matter to you which one was 'true'?

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Robert, just teasing Nehor, good not to waste your time with it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

This isn't duplicable. My Mum had a ton of relatives that fought in WW1. In 1915 my Mum's Grandma was sitting by herself in an upstairs room doing whatever and all of a sudden she felt that her son was there with her, even though he was in France and so when they got the news a few days later that he'd been killed she wasn't surprised and I hope she found comfort that he was in a monumentally better place that WW1 France

 Nice story but how do you know it even happened or IF it happened, that it was not a coincidence and confirmation bias?

 All interpretations of reality are in the eye of the beholder,  That is a great story- in fact I have had a similar experience.  My father appeared to me in a dream the night he died.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Robert, just teasing Nehor, good not to waste your time with it.

Dang.

I missed that exchange.  But I guess I was supposed to.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Great. How are we supposed to substantiate visionar's experience? Without any opportunity to test, duplicate it?

What is your religious basis for the belief that visions are SUPPOSED to be verifiable?  Why do you believe that and take it on faith?

Prove to me why visions are "supposed" to be based on evidence to be "real"?

Where did you hear that one?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Robert, just teasing Nehor, good not to waste your time with it.

I was trying to insert media with photo, saying that "Reality is irrelevant; perception is everything," by Terry Goodkind.  But it just wouldn't take, thus providing another problem with reality.

[Duncan]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

 Nice story but how do you know it even happened or IF it happened, that it was not a coincidence and confirmation bias?

 All interpretations of reality are in the eye of the beholder,  That is a great story- in fact I have had a similar experience.  My father appeared to me in a dream the night he died.

I hear you, none of these people were Mormon yet anyways but my Grandpa (who was the brother of the deceased) told my Mom and I assume the Mother told my Grandpa, when I have no clue as I have never met any of these people. I don't have anything to say that it didn't happen or proof, I haven't heard anybody share this story but then again people who would have known died long, long ago. So until further info comes forward that negates this story i'll believe as I have no reason to not believe it. I have heard similar stories from others in other situations that tell me that my Great Grandma wasn't alone in this situation 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hmmm... first Pogi and I are discussing the Grateful Dead and Phish in the make-up-your-own-religion thread and now there's a thread on hallucinations...

Is LSD taking over the LDS board?

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world!"

(this Robert Hunter lyric should fit into your post-modern view nicely)

 

It does- thanks for that one!

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dang.

I missed that exchange.  But I guess I was supposed to.

I think you saw what I saw....though I suppose we can always debate that our biases have us focus on different things so maybe we didn't see the same thing at all....in fact, you saw a deleted response while I saw an accidental too soon submit click, while Robert experienced a tech glitch!!!!

How we manage to not kill each other off through miscommunication and mishaps I have no clue.

[Calm]

Couldn't get a cool looking one to work, my reality is too blah.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I’m not sure that “hallucinations,” by their very nature, can ever be justified as “real.”  After all, that is the sort of thing which accompanies certain kinds of mental illness, can also be brought on by taking certain types of hallucinogens (psychoactive drugs), and are often handled by prescribing anti-psychotic drugs.

However, even if we use the more neutral term “vision,” we are still confronted with the socio-cultural construction of reality which all of us share to some extent – and in a language which severely limits our ability to express our experience.   Worse, Noam Chomsky insists that the language we use to describe such phenomena is genetically determined:  Chomsky says that language acquisition is organic combined with the triggering effect of experience.  That is, language is not so much learned, as that we are preprogrammed to develop/acquire language.  Which leaves us little better than dolphins in objectively understanding our world.

Thus, we intellectuals fall back on phenomenological descriptions of our “religious” experiences, and make little pretense of them being “objectively real.”  After all, Mark, you have emphasized in the past that the true distinction to be made is between the “subjective” and the “intellectual” (following William James), and not between “subjective” and “objective.”  We are simply not capable of making objective judgments about anything, which sounds like an existentialist dilemma and seems to sell subjectivity short.  All a TBM really has is his subjective testimony, and he has to make do with that in this life.  That is the challenge, but it does not mean that he cannot at the same time intellectualize the circumstances of his existence.  Moreover, Noam Chomsky certainly doesn’t allow genetic determinism to dull his harsh intellectual critique of the human condition.

Indeed, we cannot even be certain that all of life as we know it is not simply a simulation created by beings so advanced that we could not even conceive of their purpose or nature.

Give this man a cigar!

Oh wait- he would have no use for them.

I won't bother with a "devil answer" to Bob- he could handle all I came up with anyway in my devil self!

The thing about Chomsky's view is that I don't think it hurts us at all for a couple of reasons since I believe that he is right about us being genetically determined for language in one way at least- we can argue that God designed our intelligence to be like his as an Exalted One of our species

We can also say that we evolved that way since obviously language is the key to our ability to adapt to any hostile environment on earth which is a clear survival advantage.  Language is necessary to pass on technology and culture- look at the Native Alaskan tribes who have passed on their culture to their children in language and stories for thousands of years.  You can't get a more hostile environment than the one in which they have survived for millennia 

The other aspect is that I do not think the idea of the contingency of the self as determined by contingent language can be maintained at least Rorty's version of it.

