Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I never claimed otherwise.  I said that there are many paths to one baptism.

Point taken!

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Polarization.is inevitable as long as there is any disagreement.

People who know the truth (about anything) vs people who don't know the truth about that thing (for whatever reason).

We are either on one side or the other.

 

There is a whole spectrum of ways to deal with disagreement and many do not involve polarisation.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is like a junior high school student, just having passed basic algebra saying I have the fullness of Quantum Mechanics. There are worlds of knowledge out there we have no clue about.

Sorry, I don't follow.

The church clearly claims to have "the fullness of the gospel."

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Ahab, I love you guys but positive thoughts will not procure rabbit out of your hat. Even reputable guys David Copperfield who create a Flying Saucer out of thin air has to work on his perfectionism.

Working on becoming perfect is one thing.

Doubting that God can help us is another.

You must do what you feel is right, of course.  Obi-Wan Kenobi

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There is a whole spectrum of ways to deal with disagreement and many do not involve polarisation.

You either agree or you don't.

Sounds like you don't to me.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, I don't follow.

The church clearly claims to have "the fullness of the gospel."

The gospel is short and simple to describe, but the "appendages" to the gospel involve a lot of complicated details.

I think s's point was that mortals who know what the fulness of the gospel is still have a lot of things to learn about all of the appendages of the gospel.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, I don't follow.

The church clearly claims to have "the fullness of the gospel."

Typically the gospel or good news is not taken to be all doctrines or all steps on our path to exaltation. Sometimes people use "gospel" loosely as a synonym for everything related to exaltation but that's incorrect.  The gospel proper is the revelation of Jesus as our savior. The reason we often talk about the Book of Mormon as having the fullness of the gospel is that there are parts of the atonement taught there not in the New Testament.

Often protestants will point to 1 Cor 15:1-8 as defining the gospel. Scholars typically see that as a confession repeated by early Christians that Paul is also repeating. This is 1. Christ died for our sins 2. Christ was resurrected on the third day. 3. He appeared to people in Palestine. To these the Book of Mormon adds that he appeared to the Americas and to other, as yet unknown, peoples. Often though in the NT the word gospel includes the restoration of God's kingdom. (e.g. Matt 24:14; D&C 84:80) You have the gospel of peace (Rom 10:15; Eph 6:15; Mosiah 15 -- although Abinadi doesn't use the word gospel but rather good tidings) It's interesting reading the opening to Mosiah 15 as an explanation that goes beyond the New Testament. It clarifies how the flesh has to become subject to the spirit. While you can get that out of the NT, it's not as clear IMO. Although you do that "not my will but thine be done." 

I should note that the Bible Dictionary entry at lds.org is somewhat misleading IMO. It says, "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom." That's true as far as it goes although I'd say just for this life. I'd assume there's a lot more related to exaltation not yet revealed and largely taking place in the next life. I'd also say that properly one should distinguish between the ordinance and the good news that Christ is risen and what his atonement does. This is why some attempt to criticize us by noting the Book of Mormon doesn't have the temple rites. My rejoinder is that our text is only ⅓ of the Book of Mormon so that's assuming a lot about what's in the rest. But I also think it hinges on this discussion between the atonement and the doctrines we can learn about exaltation - many of which are still to be revealed. (Consider for instance what we learned about salvation from D&C 138) Finally I think there are a lot of hints about the temple even if the rites themselves aren't in the revealed part.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its possible there were actually plates and Moroni, etc, but I want to take that off the table for this discussion.  I'm assuming that ancient plates don't exist, this is what Taves talks about in her book.  I'm assuming that Joseph created a physical object to materialize what he saw in his mind's eye. 

If Joseph created plates to materialize a reality that in his mind was truly real, what does that mean?  The whole culture was steeped in treasure lore and mound builder myths, thats how Joseph got started in all this..  Luman Walters is the one you mention who predicted that Joseph would be the only person to get the plates.  

These village seers were seeing things in their mind that don't exist in the physical world.  However, many people believed that these objects do exist in the physical world too (they spent a lot of time and effort trying to dig them up).  Any thoughts about what is going on with respect to these efforts to find an object that only exists in the mind of the seer, but that people think they can find if they just try hard enough and use the correct techniques?  

Is it evidence for delusion, or is it evidence that Joseph believed something was so real (the golden plates) that he manufactured a physical object that was transformed into his vision for the actual ancient Golden plates.  

I guess I need to speak plainer.

I said there that it didn't matter who made them.  Moroni could have been Joseph or another person or no one.  I don't care if Joseph made them himself and transubstantiated them.  

Catholics turn bread into flesh at every mass for the last 2000 years and no Catholic finds that at all odd- it is fully accepted; this is no different in my book.  That wording is direct  but will earn me no fans.

I have no problem with Taves and find it a very interesting possibility which I had considered before due to my Catholic background.

