Why I don't believe in secular atheism. Happy Thanksgiving

[Not Sure]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You do not understand philosophy. I do not feel like starting over again with you.

It's fine if you do feel like conversing with me, feel free to not respond but I am genuinely curious why you said that I don't understand philosophy.  What philosophy are you referring to?  Based on the link that you sent me, I am guessing philosophy of mind/consciousness?   I was also not making a philosophic argument but a scientific one.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Start here.  And do check out the Ted talk entirely, in the footnotes, and don't presume Mormons are ignorant.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

Why would I presume Mormons are ignorant?  I know several Mormon scientists and they are competent but have very non-standard views of Mormonism.  Not sure I can say I know any Mormon philosophers but I am sure they are quite competent at they professions. Oh, and I am a former member.

From the article:

'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' - You didn't leave we much but are you a dualistic mental state proponent?  Have no idea what camp you fall into such as the David Chalmers model or something different.  I have to say that article's view on science was rather disappointing.

"Does a brain chemical “represent” the color nuances of a sunset?" This one is easy!  The neurons of the V1 in the visual cortex (and retinal ganglion) represent the color via neurons via connections with on other neurons.   This one is really a bit of a softball because we understand V1 probably better than any other part of the brain.   Brain chemical?  Really?  Might as well say "mind juice".  In also is really a stretch to say that is a mental state as only late V1 gets to visual attention and this would be early V1.  Also, though I know that some neuroscience consider late V1 visual attention and thus a part of consciousness, it really is stretching the definition of that already poorly defined world.

I am curious, what about that article impressed you?

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality/up-next

This video is a super classic.  Not my favorite, but parts of it are pretty up there.  Are you well versed in the works of Anil Seth?   More that just a Ted talk target at people not familiar with neuroscience?  For example, http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1952/3748?  Several neuroscientists have pretty strong critique of the Integrated information theory and the David Chalmers family of neuroscience with Anil Seth belongs to.  Also it is unclear when Anil, is saying that the brain hallucinates consciousness, he is being in one part poetic (non-literal) but it is not to hard to believe true that he ascribes to some for a philosophical mental state model - you just won't find it published work that is peer reviewed (other than maybe a background section).

[Not Sure]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the record, my position, as that of Rorty, is "anti-realist", which means that I do not believe we can speak about what we cannot know- which means we cannot speak about reality as it is, since it is unobservable

Rorty is an interesting philosopher but I hope that you are not completely like Rorty - "Rorty was paramount among those thinkers who advance their own opinion as immune to criticism, by pretending that it is not truth but consensus that counts, while defining the consensus in terms of people like themselves" 

As a scientist, I fall into a more pragmatic consequentialist view of the world rather than an anti-realist.  Although, philosophy of science occasionally interests me with challenging conceptions of science.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Does the correspondence theory of truth guarantee perfect perception without error ? 

I would like to point out to others that Correspondence theory while definitely a useful model has its objections from realists, idealists, and skeptics.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not believe in a reality which is independent of human perception, only one that we CAN perceive by various means.

The argument from error is usually cited- that perception sometimes is mistaken.   That argument has been cited here  by the new poster.  Not a good argument.

New poster must be me?  I think you misunderstood my position.  I would say that "I believe I see a UFO" is a true statement.  "I see a UFO" can be false.  "I will see a cheerful person behind me when I turn around" can be false and was false for the person in the example.  A true statement would also be "I feel like there is a person behind me".  When the person turns around, they could say "I don't believe I see a cheerful person now" which a true statement.  

"I believe I sense a presence a spirit from the spirit world" is a true statement.  'When you thought there was someone in your house it had to be a spirit, not your "brain misfiring my danger sense"' can be false as that statement requires multiple perceptions from multiple people (or instruments) and those perceptions may not actually correspond .  As an anti-realist, is the "had to be" part not interesting?  The person didn't say "I believe it had to be".

That said only philosophers go throw this exercise.  People don't always make the distinction between "I believe I see a UFO" and "I see a UFO" and use the terms interchangeable.  A common complaint against anti-realism is that it really good at making something that should be obvious seem dubious more than is merited.

Finally, mfbukowski has assumed (again) that I was referring to philosophical perception which I most definitely was not.  I was referring to perception as neurological function of classification or in this case miss-classification.  My point is that neurons work pretty much excursively on the fact that (biological sensory) perceptions are often wrong (or are noisy).  There is no controversy on that statement, it's how neurons work - they have weights, biases, and thresholds that all handle this.  If fact your brain even auto corrects what you see - the classic example, https://www.sporcle.com/games/carambajr/Spot_the_Mispelled_Words.

