Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[Meerkat]

On 4/8/2017 at 8:58 AM, Meadowchik said:

A very good friend of ours believes he saw Christ. I believe that he believes that.

That said, what does that have to do with MY reality? One could reason that if I am constituted to believe as he believes, I would have an experience similar to his. But at the very least, this very personal aspect, the original experience,  of his reality has nothing to do with me.

It is not mine.

Right.  Visions are personal, and probably based on one's other life experience.  When I was a boy, I asked my blind cousin what his dreams were like.  He said "I'm blind.  Think about it."

Reality for many of us is subjective and hard to duplicate.  Take the blind man in John 9:

"25 He answered and said, Whether he (Jesus) be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

Duplicate that!  The Jews didn't believe him, so they sought witnesses, before and after the event.  It appeared they really did want to know.

18 "... the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:"

How do you argue with that evidence? You argue like this:

34 "They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."

Even with witnesses, probably most people will not believe evidence unless it aligns with their own limited experience.  Does that mean all visions are hallucinations?

If it important for people to accept a vision as true, there must be a way to verify that information, even if it is not duplicatable.  Otherwise, it would be unreasonable to expect a person to believe it.  

Here is one way, explained in Matthew 18, aka the law of witnesses:

16 "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Regarding Joseph's vision, for example, three upstanding men in the community saw the angel, heard the voice and saw the plates, and put their good names and reputations on the line. Eight others saw the plates and did likewise.

Without seeing the plates, angel or hearing the voice, I find it interesting that his vision was verifiable another way, through prayer as described in Moroni 10.  

Because of that duplicatable evidence, millions will testify the Joseph saw a vision and that the book that was revealed in that vision is indeed true.  I am among that group.  I know what I believe and why I believe it.  It matters not that someone doesn't accept my testimony.  It is my reality.  It belongs to me.  That knowledge came initially in two other forms of evidence, reason and the Holy Ghost that can verify the truth of all things, according to the scripture and my experience. 

Another form of evidence is acting on new information to see if there is a duplicatable result.

Christ taught in John 7:

17 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

If there are fruits that follow believing the vision, then you have more verifiable evidence.  The fact that one may have difficulty suspending their disbelief long enough to put prayer, witnesses or experience to the test, doesn't change the truth of it.  The fact they are not willing or able to suspend their disbelief is their reality, and that's okay as far as I'm concerned.  As long as they are good and honest, I will most likely lock arms with them meeting life's challenges together.  And I will love them as I do all my good neighbors.

[USU78]

22 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Unmaker = Mephistopheles seems plausible to me.  They sure think a lot alike!

I think we're onto something here.  This is the list of occurrences of "Satan, the accuser/adversary" from Strong's online Hebrew language concordance:

Quote    Num 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary H7854 against him. Now he was riding upon his ***, and his two servants were with him.  Num 22:32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine *** these three times? behold, I went out to withstand H7854 thee, because thy way is perverse before me:  1Sa 29:4 And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary H7854 to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?  2Sa 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries H7854unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?  1Ki 5:4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary H7854 nor evil occurrent.  1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary H7854 unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.  1Ki 11:23 And God stirred him up another adversary, H7854 Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah:  1Ki 11:25 And he was an adversary H7854 to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.  1Ch 21:1 And Satan H7854 stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.  Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan H7854came also among them.  Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 Whence comest thou? Then Satan H7854 answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.  Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?  Job 1:9 Then Satan H7854 answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?  Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan H7854 went forth from the presence of the LORD.  Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan H7854came also among them to present himself before the LORD.  Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 From whence comest thou? And Satan H7854 answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.  Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.  Job 2:4 And Satan H7854 answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.  Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.  Job 2:7 So went Satan H7854 forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.  Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan H7854stand at his right hand.  Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan H7854 standing at his right hand to resist him.  Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, H7854 The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; H7854 even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?   In each instance there is a "taste" of Verneinung in how "Satan" is used in the OT.  "Unmaker" is the adversary of the Maker and the maker in Card's Alvin Maker series.  Homo ludens, as we've seen above, is the lower case "maker" ("player") per Schiller:  whatever we want, he wants its opposite.  "Der Verneiner" we could call him as well as  שָׂטַן.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Right.  Visions are personal, and probably based on one's other life experience.  When I was a boy, I asked my blind cousin what his dreams were like.  He said "I'm blind.  Think about it."