Spoken plainly I don't care if Luman Walters was "Moroni" transformed spiritually to Joseph.  

The point is that your spirit confirms to you that it is scripture and you take it as scripture yourself.  I think the writings of many philosophers border on scripture and I don't care where they got their ideas.

Is that plain enough?  

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

There is a better option than to agree with atheists who deny what God is or can tell us.

Read it til it sinks in.

Quote

remember the whole strategy here is to use postmodernism AGAINST atheism

I do not agree with atheists about God.  That was over the top.

Atheists describe a way which makes religion impossible to deny by using principles very close to ours.  I have tried for years to show you that, if you do not understand it, I have done all I can

Edited April 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Ahab, I love you guys but positive thoughts will not procure rabbit out of your hat. Even reputable guys David Copperfield who create a Flying Saucer out of thin air has to work on his perfectionism.

Odd you would say that

Wittgenstein changes a rabbit into a duck to show you are wrong.

 

Quote

 

Seeing that vs. seeing as[edit]

 

The duck-rabbit, made famous by Wittgenstein

In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures that can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something.

An example Wittgenstein uses is the "duckrabbit", an ambiguous image that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.^[32] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigations indicate, Wittgenstein isn't sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an 'internal' cognitive change takes place.

 

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

[strappinglad]

Anyone who has never had an hallucination understands one about as well as a person who was born blind understands the color orange. I suspect the same holds true for someone who has never had a ' vision ' in the spiritual sense. The rare person who has had both might enlighten the rest of us as to any similarities and/or differences. Like seeing a UFO or Bigfoot, unless one has personal experience, all speculation about it is mostly a waste of breath. Swamp gas?    really ???

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess I need to speak plainer.

 

Is that plain enough?  

You mean, "speak more plainly"? In the spirit of plainness I thought I'd help just a little  

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Odd you would say that

Wittgenstein changes a rabbit into a duck to show you are wrong.

Yeah....If yo choose to live in your imagination.....

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yeah....If yo choose to live in your imagination.....

Living in the reality of your own imagination isn't necessarily the end of the world. But when you expect others to live there with you the real problems begin  

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not agree with atheists about God.  That was over the top.

It seems you misunderstood me. Does that mean your understanding of what I said is true?

To say what I meant in another way now: There is a better way to understand truth than to use the paradigm of atheists who deny what God is and can tell us is true. And who deny that God has told us things that God has told us.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Atheists describe a way which makes religion impossible to deny by using principles very close to ours.  I have tried for years to show you that, if you do not understand it, I have done all I can

Atheists may indeed use principles that are very close to our own, but they are only very close, and not the same principles.  And I have tried for years to show you that you and I are very close to agreement, but not in total agreement, because it seems to me that the only way to be in full agreement with you and your principles is to throw my understanding of objective reality under the bus, as it seems to me that you have done.

So what was your challenge again?  To show how Joseph's vision of God and our Lord, the one we call the First Vision, is objectively true?

I answer that by saying the how is in the fact that it actually happened, and that is what makes it objectively true.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess I need to speak plainer.

I said there that it didn't matter who made them.  Moroni could have been Joseph or another person or no one.  I don't care if Joseph made them himself and transubstantiated them.  

Catholics turn bread into flesh at every mass for the last 2000 years and no Catholic finds that at all odd- it is fully accepted; this is no different in my book.  That wording is direct  but will earn me no fans.

I have no problem with Taves and find it a very interesting possibility which I had considered before due to my Catholic background.

Spoken plainly I don't care if Luman Walters was "Moroni" transformed spiritually to Joseph.  

The point is that your spirit confirms to you that it is scripture and you take it as scripture yourself.  I think the writings of many philosophers border on scripture and I don't care where they got their ideas.

Is that plain enough?  

Ok, yes, that is plain enough, I think I understand.  So the bottom line for Mormonism is that the origins of the story and the materiality of the story don't matter at all. 

Ultimately, its the philosophy of those elements of the gospel message that you find to be true that are important, if I understand you correctly.  The descriptions of the experiences that Joseph or other early church leaders craft to tell their origin story aren't what's important to you it sounds.  

I can't argue with that.  I can say that I haven't gotten there yet with my personal views of the church or religion in general.  Its seems to me that one flaw of the whole practice of organized religion is that whatever religious group we choose to align ourselves with, we ultimately give the teachings of that group preference over the teachings of other groups.  This is done in different degrees by different personalities, some people don't think critically at all about their religion and its principles, but others like yourself look at things much more critically.  

However, you also still give a preference for the teachings coming from the church and its leaders.  You lose a measure of objectivity through this allegiance.  If there is an argument against organized religion, I would argue that by aligning with a religion we automatically align with the values of the institution many of which values may be ethically challenging.  