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Not Sure said:

Reality is in the eye of the beholder?  I think you mean your very fallible "perception of reality" which is determined by the consequence of physical actions taken and the results you perceive.  For example, perceiving that an object that wasn't there. 

In this case it is not true that a person was actually behind them.  How did they know?  Because they turned around and saw physical evidence that the person wasn't there.

Note, you may consider the fallibility of perception as human weakness but it really isn't.  The neurons in your brain are completely based on estimating conditions and being able to change the estimation over time.  The interesting thing is that person in line will most likely have an changed estimate of whether a person is behind them the next time.  Also object permanence is a huge advantage as otherwise you would be wasting so much energy constantly moving your head around to do continuous object tracking.  

I think you're confusing what I'm saying here.  If I turn around and see a person behind me, whether that person was actually there in a physical sense may not have any bearing on my beliefs when it comes to religious experience.  This happens all the time with respect to people seeing their dearly departed loved ones.  As far as I know, there is no physical evidence that has ever been produced to verify that a person or presence was actually there in a physical sense.  However, I know many people in my family and circle of friends for which these visits of loved ones that have departed have been profoundly meaningful experiences.  

This is what I mean when I say that their perception becomes their reality.  Does it matter to them whether the person they saw was physically there or not?  

The second part of your post I don't understand what you're talking about with respect to the perception as a human weakness, I didn't say anything like that in my post.  I also don't understand your point about object permanence and how it relates exactly.  

[Tacenda]

On 11/21/2017 at 10:16 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

A godless neuroscientist wrote, "Imagine you are waiting in a checkout line at a store, and you see another customer get in line behind you. He smiles and gives you a cheerful greeting, so you have a positive feeling about him. You turn away to face the cashier. A few minutes go by a while the line slowly advances. The person behind you is silent, but you have a sense that he is there. You know not to step backward suddenly because you know you might step on his toes if you did. You have a sense of where and about how far away he is with respect to your own body. If you turn around to look at him, you might discover, much to your surprise, that he quietly left, and no one is behind you. In that case, your sense of his presence had been compelling and real to you, for some of that time, it was an illusion." quote read on Facebook. 

I think the neuroscientist shoots himself in the foot because in his story there was a real person behind. We humans never sense the presence of someone/something that doesn't exists. We Mormons feel the Holy Spirit because he is real. Spiritual experiences are real because the church is a blessing in our lives, the gospel helps us grow spiritually, morally, and intellectually. Atheism cannot explain why we are so blessed and so happy when we obey the commandments.

Just want to share a few more words before Thanksgiving.  I am so grateful for the atonement and the church. Without the church my life wouldn't mean anything, the church gives me purpose in life. I thank God for restoring his church.   

Happy Thanksgiving crew, 

God Bless 

That's too bad that without the church your life would have no meaning. You put the church above your family? Did I misinterpret what you have said here? I find that with my faith crisis, the church has nothing compared to what my family give me. They are above "the church". The church is a building. I see people all around me that have the Gospel and aren't as happy as you think they are. I see more bad treatment amongst a lot of members of the church, and my own very TBM relatives. They speak of love, but don't walk the talk.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Not Sure said:

Rorty is an interesting philosopher but I hope that you are not completely like Rorty - "Rorty was paramount among those thinkers who advance their own opinion as immune to criticism, by pretending that it is not truth but consensus that counts, while defining the consensus in terms of people like themselves" 

As a scientist, I fall into a more pragmatic consequentialist view of the world rather than an anti-realist.  Although, philosophy of science occasionally interests me with challenging conceptions of science.

I would like to point out to others that Correspondence theory while definitely a useful model has its objections from realists, idealists, and skeptics.

New poster must be me?  I think you misunderstood my position.  I would say that "I believe I see a UFO" is a true statement.  "I see a UFO" can be false.  "I will see a cheerful person behind me when I turn around" can be false and was false for the person in the example.  A true statement would also be "I feel like there is a person behind me".  When the person turns around, they could say "I don't believe I see a cheerful person now" which a true statement.  

"I believe I sense a presence a spirit from the spirit world" is a true statement.  'When you thought there was someone in your house it had to be a spirit, not your "brain misfiring my danger sense"' can be false as that statement requires multiple perceptions from multiple people (or instruments) and those perceptions may not actually correspond .  As an anti-realist, is the "had to be" part not interesting?  The person didn't say "I believe it had to be".