One cannot be an Ironist who is programmed by language and then develop one's own vocabulary while knowing the irony that it is still a contingent language.

It seems to hold both that language is contingent and not contingent at the same time.  No bueno, mi amigo!

Anyway for Chomsky I think it is clear that we have non-linguistic experiences all the time- looking at the sky at night and experiencing awe, wordlessly

What description is it that puts a vista of a valley and a sunset in common with a woman or a man,  a painting, or a sea of flowers?  Why would we explain "How beautiful!" in all these contexts?  What meaning could "beautiful" have in describing reality when it fits all these things, events and etc.  We have a "beautiful" move in chess, a "beautiful" plan or in target shooting, my brother in law told me I had a "beautiful target" when I got all in the black.

Really the experience here is wordless approval all using the same word which means virtually nothing- it could be a grunt of pleasure for all it's worth.  How is that experience/ word tied to "reality" at all?? To what does it correspond?  Yet we all use it that way.

But I must admit I am not much of a Chomsky fan

But yes I like your/my subjective/ intellectual dichotomy as well.   I am just trying to make it more accessible, and Thomas Nagel has me convinced that "objective" means essentially "shared experience"  

First person experiences are subjective, third person experiences are objective.   At least that's what they say.

I guess second personal experiences indicate we are on the same team,  if you know what I'm sayin.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Couldn't get a cool looking one to work, my reality is too blah.

That works just fine!!

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Is the sensation of red real? Describe it in words. How is it different than blue?  Do not use comparisons to red or blue objects like saying "Blue is like the sky"

The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm. The visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. 

My red might be different than your red, but we are still observing the same measurable process. We can both observe light with a wavelength of 650 nm and agree that our experience, even thought different, corresponds to the same event that we agree to call "red".

As I see it, the problem with claiming visions are objectively true is that usually only one person is able to observe that event.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm. The visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. 

My red might be different than your red, but we are still observing the same measurable process. We can both observe light with a wavelength of 650 nm and agree that our experience, even thought different, corresponds to the same event that we agree to call "red".

As I see it, the problem with claiming visions are objectively true is that usually only one person is able to observe that event.

Describing the EXPERIENCE of the color red in angstrom units is no description of the EXPERIENCE at all.

Clearly the description has nothing to do- ie does not "correspond" to the reality of the experience.   That is the whole point.  Objective terms cannot describe subjective experience and yet we live our lives subjectively in our own skin. Every important decision we make in life has subjective elements to it- what is right or wrong, whom to marry, where to live, what to believe about where mankind came from- all these are subjective decisions based on subjective perceptions.

Can you imagine how, if we could cure blindness, what it would be like for a blind person to suddenly have vision?

Can you imagine the impact in their lives?

Do you think your explanation of angstrom units makes any effect whatsoever in anyone's life?

How much does a subjective near-death experience make in someone's life?

Who, coming out of one of those, would care about oxygen readings in the blood or analysis of brain activity?  In human terms, objective evidence is often irrelevant to everything important to us.

[SamIam]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I feel I have found a way of seeing Mormonism which justifies visions as being "real" by justifying human experience as the only reality humans can know.

Visions are human experience, therefore in a sense and in a qualified way, they are as "real" as science.  They are about different subject matter, but fully justifiable as a part of human experience.  We can even justify speaking of them as being "true" within the context of Wittgensteinian language games and a pragmatic theory of truth, in which truth is dependent on a given context and in speech within a given social group...

OK all you dang TBM's- show me how I am wrong.  Show me how Josephs hallucination was of objective reality.  Go for it!  The challenge is hereby issued!!

I have the popcorn out.....

I have a philosophy that I trust everyone until it matters.  Visions are somewhat the same.  If some one claims such, most of the time the theological constraints which validate such potentials indicate that the vision is specific to the individual and thereby does not draw efficacy from whether or not someone else accepts it. It is as real as it is to the recipient.

However, when it matters, ie the vision is imposing potentials that may affect a larger circle than the individual having the vision then I judge them on how they stack up against the standards of the Gospel.  Even then it is not only if the vision is real that concerns me but is it true.  The adversary, I feel often provides real visions to confuse.  Does the vision address an audience that the visionary has no stewardship over, was it delivered by a sandy haired emissary, does it contain elements designed to undermine testimonies of the prophets or apostles. Does it pass the Moroni standards for truth...It is amazing how often individuals want to jump on somebody's visionary train without trying the spirits as Joseph calls it.  

When it comes to Joseph's visionary experiences we generally only know they are true when they strike a believing place in our psyche, they resonate with the individual.  A second way which I do not think is often the primary gauge, is to have a similar experience and recognize that what he describes with words is precisely what one has experienced. 

Thus, all in all, the very nature of how one determines if a spiritual vision is true defies classification along objective only limitations.  The spiritual element of confirmation by the spirit is for each an individual experience even if collectively the individuals having the individual confirmation join together to form a body of believers.  The growing body may provide impetus to seek out ones individual confirmation but it remains a one on one spiritual experience that seems to exist outside of objective constraints.

