Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Do people "really" have spiritual experiences? I believe so; I have. Do my spiritual experiences tell me something about some ultimate state of things outside of my mind? I don't know. I don't believe I can know. The issue I have with the term "reality" is that it seems to be generally used to describe an ultimate state of things independent of the mind and will, therefore, always involve assumptions that are very difficult to defend as objective and are somehow invisible to the person making the assertion. This is done constantly in just about every arena, whether it's religion, politics, science, etc. How often do you hear "The reality is that [insert assertion here]" without any regard for how the person making the assertion can prove their own proximity to "reality"? Tell me what reality is without relying on your own perception, or tell me how you know that your perception isn't subjective. The problem is further exacerbated by people who not only appear blind to their own circular logic, but are so ignorant that they feel confident in berating others beliefs as "out of touch with reality" or objectively wrong. To me, the concept of "reality" is like a city that no one knows the location of, what it looks like, or whether they have been then there, but many like to tell stories about it and feel quite comfortable mocking, despising, and hating people who tell a different story. 

Yet 2 and 2 is 4 in conventional math, the world is not flat and the planet revolves around the sun. 

Yet Joseph Conrad uses the light and absence of light frequently in The Heart of Darkness to convey deeper meanings.

Yet the British aristocracy frequently used servants. Feudal systems was a form of government. Antarctica is relatively cold.

You speaking words already implies at the very least a threshold of shared reality inherent in language and specifically the English language. 

So in all fairness, when someone says "in reality," they may very well be referring to something as objective and verifiable as words, or mathematical rules in a given system, or well-defined notions.

It is therefore useful to distinguish between the following:

-Common, well-established rules and systems

-Expressed opinions

-Verifiable and unverifiable facts

-Testable and untestable theories

-Repeatable and unrepeatable phenomena

There is a hierarchy of realities, so to speak, if we compare the transmitability and observability of ideas. Some things transmit much more readily from one person to another.

In other words, the subjective nature of experience does not make all ideas equally subjective. Some are much more objective than others.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy. 

The LDS don't claim to have all the truth. Even our own Articles of Faith states we have more to learn about God and his Kingdom.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The LDS don't claim to have all the truth. Even our own Articles of Faith states we have more to learn about God and his Kingdom.

The LDS claims to be the only true church on the earth. That, imo, still makes Tacenda's point applicable.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy. 

1) We don't claim to have all the truth.

2) Competing truth claims should be expected. The idiocy comes in assuming that contradicting and conflicting claims are equally valid in God's eye.  There is no us versus them in Mormonism.  That is too black and white.  We recognize the good in other religions and recognize that there are many paths to one baptism.  Other religions may be stepping stones to greater enlightenment and we are not against them.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The LDS claims to be the only true church on the earth. That, imo, still makes Tacenda's point applicable.

 

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

.

That isn't what Tacenda claimed. She claimed we claim to have all truth. That is categorically false.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

That isn't what Tacenda claimed. She claimed we claim to have all truth. That is categorically false.

She said, "The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

Let's be fair and consider the slightly different position, which when used still makes her point:

"The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they are the only true church, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe she misspoke and that is what she meant.

(By the way, the church does claim the fullness of the gospel.)

Anyways, I agree that such a thing is polarizing. It has a way of emotionally isolating LDS from their non-LDS brothers and sisters on this planet.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

There is a hierarchy of realities, so to speak, if we compare the transmitability and observability of ideas. Some things transmit much more readily from one person to another.

In other words, the subjective nature of experience does not make all ideas equally subjective. Some are much more objective than others.

Let me ask you this, is reality something you experience, or is it something else?  If it is something you experience then it is subjective.  If it is something else, then how do you propose that we can know reality outside of subjective experience?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let me ask you this, is reality something you experience, or is it something else?  If it is something you experience then it is subjective.  If it is something else, then how do you propose that we can know reality outside of subjective experience?

It is something we all experience, but no one experiences all of it.

I've used this exercise since I was a kid: suppose life is just a dream, as in not really real:

In that case, as far as I know it is not  dream, so even if it could be unreal I will live as if it is real. And I will continue to try to build common ground with others by naming and describing experiences we have in common.

Even a dream can have internal logic. Perhaps absolute objectivity is impossible. But, that's no reason to reject objectivity altogether or to not try being more objective and less subjective.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is something we all experience, but no one experiences all of it.

