"I was there", A simple message accompanied by a visual evidence could suffice

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

First it was the Rolling Stones and now it's Billy Preston. What did you growd all up in the 70's or something? I can't tell you about nothing from nothing, but I can chat a little bout the stairway to heaven  

heck no- that's all derivative stuff.

the '50's and '60's are clearly mo bettah

it was all over by 1970.  Buffalo Springfield and the Electric Flag = bliss.  

(they actually had an electric flag at their concerts- a flag with a fan inside the flag staff)

And The Fillmore?  Don't get me started.....   

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Great point. I think assertions of knowledge are best interpreted as the confidence one is expressing of an idea. But I guess if I assumed that all of the time I wouldn't find incentive to join in on these fun discussions...

"Knowledge" is a psychological state of certainty in which one thinks they are absolutely right.

I say "I know the church is true" all the time and mean it.  I KNOW the church is TRUE, and I can back up every word if anyone wants to get into it- but of course I have already done that a dozen times here anyway.    We know how to use the word "true" even if we can't define it.   It means something like "Yep - that works for me too!"

But yes- what you said.  

Quote

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science works whether I believe it or not. Was the earth flat a few millennia ago? Is man in space, did we not go to the moon? There was an Apostle of God that claimed we would never do it.

This conflates science with reality. Reality functions the way it functions regardless of what we think about it. Science as the community of scientists of course functions very much in terms of how people think about it. Often it's wrong.

There's some very well meaning people trying to oppose pseudo-science especially in the alternative medicine and anti-vax community. They often say things like "science works." However it's really a very unfortunate thing to say precisely because it conflates science and reality. This has two effects. First it leads people to treat all scientific statements as being of equal weight. When (as often happens) the newspaper talks about some idea of science that's been overturned it leads people to distrust science in general rather than simply areas where weak hypotheses are made. More significantly though it leads to scientism which is a very unhealthy position. This then leads to consensus of particular communities to treat their beliefs as of equal weight to strongly supported science. I think you saw that to a degree in the political march of some scientists a few weeks ago. Political liberalism becomes conflated with science because the epistemological range of strengths of different theories isn't emphasized. That problem not only leads people to uncritically adopting ideas that often have weak support but it can also lead to a strong backlash when people have different political views.

Science for some things is an extremely great way to come to know things. However we have to recognize where this works well and where it doesn't.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

This conflates science with reality. Reality functions the way it functions regardless of what we think about it. Science as the community of scientists of course functions very much in terms of how people think about it. Often it's wrong.

There's some very well meaning people trying to oppose pseudo-science especially in the alternative medicine and anti-vax community. They often say things like "science works." However it's really a very unfortunate thing to say precisely because it conflates science and reality. This has two effects. First it leads people to treat all scientific statements as being of equal weight. When (as often happens) the newspaper talks about some idea of science that's been overturned it leads people to distrust science in general rather than simply areas where weak hypotheses are made. More significantly though it leads to scientism which is a very unhealthy position. This then leads to consensus of particular communities to treat their beliefs as of equal weight to strongly supported science. I think you saw that to a degree in the political march of some scientists a few weeks ago. Political liberalism becomes conflated with science because the epistemological range of strengths of different theories isn't emphasized. That problem not only leads people to uncritically adopting ideas that often have weak support but it can also lead to a strong backlash when people have different political views.

Science for some things is an extremely great way to come to know things. However we have to recognize where this works well and where it doesn't.

Pretty dang good stuff

Substitute "effects of causes which do not include human mental states" for the word "reality" and you would be right on imo.

But dang that makes it cumbersome and then no one would understand you.

I gotta come up with a good one for that.  

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pretty dang good stuff

Substitute "effects of causes which do not include human mental states" for the word "reality" and you would be right on imo.

But dang that makes it cumbersome and then no one would understand you.

I gotta come up with a good one for that.  

Well as you know I don't mind keeping the word reality. I don't think we need let the Cartesians keep all the good terms.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well as you know I don't mind keeping the word reality. I don't think we need let the Cartesians keep all the good terms.

Yeah but........  meh.

"Reality" is so......real .....when it's not really real because we cannot experience it.  It's hard to say that reality is invisible and cannot be sensed- its confusing to say the least.    It causes confusion as it did for us.  "That which is mind independent" might work or just MI for short.  I dunno.

Language is a pain.  It has all these ancient ideas embedded right in the words because it was made by those with ancient ideas in ancient times.

Grrrrr.

Personally I would substitute "grok" for "know".  It's got that total immersion kind of connotation not unlike Hebrew "yada".

But grok is too pop culture for serious papers.

[sheilauk]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science works whether I believe it or not. Was the earth flat a few millennia ago? Is man in space, did we not go to the moon? There was an Apostle of God that claimed we would never do it.

There are still a number of people who believe we never went to the moon!😉😈

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah but........  meh.

"Reality" is so......real .....when it's not really real because we cannot experience it.  It's hard to say that reality is invisible and cannot be sensed- its confusing to say the least.    It causes confusion as it did for us.  "That which is mind independent" might work or just MI for short.  I dunno.

Language is a pain.  It has all these ancient ideas embedded right in the words because it was made by those with ancient ideas in ancient times.

Grrrrr.

Personally I would substitute "grok" for "know".

Nah. I'm going to teach telepathy in my next life. To heck with the Adamic language....