I recognize there are pros and cons for religion, but this is certainly one of the cons, and I wonder if its not better to just stay independent of organized religions and find other community groups that don't have doctrines and dogma, but that are organized for specific purposes that are more transparent and that I find to be morally principled.  

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

However, you also still give a preference for the teachings coming from the church and its leaders.  

Not on the basis that those teachings are from the church or its leaders, though. Independent of that.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You lose a measure of objectivity through this allegiance.

His allegiance is to himself and to God and to whoever else just happens to agree with him and God.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 If there is an argument against organized religion, I would argue that by aligning with a religion we automatically align with the values of the institution many of which values may be ethically challenging.

Those who do so "automatically" are putting the cart before the horse and he isn't the type who would put the cart before the horse. But turning the horse around backwards? Maybe.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I recognize there are pros and cons for religion, but this is certainly one of the cons, and I wonder if its not better to just stay independent of organized religions and find other community groups that don't have doctrines and dogma, but that are organized for specific purposes that are more transparent and that I find to be morally principled.  

Wherever you go and whatever you think you will always be amongst other people who believe as you believe, and either more or less organized.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Living in the reality of your own imagination isn't necessarily the end of the world. But when you expect others to live there with you the real problems begin  

Dear Happy,

I don't xpect no one to live my reality or perception. The type of reality I'm writing is you & I will have no choice not to participate....

Such as an Asteroid hit or some inevitable war your President involves us.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean, "speak more plainly"? In the spirit of plainness I thought I'd help just a little  

Dang I blew it and I am not even from Utah.  

Edited April 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Dear Happy,

I don't xpect no one to live my reality or perception. The type of reality I'm writing is you & I will have no choice not to participate....

Such as an Asteroid hit or some inevitable war your President involves us.

Yes, your day of judgement is coming.

Get busy and prepare for it.

Like that, you mean, right?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It seems you misunderstood me. Does that mean your understanding of what I said is true?

To say what I meant in another way now: There is a better way to understand truth than to use the paradigm of atheists who deny what God is and can tell us is true. And who deny that God has told us things that God has told us.

Atheists may indeed use principles that are very close to our own, but they are only very close, and not the same principles.  And I have tried for years to show you that you and I are very close to agreement, but not in total agreement, because it seems to me that the only way to be in full agreement with you and your principles is to throw my understanding of objective reality under the bus, as it seems to me that you have done.

So what was your challenge again?  To show how Joseph's vision of God and our Lord, the one we call the First Vision, is objectively true?

I answer that by saying the how is in the fact that it actually happened, and that is what makes it objectively true.

I never doubted that.

[SmileyMcGee]

On 4/9/2017 at 11:58 AM, Meadowchik said:

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.

So one of my worries is that by responding to your comment you'll want to find out where I live so that you can have me locked away for being a lunatic But I'll give it a go anyway. 

 

Let's take the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. You seem to be stating that the earth "in reality" does so. How did you arrive at this idea? My guess is that you have never made a direct observation that favors this theory over others. My guess is that you haven't observed the motion of the planets and determined that a heliocentric model is more useful than some other model. My guess is that this is an idea that has been taught to you and your own observations don't seem to contradict the idea, and since everyone goes around saying the same thing, you accept it as not just perception, but "reality." But even if you really could directly observe the earth circling the sun or if you were to derive a the heliocentric model from some other observation, all of that would still be perceptions in your mind. So how could you possibly assert that "in reality" the earth revolves around the sun without assuming that your perception is reality? And how in the world could you begin to justify that assumption? How can you say that "I perceived it with my mind, therefore that is the true state of things outside of my mind?" And if you can't do that, how do you begin to create some "hierarchy of realities" as if reality, objectivity, and subjectivity can be measured and given probabilities? What standard would you use that isn't conceived in your mind? 

 

Is it useful to make assumptions? I think so. It is useful for me to assume that I have fingers that are typing a reply in a language called English to a what I assume is a conscious being with the username of Meadowchik. Does any of this reflect "reality?" Or am I like Putnam's brain in a vat or a victim of Descartes' demon? I don't know and I don't care. I also don't know how any of my beliefs could possibly prove another's beliefs objectively wrong or not "real." My perceptions aren't their perceptions. I just find the beliefs I have to be more useful than the ones I don't. 

 

 

***Side note, I believe that the earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun, and I'm uncomfortable being around people who believe otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, yes, that is plain enough, I think I understand.  So the bottom line for Mormonism is that the origins of the story and the materiality of the story don't matter at all. 

Ultimately, its the philosophy of those elements of the gospel message that you find to be true that are important, if I understand you correctly.  The descriptions of the experiences that Joseph or other early church leaders craft to tell their origin story aren't what's important to you it sounds.  