So reality is subjective then?

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Perhaps absolute objectivity is impossible. But, that's no reason to reject objectivity altogether or to not try being more objective and less subjective.

How does one become less subjective in relation to reality if reality can only be experienced subjectively?  

Why is objectivity (I am not sure what you personally mean by that) more valuable than subjective experience?  Isn't that a subjective judgement?

What if someone personally finds more value in subjective experience?  Prove that their  reality is less real then your reality without depending on subjective judgement or experience.

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The phrase "objective reality" means that reality exists independent of our minds. The description "objective" doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, but it does in comparison to the competing theory of the relationship between consciousness and existence.

I had to look up the term "objective reality" because I'd never really heard the phrase. If I put on my TBM hat, would you mind if I play? I was once that girl that knew without a shadow of doubt the Joseph Smith saw Jesus/God in person. That was my existence. In my conscientous belief I believed it happened without any facts to substantiate it.

Very strange how easily I was taught that it did occur and how easily I believe it did. I'm sure there are a lot of LDS out there that as children had to have questioned it, even at a young age. But not me. 

Your source is presenting his view.

Mine differs.  That's the way it works in philosophy.  He is advocating one theory which is now considered passe by most philosophers.  The analogy is Newton vs Einstein, we now as it were believe in "relativity"- "we" being theorists of my ilk.

If you want to read about theories of objective reality- this is a start:  https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=objective+reality

Questioning it is one philosophy in itself, not questioning is another.  One is not better than another- different people have different ways of dealing with the world- that is the whole point.  It is not like questioning is better than not questioning- it is a matter of what makes one comfortable and finding a set of beliefs that work for us

I am convinced that the LDS view works best for everyone, but unfortunately I am not dictator of the universe and people actually disagree with me, perfect as my reasoning is. ;)

But that is what this thread is for- I am looking for a good alternate theory that works for TBM's AND is a coherent theory.

So far from this group, I don't see much.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Do people "really" have spiritual experiences? I believe so; I have. Do my spiritual experiences tell me something about some ultimate state of things outside of my mind? I don't know. I don't believe I can know. The issue I have with the term "reality" is that it seems to be generally used to describe an ultimate state of things independent of the mind and will, therefore, always involve assumptions that are very difficult to defend as objective and are somehow invisible to the person making the assertion. This is done constantly in just about every arena, whether it's religion, politics, science, etc. How often do you hear "The reality is that [insert assertion here]" without any regard for how the person making the assertion can prove their own proximity to "reality"? Tell me what reality is without relying on your own perception, or tell me how you know that your perception isn't subjective. The problem is further exacerbated by people who not only appear blind to their own circular logic, but are so ignorant that they feel confident in berating others beliefs as "out of touch with reality" or objectively wrong. To me, the concept of "reality" is like a city that no one knows the location of, what it looks like, or whether they have been then there, but many like to tell stories about it and feel quite comfortable mocking, despising, and hating people who tell a different story. 

Good to see you!!  It's been a while!!

This is exactly what I am saying as well but it seems you use language others understand better!   Thanks!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your source is presenting his view.

Mine differs.  That's the way it works in philosophy.  He is advocating one theory which is now considered passe by most philosophers.  The analogy is Newton vs Einstein, we now as it were believe in "relativity"- "we" being theorists of my ilk.

If you want to read about theories of objective reality- this is a start:  https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=objective+reality

Questioning it is one philosophy in itself, not questioning is another.  One is not better than another- different people have different ways of dealing with the world- that is the whole point.  It is not like questioning is better than not questioning- it is a matter of what makes one comfortable and finding a set of beliefs that work for us

I am convinced that the LDS view works best for everyone, but unfortunately I am not dictator of the universe and people actually disagree with me, perfect as my reasoning is. ;)

But that is what this thread is for- I am looking for a good alternate theory that works for TBM's AND is a coherent theory.

So far from this group, I don't see much.

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I believe I still hold a kernal of it. I see where Mormonism has a feeling of truthfulness because the way it's set up, allows for goodness to happen. So whether Joseph saw something in the grove, or whether the BoM is historical doesn't matter, because what Joseph did was produce a religion that produces amazing outcomes. And that what Joseph started might be something that the Lord set forth by a seed. 