That said only philosophers go throw this exercise.  People don't always make the distinction between "I believe I see a UFO" and "I see a UFO" and use the terms interchangeable.  A common complaint against anti-realism is that it really good at making something that should be obvious seem dubious more than is merited.

Finally, mfbukowski has assumed (again) that I was referring to philosophical perception which I most definitely was not.  I was referring to perception as neurological function of classification or in this case miss-classification.  My point is that neurons work pretty much excursively on the fact that (biological sensory) perceptions are often wrong (or are noisy).  There is no controversy on that statement, it's how neurons work - they have weights, biases, and thresholds that all handle this.  If fact your brain even auto corrects what you see - the classic example, https://www.sporcle.com/games/carambajr/Spot_the_Mispelled_Words.

Well I have never seen an alleged consequentialist who is quite as dogmatic as you regarding what is true or false, I must say.

And yes with Rorty, Wittgenstein, the Pragmatists, Phenomenologists and most of contemporary philosophy and the whole school of supporters of the deflationary theory of truth, I believe that truth can only be found within linguistic contexts which means precisely that it is:

Quote

consensus that counts, while defining the consensus in terms of people like themselves

It's hard to understand how a consequentialist pragmatist could believe otherwise.

Physicalism in the mind/body alleged "problem" simply doesn't work in my opinion- but yes I understand that you were not speaking philosophically- so why then are your comments supposed to be relevant on this thread?  Did you note that the subject was secular atheism, not neuroscience?  That just maybe this might be a philosophical discussion?

So then how IS neuroscience relevant to philosophy????   Your very perceived division between philosophy and neuroscience seems to show you understand that in any discussion language games are paramount.  Why is neuroscience different than philosophy if we are NOT talking about "consensus in terms of people like themselves"???   Are philosophers now neuroscientists and neuroscientists philosophers?

I suggest you start with this article, a classic refutation of physicalism, and then we take it from there, if we do take it anywhere. I don't see evidence so far of your ability to refute either Rorty OR Nagel or the schools of philosophical thought to which they belong.   https://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

I felt that your somewhat condescending review of neuroscience had something to do with the question of atheism, silly me.  I am sorry if I am coming on strong but I just feel that I must push back with as much force as I encounter and as much arrogance as is presented.  

In a Christian way of course. 

 

[Not Sure]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is what I mean when I say that their perception becomes their reality.  Does it matter to them whether the person they saw was physically there or not?  

But what about discernment?  Isn't that a process that you should go through when you believe that sense a spirit near you?  Yes, your thoughts do represent your mental picture of the world which mental picture may include what could be a spirit.  After goes through the process of discernment, your mental picture of the world may can to conclude that it was not a spirit was there.  For the purposes of this example, it does not matter whether it was physical or not.  Would you agree that this is a process a reasonable person would go through?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The second part of your post I don't understand what you're talking about with respect to the perception as a human weakness, I didn't say anything like that in my post.  I also don't understand your point about object permanence and how it relates exactly.  

Sorry for the confusion, that section was addressing more to original question about a person standing in line with a person behind them.  Do you see it relates to that?

[mfbukowski]

This is a good one:

Quote

That said only philosophers go throw this exercise.  People don't always make the distinction between "I believe I see a UFO" and "I see a UFO" and use the terms interchangeable.  A common complaint against anti-realism is that it really good at making something that should be obvious seem dubious more than is merited.

Yeah, that pesky epistemology stuff whatever it is.

And then we wonder why I am dismissive and sound arrogant.  Self contradiction everywhere.  Here he says there is no difference between what you BELIEVE and what is "real" and yet the whole discussion is about that issue.

Self contradiction

Edited November 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

But what about discernment?  Isn't that a process that you should go through when you believe that sense a spirit near you?  Yes, your thoughts do represent your mental picture of the world which mental picture may include what could be a spirit.  After goes through the process of discernment, your mental picture of the world may can to conclude that it was not a spirit was there.  For the purposes of this example, it does not matter whether it was physical or not.  Would you agree that this is a process a reasonable person would go through?

Sorry for the confusion, that section was addressing more to original question about a person standing in line with a person behind them.  Do you see it relates to that?

So now you believe in the discernment of spirits? 

This gets more interesting by the minute...  grab the popcorn.....

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

But what about discernment?  Isn't that a process that you should go through when you believe that sense a spirit near you?  Yes, your thoughts do represent your mental picture of the world which mental picture may include what could be a spirit.  After goes through the process of discernment, your mental picture of the world may can to conclude that it was not a spirit was there.  For the purposes of this example, it does not matter whether it was physical or not.  Would you agree that this is a process a reasonable person would go through?