[Bernard Gui]

I can listen to a Mozart violin concerto at a concert or through audio equipment. I can even hear it by playing it myself. The sounds can be detected and measured by scientific devices. The same concerto can be played by any good violinist...and some bad ones, too, but no two violinists will ever play it the same way. In fact, even the best players cannot play it exactly the same way each time.

Except for deaf people, everyone in the vicinity will hear the concerto, but it will not have the same meaning for everyone. Not all will understand it, respond to it in the same way, know or care about the events surrounding its composition, appreciate the years of study the violinist put into learning it, or even like it. Some won't know who Mozart was, what a violin is, how it works, or the mechanics and physics involved in the production of the sound. A deaf person could touch the violin, feel the vibration of the strings, and verify something was happening but still have no idea what it sounded like. 

Everyone will hear the sound, but how would they describe what they are hearing? I can describe the emotions I feel while listening, but they would be inadequate to describe the whole experience in a way another person could feel the same way. Still, the sound is there, people hear and react in their own way, and no one would deny nothing happened, because it was real.

How would the composer describe the process of composing the piece? Could someone who has never written music comprehend how he did it? What if they had never heard music? What could he say to make them understand? Would they believe Mozart heard the music in his head before he put it on paper?

My thesis advisor in grad school enjoyed listening to the music of Gustav Mahler....some of the most complex music ever written. Except he did not like listening to live or recorded performances because they invariably had mistakes. Rather, he preferred to read the scores as one reads a book because he said there were no mistakes in the music he heard in his mind.

I can sit quietly and with a bit of concentration play the violin concerto perfectly in my head, much better than an actual physical performance. You can do the same with music you know. Sometimes a tune even gets stuck in a loop and plays over and over until it drives me nuts. Can you hear that sound in my head? Does it bother you like it bothers me? How could I prove to you that I am hearing it?

The sounds of a concerto performed by a violinist are demonstrably real. The sounds Mozart heard as he composed entire works in his mind, the Mahler symphony read by my friend, or the concerto I can hear just by myself.....are those real or just illusions? How do you know? 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Vance]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 And this one to be the other side

Now to answer your question.

Of course reality exists apart from my personal experience- it is outside of me.

My personal experience is just subjective nonsense - a hodgepodge of feelings and unreliable emotions.  Life goes on after people die?  Totally ridiculous.

 

Wait a minute.  IF "reality exists apart from my personal experience" then it is possible for "Life (to) goes on after people die" to be reality and you/me just not knowing or being able to know (experience) it.

Of course, AFTER you/me experience death, THEN you/me will experience at least some of the reality of it.

Quote

the TBM we all know and love

I declare that as "true". 

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is your religious basis for the belief that visions are SUPPOSED to be verifiable?  Why do you believe that and take it on faith?

Prove to me why visions are "supposed" to be based on evidence to be "real"?

Where did you hear that one?

Hey, Not so fast; You are the one writing about the "Visions" and their veracity.....Unlike the followers of this said visions, I'm asking some evidence or proof.Who prove any part of your visions being "Real" except to you, if you experience it, good for you.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I feel I have found a way of seeing Mormonism which justifies visions as being "real" by justifying human experience as the only reality humans can know.

Visions are human experience, therefore in a sense and in a qualified way, they are as "real" as science.  They are about different subject matter, but fully justifiable as a part of human experience.  We can even justify speaking of them as being "true" within the context of Wittgensteinian language games and a pragmatic theory of truth, in which truth is dependent on a given context and in speech within a given social group.

So fans of basketball can debate whether or not a given call by a given ref was a "true call" for example- use any sport you like.  Within the rules of that game, there is "truth" within the context and the facts are debatable, but everyone agrees on what "truth" is in that context.

Scripturally I see that as cohesive with D&C 93 which speaks of the "spheres" of truth and even this talk by president Kimball   https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng (as well as MANY other scriptures.)

But have been blathering my views here for a long time and will intentionally avoid voicing them in this new thread.  I just want all to know that I AM a "true believing Mormon" though here I play an atheist on the internet.

So come on all you TBM proponents of objective reality- you know who you are!

Come on and tell me why YOUR testimony is "objectively real" and Joseph Smith's vision was as well.

The intent is to show me IF there are any theories other than mine which I find justifiable which are current in the views of other "Mormons in the street" as opposed to weird philosophy types like me.  I am betting there are not after 40 years of thinking this way, but I could be wrong.

I predict this will be a short thread unless I get going on MY theories which I will try to avoid

Wait a second....  I have to put on my atheist hat.....  THERE

OK all you dang TBM's- show me how I am wrong.  Show me how Josephs hallucination was of objective reality.  Go for it!  The challenge is hereby issued!!

I have the popcorn out.....

Reality, like science, is a consensus.  IE If I say the color blue, we both more than likely will see(In our mind's eye) a slightly different shade of blue. If someone else sees the color red, then that person is either color blind or is outside the consensus. 

[Tacenda]

MF, are you having a faith crisis? First thing I thought of when I read your post, although you did make that disclaimer! What exactly do you want people to do, prove what?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Tacenda