Reality for many of us is subjective and hard to duplicate.  Take the blind man in John 9:

"25 He answered and said, Whether he (Jesus) be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

Duplicate that!  The Jews didn't believe him, so they sought witnesses, before and after the event.  It appeared they really did want to know.

18 "... the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:"

How do you argue with that evidence? You argue like this:

34 "They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."

Even with witnesses, probably most people will not believe evidence unless it aligns with their own limited experience.  Does that mean all visions are hallucinations?

If it important for people to accept a vision as true, there must be a way to verify that information, even if it is not duplicatable.  Otherwise, it would be unreasonable to expect a person to believe it.  

Here is one way, explained in Matthew 18, aka the law of witnesses:

16 "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Regarding Joseph's vision, for example, three upstanding men in the community saw the angel, heard the voice and saw the plates, and put their good names and reputations on the line. Eight others saw the plates and did likewise.

Without seeing the plates, angel or hearing the voice, I find it interesting that his vision was verifiable another way, through prayer as described in Moroni 10.  

Because of that duplicatable evidence, millions will testify the Joseph saw a vision and that the book that was revealed in that vision is indeed true.  I am among that group.  I know what I believe and why I believe it.  It matters not that someone doesn't accept my testimony.  It is my reality.  It belongs to me.  That knowledge came initially in two other forms of evidence, reason and the Holy Ghost that can verify the truth of all things, according to the scripture and my experience. 

Another form of evidence is acting on new information to see if there is a duplicatable result.

Christ taught in John 7:

17 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

If there are fruits that follow believing the vision, then you have more verifiable evidence.  The fact that one may have difficulty suspending their disbelief long enough to put prayer, witnesses or experience to the test, doesn't change the truth of it.  The fact they are not willing or able to suspend their disbelief is their reality, and that's okay as far as I'm concerned.  As long as they are good and honest, I will most likely lock arms with them meeting life's challenges together.  And I will love them as I do all my good neighbors.

This is so repable. When you get enough posts, I will try to come back and rep this!

[USU78]

Another thought:  In Abraham 3:22-24 we have the following:  

Quote

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.  And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell[.]

[Emphasis added].  Here we have Christ, the greatest of the intelligences/souls/spirits, the one "like unto G-d," speaking to the rest of them, "We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."  

Even at the beginning, even before the world is made, we have the spirits of mankind being brought together by the One "like unto G-d" to engage in the creative process, aping, like all good children, the activities of their parents.  In Job 38:7 it is reported that they "shouted for joy" at some point, either when the plan is announced (which I believe, and which I believe Abraham 3:24 describes) or at some later time.

The announcement of creation creates joy, as well as participation in it.  Creation = Joy = Play.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Even with witnesses, probably most people will not believe evidence unless it aligns with their own limited experience.  Does that mean all visions are hallucinations?

If it important for people to accept a vision as true, there must be a way to verify that information, even if it is not duplicatable.  Otherwise, it would be unreasonable to expect a person to believe it.  .....

Without seeing the plates, angel or hearing the voice, I find it interesting that his vision was verifiable another way, through prayer as described in Moroni 10.  

Because of that duplicatable evidence, millions will testify the Joseph saw a vision and that the book that was revealed in that vision is indeed true.  I am among that group.  I know what I believe and why I believe it.  It matters not that someone doesn't accept my testimony.  It is my reality.  It belongs to me.  That knowledge came initially in two other forms of evidence, reason and the Holy Ghost that can verify the truth of all things, according to the scripture and my experience. 

Another form of evidence is acting on new information to see if there is a duplicatable result. ....

If there are fruits that follow believing the vision, then you have more verifiable evidence.  The fact that one may have difficulty suspending their disbelief long enough to put prayer, witnesses or experience to the test, doesn't change the truth of it.  The fact they are not willing or able to suspend their disbelief is their reality, and that's okay as far as I'm concerned.  As long as they are good and honest, I will most likely lock arms with them meeting life's challenges together.  And I will love them as I do all my good neighbors.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

The trick is coming up with a philosophical theory which explains that!  Are your points philosophically justifiable- that is the question of the thread, and I think they are.

The problem is that one man's vision is another man's hallucination.  I needed the justification for those different contexts and I think the answer lies in justifying what you term "subjective" reality AS "reality".   THAT is really what the thread is about.