It depends on the person and the assumptions they bring.  If they already believe in the afterlife and that people continue to exist as spirits, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that they would see this manifestation as confirmation of their assumptions.    

You and I do the same thing with respect to everyday scientific understanding of how the world works.  If you already have a belief in gravity and if you drop a ball that you should expect it to fall to the ground, then why would you immediately start questioning or attempting to discern whether or not that ball falling to the ground was really caused by gravity.  The evidence fits your earlier assumption.  Its only when evidence contradicts our assumptions that we might start to question or try to discern why.  

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It depends on the person and the assumptions they bring.  If they already believe in the afterlife and that people continue to exist as spirits, then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that they would see this manifestation as confirmation of their assumptions.    

You and I do the same thing with respect to everyday scientific understanding of how the world works.  If you already have a belief in gravity and if you drop a ball that you should expect it to fall to the ground, then why would you immediately start questioning or attempting to discern whether or not that ball falling to the ground was really caused by gravity.  The evidence fits your earlier assumption.  Its only when evidence contradicts our assumptions that we might start to question or try to discern why.  

This is precisely the process Dewey describes in how we create our worlds from matter unorganized- first we have a problem like the one you describe and we seek to resolve the problem and then bring about sense of satisfaction

I see that as analogous to Alma 32 which speaks of testing a hypothesis and then reaching a state of satisfaction with an answer which works for the individual.  That seems to be precisely what Not Sure is doing here with his religious belief in scientism.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Not Sure said:

Note, you may consider the fallibility of perception as human weakness but it really isn't.  The neurons in your brain are completely based on estimating conditions and being able to change the estimation over time.  The interesting thing is that person in line will most likely have an changed estimate of whether a person is behind them the next time.  Also object permanence is a huge advantage as otherwise you would be wasting so much energy constantly moving your head around to do continuous object tracking.  

And so you understand that your brain constructs reality AS YOU KNOW IT but cannot abide by the Rorty quote below that everything YOU KNOW are mental states?

Another contradiction.

Object permanence occurs in your brain and yet somehow it is outside your brain in the world?

Why not surrender to the obvious fact that everything you know is in your brain and may or may not "correspond" to the world outside which you cannot perceive directly?

Of course we make mistakes in perception but as you say it isn't a human weakness- in fact everything you see is a "mistake" in what is really out there.

Our brain "color codes" all the chaos of incoming data into meaningful messages our bodies can process though sometimes mistakes happen but we never see that chaos out there - we see only a nicely ordered world thanks to our brain/mind

We never see the world "as it is"

What color are gamma rays?  We don't need to know - they are "invisible" to us and so might other things be invisible.

[Not Sure]

I've seen the name Rorty brought up just be clear we are talking about the dead anti-realist philosophy Richard Rorty and not some user?

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the record, my position, as that of Rorty, is "anti-realist", which means that I do not believe we can speak about what we cannot know- which means we cannot speak about reality as it is, since it is unobservable

I do not believe in a reality which is independent of human perception, only one that we CAN perceive by various means.

Just to chime in as the resident Peircean I think the above is a bit of a false dichotomy. After all it might well be that reality is knowable and observable. I might be in error when I make judgments about a rock I see but the rock I experience and the rock "out there" are the same rock. No need to divide reality the way Descartes did. Mark and I have debated this for quite some time so I doubt we'll ever agree. But I thought I'd note there is a different view. I don't think there's a reality independent of the possibility of experience. I tend to agree with much of what Mark says, but tend to put the category of "unknowable" as much, much, much smaller than he does.

On 11/24/2017 at 1:41 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Are you sure it was a demonic possession? The church has no instructions on how to deal with it. What are the words you have to say during exorcism? Does it require a special prayer? Is it a rite? 

I think I am going to be skeptical of demonic possessions for now, unless you give me some medical reports confirming it's existence. I think it is very wise for the church not to have a position on something that hasn't been confirmed, like you just told me " It was more likely just my brain misfiring my danger sense. It happens."

I don't like the term "demon" which carries erroneous connotations. But casting out evil spirits has been a part of the gospel since the formation of the Church. Joseph Smith had to do it several times including the famous case of Newel Knight. Of course one can believe what one wants. But it seems odd to say the church has no teaching on this. It's taught rather explicitly in one of our ordinances without going into detail. It's also explicitly talked about in D&C 50.