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, SteveO said:

My mother is an RN who sometimes draws the unlucky straw of having to pull a night shift in psych ward.  Nobody likes going down there at night.  Apparently most of the residents are tormented by some pretty hellish hallucinations--visual or audible or whatever form they experience.  One of the first rules of thumb they follow as nurses is to never try and attempt to explain that the hallucinations aren't real--seriously, what good is it to tell a patient that there aren't voices coming from the electrical socket?  My mom never hears anything, but he obviously does.  Tearing out the electrical outlets wouldn't seem rational to the average person walking by and casually observing, but to my mother who understands the context of what the patient is experiencing, the action is perfectly reasonable.  To my mother, the extreme reaction is evidence that the patient is legitimately hearing something, even though she can't experience for it for herself.

I don't think you can prove someone's personal experience, but their actions taken into context within a given belief system should indicate that the person sincerely believes they are experiencing something no one else can see/hear.

That's why I think the life of Joseph Smith is evidence of what he experienced.  A charlatan would have had the good sense to ultimately quit. 

There is a lot to this point you bring up, and to me this argument is a good justification for the Book of Abraham

Remember the lost 116 pages and how concerned Joseph was that he could be discredited if someone else translated the characters differently?

Notice that with the papyri essentially the same situation existed, but in this case Joseph was not at all concerned about publishing the facsimilies for all to see- knowing that Egyptian would one day be translated- with his own revelatory "translation"

If he was a charlatan would he have published his "translation" along with the papyri?  Would he not forsee exactly the argument now made by anti-Mormons that because his "translation" is not literal they would accuse him of being a charlatan after Egyptian was fully understood?

OBVIOUSLY he knew Egyptian would eventually be translatable, and yet here he put forth his "translation" of the facsimiles knowing full well they could conflict with the literal translation.

Clearly to me this shows that he never intended for his "translation" to be literal but revelatory.  Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 

I don't see visions, Of course I feel love, emphaty, anger, doubt...All those feelings are created by my brain depending on how it is stimulated for the moment.

But colors and sounds are not created by your brain depending on how it is stimulated at the moment? 

What's the difference?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

That isn't what Tacenda claimed. She claimed we claim to have all truth. That is categorically false.

Well I apparently didn't word my claim right, we claim to be the only true church, the only church with the right authority. And IMO, it does create an us vs. them mentality sometimes, I've seen it. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

She said, "The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

Let's be fair and consider the slightly different position, which when used still makes her point:

"The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they are the only true church, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe she misspoke and that is what she meant.

(By the way, the church does claim the fullness of the gospel.)

Anyways, I agree that such a thing is polarizing. It has a way of emotionally isolating LDS from their non-LDS brothers and sisters on this planet.

You said it Meadowchik, and it affected me so much in my TBM life because it made me feel like an outsider in so many instances. I felt separated around people not of my faith. Of course that could be mostly my fault, but I couldn't help it. 

My sister's husband is a Catholic, and I'll never forget when at my wedding he spoke with my mother in law...he is quite a personality, so much fun to be around, and she said...Steve would make a great Mormon! 

So it's like we need to baptize everyone out there so they have the full truth, so they can live for eternity, live with their families, live to become as God did, etc. That creates a feeling that everyone else needs to step it up. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You said it Meadowchik, and it affected me so much in my TBM life because it made me feel like an outsider in so many instances. I felt separated around people not of my faith. Of course that could be mostly my fault, but I couldn't help it. 

My sister's husband is a Catholic, and I'll never forget when at my wedding he spoke with my mother in law...he is quite a personality, so much fun to be around, and she said...Steve would make a great Mormon! 

So it's like we need to baptize everyone out there so they have the full truth, so they can live for eternity, live with their families, live to become as God did, etc. That creates a feeling that everyone else needs to step it up. 

Just feeling the goodness of people is one of life's sweetest joys. How sad if that is overwhelmed by guilt and pressure that we need to convert them?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just feeling the goodness of people is one of life's sweetest joys. How sad if that is overwhelmed by guilt and pressure that we need to convert them?

I've never felt that guilt or pressure. Even as a missionary, I recognized that I was not the one doing the converting. My responsibility was simply to provide the opportunity.  Sharing the gospel with someone else does not obligate me to pray their prayers for them or to answer their prayers myself. The former they must do for themselves, and the latter is the provence of the Holy Spirit. I have never believed that if someone was not interested then he could not be a good person.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again Mark.

if I have understood you correctly, the principle of reality extends beyond dreams and visions? It is all encompassing. The cold towel and the bed are not known with objective certainty either?  