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, sheilauk said:

There are still a number of people who believe we never went to the moon!😉😈

This is a rather bright fella, who is either bored out of his mind or is one of these cases:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122230-The-earth-is-flat-and-we-never-went-to-the-moon

[USU78]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah that's a great question but I am not an expert on Romanticism or existentialism other than the general mood and Weltanschauung 

But I am convinced that Spieltrieb comes out of that just plain German idea (Jewish?- that would make sense- that is more your department) of the drive to create - what we LDS would call organizing matter unorganized.

That is exactly why I joined the church if the truth be told.  I saw that in Kant even in the synthetic a priori and I saw it in Pragmatism and I even saw it in Marxism.  The idea that man creates god in his own image because man IS god, and that man creates reality through idealism is exactly backwards- it is WE who are created in God's image.

I always felt that it was backwards but the idea that God is himself is an exalted man was the concept that intellectually clicked for me.  The first serious conversation I had about Mormonism was about King Follette- and eternal progression it just kind of clicked right there.   The Germans were right but they had it backwards!  Human intelligence DID create the universe as we know it BUT it was done by an Ubermensch beyond Ubermensch-dom!!  AND THEN this spieltrieb comes from that for each of us personally as Ubermenschen in embryo.  So at some point it doesn't matter if any of this is "outside" in "reality" or "inside"- because the kingdom of heaven is within us.   UBER-THUD.    The universe rumbles and the ground shakes

The gears of heaven shifted into place

That idea of God as the super duper Ubermensch just blew me away.

Suddenly Nietzsche was right- half way.  The god of the scholastics and sectarians WAS dead but long live the Super Ubermensch!

It was Niezsche raised to the power of infinity and all he had to say applied perfectly to what Christianity of his day had become- and it needed a Restoration to what it was and could be.  And these weird Utah pioneers with the funny underware figured this out???  What the heck???  Not possible- it had to be from God.

I got baptized as quick as I could after that- 6 weeks.  THEN I read stuff like Moroni 10 and Alma 32 and was just blown away at how it all cohered.

Le neant?

Meh.  Too phenomenological for me- It ain't Amurican and comes from them Frenchy furriners.  Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.  I like that song.   Tell me about it.

I will respond, but I had to order up an English language version of Schiller's letters. Stand by

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This conflates science with reality. Reality functions the way it functions regardless of what we think about it. Science as the community of scientists of course functions very much in terms of how people think about it. Often it's wrong.

There's some very well meaning people trying to oppose pseudo-science especially in the alternative medicine and anti-vax community. They often say things like "science works." However it's really a very unfortunate thing to say precisely because it conflates science and reality. This has two effects. First it leads people to treat all scientific statements as being of equal weight. When (as often happens) the newspaper talks about some idea of science that's been overturned it leads people to distrust science in general rather than simply areas where weak hypotheses are made. More significantly though it leads to scientism which is a very unhealthy position. This then leads to consensus of particular communities to treat their beliefs as of equal weight to strongly supported science. I think you saw that to a degree in the political march of some scientists a few weeks ago. Political liberalism becomes conflated with science because the epistemological range of strengths of different theories isn't emphasized. That problem not only leads people to uncritically adopting ideas that often have weak support but it can also lead to a strong backlash when people have different political views.

Science for some things is an extremely great way to come to know things. However we have to recognize where this works well and where it doesn't.

I think that is what I said.

Ps; Science is always tentative. It must be to be science.

Edited May 13, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[SmileyMcGee]

On 5/9/2017 at 11:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is about what is subjective and unique to you in your life.  It is your world you are creating from matter unorganized as a god in embryo.

Wait a minute...that is a very interesting idea. I hadn't made a connection previously but the temple seems to serve as powerful metaphor for what we've been discussing in this thread...

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

I will respond, but I had to order up an English language version of Schiller's letters. Stand by

My German was ok for reading philosophy 40 years ago, but now I can barely order dinner without a dictionary

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Wait a minute...that is a very interesting idea. I hadn't made a connection previously but the temple seems to serve as powerful metaphor for what we've been discussing in this thread...

Note how worlds are "called" into existence by the Word (John 1).

The Messenger is the Creator, the message is the creation.

It is mind blowing once you see it

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My German was ok for reading philosophy 40 years ago, but now I can barely order dinner without a dictionary

 

I can read the German it just fine, but I can't go back between German and English with the facility I used to. Sucks to get older

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I can read the German it just fine, but I can't go back between German and English with the facility I used to. Sucks to get older

Well besides that it is impossible to fully translate certain words- one is "Schadenfreude" for example.  That is true of any two languages- perfect translations are not really possible.

And that is actually a pretty good argument against the correspondence theory of truth itself- how can linguistic meaning "correspond" to "reality" when you can't even get two languages to "correspond" exactly??

 And of course with German you have that facility for coining words by adding two words together- I have always loved the word "Gummihandschuhen."

Wittgenstein is always presented with a translation on one side and the German on the other side of the page because he actually writes about language itself and most of what he says is really not directly translatable at all.  In philosophy for advanced degrees you need reading knowledge of three languages and happily one is English- my picks were French and German and I was able to handle both sufficiently but not anymore!  And I had my Latin from high school and high mass- which were about the same , but in my day Latin was not an option unless your intent was to study ancient and medieval philosophy and I certainly did not want to do that!!

But with a good dictionary or now the internet, I can muddle through at a snail's pace.   I remember the grammar fairly well so that helps some.  But I am only going to put forth the effort on really dense passages which I can more "decipher" than "translate".  And none of the automated translation programs even come close in philosophy as far as I have seen.