As I've noted in other threads I don't think most people in the history of the gospel had a conception of mental illness as a biological problem. So distinguishing between evil spirits and biology wasn't a determination they were able to make. However even if some cases were actually mental illness being cured by the priesthood and/or faith that doesn't mean that spirits can't have an effect on people.

On 11/24/2017 at 7:24 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Does it require LDS priesthood?  

Gifts of the spirit don't require the priesthood although the priesthood can do what is given by gifts of the spirit. The current policy in the church is that when priesthood is available we should call on the elders first.

20 hours ago, Not Sure said:

I think it would be really helpful to clarify terms.  Feeling as emotion? Feeling as a thoughts inside your head? Feeling as done by your sense organs?   How can you tell whether it external or internal?   Find a medical case where a portion of the brain was damaged and started to induce feeling that your thoughts are not your own such as Depersonalization-derealization disorder.  Find a case where a person has severely limited emotions due to damage in the brain as see if they are still able to have the same religious emotions that is claimed should be caused externally.  As far as thoughts in your head that you feel are not your own, I don't think I need to touch that one.

I'd note that for people who believe in the reality of spiritual beings and spiritual communication we can simultaneously think those are affected by and limited by the same. So if there were brain damage affecting ones ability to create emotions then that may well also limit ones ability to have spiritual communication that one could easily discern. In the same way that damaging the part of the brain dealing with visual processing will affect ones ability to deal with visual stimuli.

In my opinion our experience is significantly entailed by our brain and spiritual communication is just an other input processed by the brain.

[Not Sure]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In my opinion our experience is significantly entailed by our brain and spiritual communication is just an other input processed by the brain.

When you say input, can you clarify, do you mean that there are sensory neurons and nerves being interacted with?  

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to chime in as the resident Peircean I think the above is a bit of a false dichotomy. After all it might well be that reality is knowable and observable. I might be in error when I make judgments about a rock I see but the rock I experience and the rock "out there" are the same rock. No need to divide reality the way Descartes did. Mark and I have debated this for quite some time so I doubt we'll ever agree. But I thought I'd note there is a different view. I don't think there's a reality independent of the possibility of experience. I tend to agree with much of what Mark says, but tend to put the category of "unknowable" as much, much, much smaller than he does.

I don't like the term "demon" which carries erroneous connotations. But casting out evil spirits has been a part of the gospel since the formation of the Church. Joseph Smith had to do it several times including the famous case of Newel Knight. Of course one can believe what one wants. But it seems odd to say the church has no teaching on this. It's taught rather explicitly in one of our ordinances without going into detail. It's also explicitly talked about in D&C 50.

As I've noted in other threads I don't think most people in the history of the gospel had a conception of mental illness as a biological problem. So distinguishing between evil spirits and biology wasn't a determination they were able to make. However even if some cases were actually mental illness being cured by the priesthood and/or faith that doesn't mean that spirits can't have an effect on people.

Gifts of the spirit don't require the priesthood although the priesthood can do what is given by gifts of the spirit. The current policy in the church is that when priesthood is available we should call on the elders first.

I'd note that for people who believe in the reality of spiritual beings and spiritual communication we can simultaneously think those are affected by and limited by the same. So if there were brain damage affecting ones ability to create emotions then that may well also limit ones ability to have spiritual communication that one could easily discern. In the same way that damaging the part of the brain dealing with visual processing will affect ones ability to deal with visual stimuli.

In my opinion our experience is significantly entailed by our brain and spiritual communication is just an other input processed by the brain.

I think if we could just sit down with a (root) beer🍺and talked for an hour I think our alleged differences would evaporate into a Wittgensteinian fog of linguistic confusion.

At last you would see that I am right.  😁

What I really think is that what we see /perceive is exactly reality, insofar as it is knowable. On the other hand what we say about it can present problems.

Language never perfectly matches our perceptions. 

I also see in multiple paradigms at once. For example I see Wittgenstein as being perfectly compatible with the story of the Tower of Babel. Perhaps if we spoke "Adamic" philosophy would be unnecessary!

It is also clear that I need better voice recognition software.

Cause I sure ain't going to type all this stuff out.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

When you say input, can you clarify, do you mean that there are sensory neurons and nerves being interacted with?  

This wasn't addressed to me but I would say yes of course. But that is not relevant to the philosophical side of this. Philosophy is about meaning and significance it is not about mechanics.

You give meaning and significance to your views about neuroscience. Your views about science help you to think you have all the answers and give you a sense of satisfaction.  That is a form of religion as I see it. It is basic to your perception of the world and you see everything in terms of science, at least insofar as I can determine from the discussion so far. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

When you say input, can you clarify, do you mean that there are sensory neurons and nerves being interacted with?  