Looking forward to more great posts from you!

[USU78]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Another thought:  In Abraham 3:22-24 we have the following:  

[Emphasis added].  Here we have Christ, the greatest of the intelligences/souls/spirits, the one "like unto G-d," speaking to the rest of them, "We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."  

Even at the beginning, even before the world is made, we have the spirits of mankind being brought together by the One "like unto G-d" to engage in the creative process, aping, like all good children, the activities of their parents.  In Job 38:7 it is reported that they "shouted for joy" at some point, either when the plan is announced (which I believe, and which I believe Abraham 3:24 describes) or at some later time.

The announcement of creation creates joy, as well as participation in it.  Creation = Joy = Play.

An analog from fiction: Aule the Smith, one if the g-ds in Tolkien's universe, who corresponds to Haephestos, longs for the arrival of elves and men, beings he can teach making to and whom he can love as children. Impatient, he decides to fashion beings after the pattern revealed by the One G-d, Illuvatar. 

He makes the seven fathers of the dwarfs. Illuvatar comes to him to call him on the carpet for usurping something he has no power nor business doing and commands Aule to destroy his new creation.

But the seven fathers shrank from him as he raised his hammer to smash them as he would a spoiled metal pot. When they did, Illuvatar explained that, since they had had no life in themselves, they would have suffered the killing blows without complaint.

The One, in his compassion, had granted them life and free will, both for the love Aule bore his creation and in recognition of the love Aule bore the One, as expressed in his desire to create as the One creates.

Thus Illuvatar accepts Aule's creatures as a gift of son to Father. He ennobles the gift, making the dwarfs his own children.

Just as Our Father accepts our petty creations, ennobling them and us. He joys in our joy at our play.

[USU78]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Another thought:  In Abraham 3:22-24 we have the following:  

[Emphasis added].  Here we have Christ, the greatest of the intelligences/souls/spirits, the one "like unto G-d," speaking to the rest of them, "We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."  

Even at the beginning, even before the world is made, we have the spirits of mankind being brought together by the One "like unto G-d" to engage in the creative process, aping, like all good children, the activities of their parents.  In Job 38:7 it is reported that they "shouted for joy" at some point, either when the plan is announced (which I believe, and which I believe Abraham 3:24 describes) or at some later time.

The announcement of creation creates joy, as well as participation in it.  Creation = Joy = Play.

Another from Tolkien: Illuvatar delegates creation to the lesser g-ds, including Melkor who later falls and becomes Morgoth, the Enemy. Morgoth keeps breaking down what the other g-ds built up, till finally the earth is completed. But it is an earth far different from what the g-ds intended: it is far more extreme and far less symmetrical than they desired.

Yet Illuvatar accepted it as is , explaining that though Melkor acted out of malice with a desire to mar the beautiful, He takes even that and incorporates it into His design. His designs cannot be marred or impeded.

And if we create in our play what is less than beautiful and Noble, He beautifies and ennobles our lesser creations and incorporates them into His plan.

[Okrahomer]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

Another thought:  In Abraham 3:22-24 we have the following:  

[Emphasis added].  Here we have Christ, the greatest of the intelligences/souls/spirits, the one "like unto G-d," speaking to the rest of them, "We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."  

Even at the beginning, even before the world is made, we have the spirits of mankind being brought together by the One "like unto G-d" to engage in the creative process, aping, like all good children, the activities of their parents.  In Job 38:7 it is reported that they "shouted for joy" at some point, either when the plan is announced (which I believe, and which I believe Abraham 3:24 describes) or at some later time.

The announcement of creation creates joy, as well as participation in it.  Creation = Joy = Play.

I can almost imagine being "there" and joining in the joyful shout.  Too bad I've approached creation with such fear and trepidation in mortality.  I've wasted a colossal amount of time being fearful.

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I can almost imagine being "there" and joining in the joyful shout.  Too bad I've approached creation with such fear and trepidation in mortality.  I've wasted a colossal amount of time being fearful.

For me, total trust in God is a tough one.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Aule the Smith, one if the g-ds in Tolkien's universe,

 

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Another from Tolkien:

Tolkien's universe is magnificent, isn't it?  He is a darling among traditional Catholics for his rendering of Catholic theology into a very complex mythological system.