You will correct me if I am wrong, but there has probably yet to be an LDS Apostle who has not followed Joseph Smith in this flawed (from your point of view) way of thinking? 

What in your opinion, is gained by all people doubting that we objectively see "things as they are"? But especially for LDS when the Restoration is apparently founded through this flawed (from your point of view) way of understanding reality, and has grown the same way for 200 years, while this kind of thinking is still in the ascendant for Mormons in the 21st Century? 

Would this new way of understanding reality, if accepted by the brethren, bring with it new approaches to evangelism, mission work, or apologetics?     

It seems like you are calling for a change radical enough that it might be more easily accepted by the brethren if it came by revelation rather than schooling. The criticism leveled at my crowd by LDS, is that we began to lean too heavily on our brains, on philosophy, while ignoring revelation, a symptom at least, of apostasy.

If what you are advocating swept your church by academic exercise, without revelation, rather than being viewed as a healthy "development", it could be difficult to reconcile with its past. If it was a sign of apostasy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Former day Saints to be changed philosophically and without revelation, why would it be okay for an individual LDS, or the whole church to do similarly?

Thanks,

Rory

 

 

Just to let you know I am working on a long and detailed reply to this- great questions- get back to you later!

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How bout' the thinking that there isn't a true church at all. Just a belief in God/Jesus? How much easier that would be on the lot of us. 

How about using the science analogy and saying that just as there are scientific theories that work better than others, there are religions that work better than others to answer religious questions?   

That is what I think.

I think we have the best ever that works for all humanity- but not everyone is ready for it so we are still in the good/better question for most people. But we have an open canon because even the best theory can still get better.

If we had perfect knowledge of God we would not need churches- so for me the very best "theory" about God is Mormonism.  My goal is show that by argumentation.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ahab said:

You may think so, but how do you know that is not a hallucination?

Seriously.

Huh?  Are you reading the thread at all?  Like that is the topic of the thread?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I haven't chimed in yet.  So here I go...

You can't even objectively prove that we actually exist in a physical universe.  

So how can I show the reality of Joseph Smith's visions?  

Let's see your book!  

It won't prove anything just present a hopefully coherent way of seeing it which will make it a justifiable position

That way of seeing it is already there in Rorty and similar philosophies but applying it to Mormonism isn't yet, I think.  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm trying to understand this:

"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."


28-no-red-photo.w710.h473.jpgI might just need some coaching through this, but at the moment I don't see how communication with God could be as real as the color red. The color red is based on objective measurements of light. We can measure and know if an object has red in it.

The image to the left has no red. Even though most of us will experience red, there are no red pixels there. We can test and measure and confirm that experiencing red cannot make the strawberries red. The hallucination is not reality. We can use words to justify our experience with the image, but the reality is that the image has only gray and green. 

I don't know, maybe this examples turns out to demonstrate your point. I experience red because my brain wants constancy. Others can argue that they are not red, but I am experiencing red, so that is what they really are. Interesting idea.

Yeah you got it at the end there.

In a sense here seeing red is an hallucination but if the image was one that made a life-changing difference and allowed you to see the world differently (as perhaps this thread theoretically could) does it matter of there are "red" pixels or not?

Or as in what is called the "placebo effect" does it matter if you get a sugar pill if you are really healed?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Gray said:

If logical positivism exists in my mind, doesn't that mean that it's "true" and "real" as well?

;)

I know you are joking but no, it is not true because it is question begging

AJ Ayer was one of the originators of positivism and even he saw it was dead

Quote

By the late 1960s, logical positivism had clearly run its course.[42] Interviewed in the late 1970s, A J Ayer supposed that "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false".[43][44] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[45] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[13]where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era of postpositivism.[40] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

I am so confident of my views because the stuff I am presenting is pretty much the only game in town to answer these questions- that is why my devil gif doesn't stand a chance.

Good thing the local atheists do not know that. Ignorance is bliss.   I have a cheat sheet and that is virtually all philosophy since WWII ;)  I am of a firm belief that contemporary philosophy and postmodernism provides a great groundwork for Mormonism and for the life of me I do not understand why it seems no one sees that.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...