I can't argue with that.  I can say that I haven't gotten there yet with my personal views of the church or religion in general.  Its seems to me that one flaw of the whole practice of organized religion is that whatever religious group we choose to align ourselves with, we ultimately give the teachings of that group preference over the teachings of other groups.  This is done in different degrees by different personalities, some people don't think critically at all about their religion and its principles, but others like yourself look at things much more critically.  

However, you also still give a preference for the teachings coming from the church and its leaders.  You lose a measure of objectivity through this allegiance.  If there is an argument against organized religion, I would argue that by aligning with a religion we automatically align with the values of the institution many of which values may be ethically challenging.  

I recognize there are pros and cons for religion, but this is certainly one of the cons, and I wonder if its not better to just stay independent of organized religions and find other community groups that don't have doctrines and dogma, but that are organized for specific purposes that are more transparent and that I find to be morally principled.  

Circular.

The post is full of YOUR unexamined preferences which limit your "objectivity".  Where do you get the dogma of not having dogma??   That is impossible.  You have a perspective and a prejudice in everything you do and see.  Right now you are looking at some kind of computing device and the reason you are doing it is your preference at this moment.  You could be doing a world of other things, but right now you wanted to be here more than anything else you could do.  THAT itself is a preference which you have placed above other preferences.  THAT is the nature of consciousness- we are always directing it from a particular point of view.

My goal is to pick consciously construct my prejudices in directions which I find work for me, and that is what I have done with my life.

In my life, like Decartes I decided to doubt everything down to the level of the brain in the vat silliness and Russell's comment that no one can prove that the world did not pop into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories are implants or illusions.  That was the antithesis of what Russell was about and he did not actually believe that for a minute but he was willing to look at the idea and admit that even with all his logical expertise in Principia Mathematica he still admitted that he could not prove that this strange idea was not true.

Every view I put forward, I understand is only one way of looking at what is.

Ahab seems to think that because I understand atheism, I am an atheist.  I actually believe that Joseph was a prophet who had golden plates delivered by the angel Moroni and all the rest, but I also see a hundred different perspectives on how that not need to be the case.

 I have chosen the TBM way- that is my chosen preference and I have no illusions about that being a conscious choice for me in my life. I also know that it is the best possible choice I could have made because I have examined all the others I could find.  

When you have found the right prejudices and formed a path, those "dogmas" produce freedom.   But you are young and you will learn.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

So one of my worries is that by responding to your comment you'll want to find out where I live so that you can have me locked away for being a lunatic But I'll give it a go anyway. 

 

Let's take the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. You seem to be stating that the earth "in reality" does so. How did you arrive at this idea? My guess is that you have never made a direct observation that favors this theory over others. My guess is that you haven't observed the motion of the planets and determined that a heliocentric model is more useful than some other model. My guess is that this is an idea that has been taught to you and your own observations don't seem to contradict the idea, and since everyone goes around saying the same thing, you accept it as not just perception, but "reality." But even if you really could directly observe the earth circling the sun or if you were to derive a the heliocentric model from some other observation, all of that would still be perceptions in your mind. So how could you possibly assert that "in reality" the earth revolves around the sun without assuming that your perception is reality? And how in the world could you begin to justify that assumption? How can you say that "I perceived it with my mind, therefore that is the true state of things outside of my mind?" And if you can't do that, how do you begin to create some "hierarchy of realities" as if reality, objectivity, and subjectivity can be measured and given probabilities? What standard would you use that isn't conceived in your mind? 

 

Is it useful to make assumptions? I think so. It is useful for me to assume that I have fingers that are typing a reply in a language called English to a what I assume is a conscious being with the username of Meadowchik. Does any of this reflect "reality?" Or am I like Putnam's brain in a vat or a victim of Descartes' demon? I don't know and I don't care. I also don't know how any of my beliefs could possibly prove another's beliefs objectively wrong or not "real." My perceptions aren't their perceptions. I just find the beliefs I have to be more useful than the ones I don't. 

 

 

***Side note, I believe that the earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun, and I'm uncomfortable being around people who believe otherwise.

Will you marry me?

Uh... wait a minute....cough cough...  I didn't meant that literally of course....I mean I don't believe in that sort of thing, and i was just kidding of course..... and you won't tell anyone I said that, but it was just that i was taken up in what you said and please make sure you don't tell anyone because they also will think I am really nuts and of course I dont want that and.....  oh heck just erase the whole comment......

 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Anyone who has never had an hallucination understands one about as well as a person who was born blind understands the color orange. I suspect the same holds true for someone who has never had a ' vision ' in the spiritual sense. The rare person who has had both might enlighten the rest of us as to any similarities and/or differences. Like seeing a UFO or Bigfoot, unless one has personal experience, all speculation about it is mostly a waste of breath. Swamp gas?    really ???

Can't touch this!

Edited April 11, 2017 by mfbukowski