Edited June 13, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Tolkien's universe is magnificent, isn't it?  He is a darling among traditional Catholics for his rendering of Catholic theology into a very complex mythological system.

Wait a minute........ you mean it's not TRUE???  Middle Earth et al are MYTHS??

Then it has no value!!!   Why do people read it????

Obviously they are not critical thinkers.  I am surprised there is no scientific evidence for all that- then how can it have value??

Oh my gosh, now we have to put that into the realm of dreams, visions and hallucinations?  

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

And now for another item from popular fiction (science fiction in this instance, not fantasy fiction).  In Frank Herbert's Man of Two Worlds, http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/93440.Man_of_Two_Worlds, mankind encounters a race called the Dreens who can idmage things into existence.

Indeed, the Dreens idmaged our world and everything in it into existence, including us.  Of course, when mankind finally encounters them and learns of their importance and the precariousness of mankind's existence because any Dreen kid could un-idmage us out of existence, the fun begins  ...  including a plot point of basil being catnip, indeed heroin, to the Dreens.  The Dreens draw on primordial elements in the universe to idmage things.  But at the same time they're fearful, sometimes petty and, although individual humans and Dreens can be highly moral and laudable, most aren't  ...  especially the humans.  In their fear, the Dreens decide to destroy earth to keep humans from getting easy access to their planet, Dreenor.

In essence  ...  the Dreens are us.  They, in their freedom, create from pre-existing materials earths and more.  G-d is implied but not expressed in the novel, because Who else could have created the Dreens?  

Although mankind is roundly savaged in the book through satire, the Dreens themselves are equally ridiculous in their addiction and their reflexive tendency to destroy what they fear.  Left to themselves, even the demiurgical Dreens are fully telestial.  We never see any "noble and great ones" among the Dreens.  We certainly don't see any among the humans.  Yet G-d granted Dreendom near g-dlike powers of creation and destruction  ...  oh yeah, He did to humans, too.  

So  ...  Herbert and his son create in their freedom a satirical tale of man's nobility and creative potential juxtaposed with his pettiness, cowardice and avarice.

It got mixed reviews, but it is, I think, an important piece from the LDS perspective:  Just what would a world populated by Adam & Eve and their descendants look like, them having eaten the fruit but with no veil and no flaming sword guarding the way to immortality?  Such Dreen-esque humans, having the power of creation, the tendency to destruction, and no frame hemming in their existence could be terrible indeed, living forever in their sins.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by USU78

[mfbukowski]

Hope for things was kind enough to send me a link to a Ted talk which says from a scientific point of view what I and others have been saying from a philosophical point if view.

Just more evidence that Bukowski is not hallucinating......too much

I have been trying to embed the video but it won't work- so here is the link

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hope for things was kind enough to send me a link to a Ted talk which says from a scientific point of view what I and others have been saying from a philosophical point if view.

Just more evidence that Bukowski is not hallucinating......too much

I have been trying to embed the video but it won't work- so here is the link

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

 

I'll take a gander.

In the meantime, come visit my thread on Emergence from the Garden. I'd love your thoughts

[Honorentheos]

Nice talk on consciousness.

The closing comments are particularly telling -

Now, these are fundamental changes in how we understand ourselves, but I think they should be celebrated, because as so often in science, from Copernicus -- we're not at the center of the universe -- to Darwin -- we're related to all other creatures -- to the present day. With a greater sense of understanding comes a greater sense of wonder, and a greater realization that we are part of and not apart from the rest of nature. And ... when the end of consciousness comes, there's nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/3/2017 at 5:26 AM, USU78 said:

Joy. When we free ourselves from the control of forces that act upon us, become truly free agents , acting on our own behalf, then and only then are we fully human. Only then do we enjoy a fullness. Only then can we create our existence as the demiurgical g-dlings He wants us to be.

Card gets this and expresses this in his fiction, especially his Alvin Maker series. 

Spieltrieb = Joy.

And then we have Joseph The Smith transforming the plates into living gold...  Have you read Ann Taves?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9060.html

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/ann-taves/

Webster, 1928, definition of "translate"

Quote

 

Translate

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

Note which definitions are least used= our conventional meaning today.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then we have Joseph The Smith transforming the plates into living gold...  Have you read Ann Taves?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9060.html

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/ann-taves/

Webster, 1928, definition of "translate"

Note which definitions are least used= our conventional meaning today.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

The medieval (and later) alchemists sought the philosopher's stone, that substance which could 'translate' base lead into gold.  It is said that this was metaphor for the 'translation' of persons of lead into persons of gold, refined and ennobled.  

Recall the alchemical pairings:

Lead	Gold
Suffering	Happiness
Ignorance	Wisdom
Unenlightenment	Enlightenment
Mistaken identity	Who you really are
Dissatisfaction	Satisfaction
Life Without Meaning	Meaningful Life
Ordinary Mediocrity	Extraordinary Life
Conditional Happiness	Unconditional Bliss
Asleep	Awake
Bondage	Liberation

If our "Magic World View" former brother had really cared to do something other than slam Joseph, he might have looked more deeply and sought to understand the plates as being metaphor/symbol for the fruit of Lehi's tree such that each person is refined thereby into gold, all suffering alleviated, all ignorance banished, the self finally known, all hunger filled, each life made meaningful, every person made extraordinary, every day a bliss, all sleeping faculties awakened, and all chains broken.

We so easily forget that both Euclid and Newton dabbled in such notions, being fascinated by both the physical and the spiritual.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

The medieval (and later) alchemists sought the philosopher's stone, that substance which could 'translate' base lead into gold.  It is said that this was metaphor for the 'translation' of persons of lead into persons of gold, refined and ennobled.  

Recall the alchemical pairings:

Lead	Gold
Suffering	Happiness
Ignorance	Wisdom
Unenlightenment	Enlightenment
Mistaken identity	Who you really are
Dissatisfaction	Satisfaction
Life Without Meaning	Meaningful Life
Ordinary Mediocrity	Extraordinary Life
Conditional Happiness	Unconditional Bliss
Asleep	Awake
Bondage	Liberation

If our "Magic World View" former brother had really cared to do something other than slam Joseph, he might have looked more deeply and sought to understand the plates as being metaphor/symbol for the fruit of Lehi's tree such that each person is refined thereby into gold, all suffering alleviated, all ignorance banished, the self finally known, all hunger filled, each life made meaningful, every person made extraordinary, every day a bliss, all sleeping faculties awakened, and all chains broken.

We so easily forget that both Euclid and Newton dabbled in such notions, being fascinated by both the physical and the spiritual.

 

Absolutely, and though we find the idea of a change of "substance" now unconvincing, in a religious context "transubstantiation" is alive and well.  Through the spiritual efforts of the Priesthood millions believe that bread and wine can become the "real presence" of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ himself, and that this miracle happens thousands of times every day throughout the world.  Translating some metallic plates into a sacred message is small potatoes compared to that.

I am not saying that is what "really happened" - again we take the evidence at our disposal and make of it what we will.  I take Joseph at his word because I personally "translate" his story which appears preposterous in our times and make those plates sacred myself each time I open their translation.  So I partake in the transubstantiation of the plates each time I receive a testimony of their truth and receive comfort and spiritual advice and knowledge from their words

When I joined the church, I did not leave the concept of transubstantiation behind at all, though for years I thought I had.  Now with a more mature view, I see I actually participate more fully in that concept and its possibility now as a Mormon than I did as a Catholic.

Taking the mundane and creating the sacred from it can also be seen as task of God Himself in taking ordinary matter unorganized and creating physical bodies for the spirits of his children creating us as divine souls.

[USU78]

Aus Chaos Cosmos zu machen.

Ex chaos cosmos fit. Or something like that.

Edited July 27, 2017 by USU78

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Aus Chaos Cosmos zu machen.

Ex chaos cosmos fit. Or something like that.

......oder etwas.....

Making that old Cosmos fit is always a problem.  You should see the cosmos of my garage.

Uh, or actually, no you should not.....  in that case it is more like making the cosmos fit into chaos.....  oder etwas.....

 

[mfbukowski]

What good is language if you can't make puns in a few at once?

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/7/2017 at 4:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

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

No, No, and No.....Visions are random events caused by brain's activity, due to a malfunction of nerves or the intake of a chemical substance which creates a short term bliss. Visions are not real, that is why we call them hallucinations. I can write about hallucination because I've experienced them, half a dozen times, they were incredible while while they lasted. The sad part is you cannot take anything back with you to show. The science is definitely based on reality and experiments. 

I've never seen or heard someone's vision passed as scientific fact.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

No, No, and No.....Visions are random events caused by brain's activity, due to a malfunction of nerves or the intake of a chemical substance which creates a short term bliss. Visions are not real, that is why we call them hallucinations. I can write about hallucination because I've experienced them, half a dozen times, they were incredible while while they lasted. The sad part is you cannot take anything back with you to show. The science is definitely based on reality and experiments. 

I've never seen or heard someone's vision passed as scientific fact.

And neither have I.  Your point is irrelevant to the thread.

[mfbukowski]

So here's a summary in a couple of hundred words or less.  I have been asked to make it very simple so I will make it as simple as I can.

It starts philosophically with understanding Rorty

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 "effects of causes which do not include mental states" include every moment of our stream of consciousness of the "outside world" as shown in this video:

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

Sense data enters our bodies and our brain creates "reality" out of the sense data, through an incredibly complex interaction of senses and cultural inputs.

So all that we call "reality" that we know about, is in this category.

Those experiences, or bits of our stream of consciousness which are also experienced by others form "scientific reality".   You see a pink elephant walk into the room.  If another also sees it, we regard it as "real".  If they don't, does that make it unreal?

Are there other thoughts and perceptions we have which are "The effects of causes which do not include mental states?"  Of course.  One might see the sight of, say a spider or blood.  Some may perceive that as "scary" while others do not, or "disgusting".  Neither blood nor spiders are disgusting or scary in themselves, but they ARE "causes which do not include mental" states

So we do have "mental states" which are "caused" by "causes which do not include mental states" like blood or spiders, or to get gross about it, the sight or smell of vomit, or horrible violence.  Ripping  a human body to shreds or beheading someone is simply a physical act- the removal of a portion of a body- yet we perceive those sensory inputs as "disgusting" and recoil instinctively.

The reaction is caused within our bodies.

Every reaction or chemical change in our bodies has a cause some of which may be itself mental states or cultural inputs, because we believe that visions are possible and "caused" by God.  Consider the placebo effect, which causes real healing with nothing more scientifically demonstrable than the administration of an inert material, like a sugar pill, which could not possible "cause" a scientific effect.

This is that foggy realm in which I would place visions.   Of course they are "caused" by chemical effects in the brain.  No dispute.

But what causes those particular chemical effects which cause one to "see God"??   Is it a "real effect" caused by a mental state- like the placebo effect or is it an "effect NOT CAUSED by a mental state", just as say a rock is or stubbing one's toe is at midnight?

Could that "cause" be God?

I think even for nonbelievers - who understand the complexity of these issues of perception, and the placebo effect and equally the complexity of how we define "God", including the possibility that what we call "God" is the result of psychosomatic causes within our unconscious, the belief that visions could be "real" and cause "real" changes in our lives pragmatically, ie- that the belief itself causes us to have meaning in our lives and thereby allows us to feel more fulfilled and happy, - even for non-believers that has to be a challenge to explain fully.

I think clearly the question for non believers who rationally and honestly try to deconstruct the question of what the "cause" of the mental state of one receiving a vision is, must be highly complex, and ultimately inconclusive.

For believers there really is only one question, and that becomes "Was the vision from God?"

The answer to that one is easy.   All one has to do is ask God himself and he, as the ultimate "cause of effects which are not mental states" will give you your answer which will be in fact a "mental state" itself which we call a "testimony".

 

[Honorentheos]

Alternatively:

Our brains predict our sense of reality out of sense-stimuli and preconditioning. Everything we perceive as reality is a product of our own brain firing synaps.

Our brains create reality beyond just sense stimuli through this interpretive and even predictive process. For example, our brains take certain patterns and create the visual experience of seeing a human face. Tons of examples exist, including the way our brain creates the sensation of smooth eye travel out of the jerking point-to-point motion our eyes actually follow. Reality of our experience is an illusion that we create, beyond dispute.

This thread if revisited is a perfect example of pattern seeking and the creation of a brain primed to look for certain patterns.

There is a Lucifer among you faithful Mormons promising glory but not in the name of the Father but for his own satisfaction.  (hint: He's a solipsist that enjoys the games this kind of thread provides to advance his plan...)

You will be removed from the thread if you use Satan to insult people again.