Yes. In order to be able to be conceptualized at some point it has to enter into neurological processing. Exactly what the relationship between spirit and body is tends not to be clear to me. However it is extremely clear that how we experience things is in large part determined by processing in the brain. That's apply to spiritual knowing and manifestation as much as any. Indeed I don't think spiritual phenomena is an unique type of sense. Rather it, like most experience, draws upon all our processing. After all if I see a resurrected being I'm using my senses of smell, touch, and sight as much as anything else. The way people talk about spirituality is often flawed because of folk traditions of psychology and religious knowing.

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What I really think is that what we see /perceive is exactly reality, insofar as it is knowable. On the other hand what we say about it can present problems.

Language never perfectly matches our perceptions. 

The issue ultimately is what experience is. I take both Dewey and Peirce as externalists. That is the objects in experience are the objects themselves. We may make judgements out of that experience but the experience gives us the full object even if we don't consciously represent the object fully. There is no external world separate from consciousness in that sense not because we're splitting things in a Cartesian like way. Rather it's because the Cartesian split was wrong from the beginning. Objects are just the objects they are. This leads to viewing consciousness in more Heideggarian terms. What one calls consciousness is really just a clearing where objects show themselves. But there's no "real object" independent of that showing.

So our positions are really quite close it's just the nature of experience and what we mean by external world that is under debate.

(Link just for others following the discussion - I know you're already familiar with the internalist/externalist discussion)

Edited November 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue ultimately is what experience is. I take both Dewey and Peirce as externalists. That is the objects in experience are the objects themselves. We may make judgements out of that experience but the experience gives us the full object even if we don't consciously represent the object fully. There is no external world separate from consciousness in that sense not because we're splitting things in a Cartesian like way. Rather it's because the Cartesian split was wrong from the beginning. Objects are just the objects they are. This leads to viewing consciousness in more Heideggarian terms. What one calls consciousness is really just a clearing where objects show themselves. But there's no "real object" independent of that showing.

So our positions are really quite close it's just the nature of experience and what we mean by external world that is under debate.

(Link just for others following the discussion - I know you're already familiar with the internalist/externalist discussion)

Sigh.   Forget about all the nice things I have been saying about you     (j/k)

You know what experience is as well as I do.  Clue: you are having one right now.  You are looking at a real screen of some type.  No definition necessary.  You could say the screen is in the world but you could also say that the screen is "in your mind" and both would be wrong and yet partially right.

The language is the problem

And there you go with your dang categories of philosophy again making everything into "isms" thereby adding another layer of linguistic abstraction to absolutely ensure that NOTHING is clear. 

You know I love you like a brother anyway.   - A dang stubborn brother that I fight with all the time but a brother anyway!!

Is this "externalism" or not???   I could not care less.   Categories like that are the philosophies of men mingled with  yet more philosophy.  Rorty on the other hand nails it.  -- well  at least sometimes. 

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.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Sound familiar?  

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.....

THE WORLD IS OUT THERE BUT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE WORLD ARE NOT. 

That is my scripture and I am sticking to it.  If it is "externalism" or not, so be it because that category is a DESCRIPTION which automatically makes it a linguistic distortion.

Have a good day, bro.  And of course I am right and you are wrong. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. In order to be able to be conceptualized at some point it has to enter into neurological processing. Exactly what the relationship between spirit and body is tends not to be clear to me. However it is extremely clear that how we experience things is in large part determined by processing in the brain. That's apply to spiritual knowing and manifestation as much as any. Indeed I don't think spiritual phenomena is an unique type of sense. Rather it, like most experience, draws upon all our processing. After all if I see a resurrected being I'm using my senses of smell, touch, and sight as much as anything else. The way people talk about spirituality is often flawed because of folk traditions of psychology and religious knowing.

Well ok I suppose

You got that one right. 

[Not Sure]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so you understand that your brain constructs reality AS YOU KNOW IT but cannot abide by the Rorty quote below that everything YOU KNOW are mental states?

To give a metaphor, the brain creates a diorama (or a stage) that you (your consciousness) can act on.  But the brain has also built a couple of different stages and storage closets that your conscious is not aware of where your brain (the sub-conscious part) can act on.  Which stage (and/or closets) do the mental states represent, the consciousness ones exclusively, the storage closets exclusively, or all stages/and storage closets? 

If  mental states are only conscious states and everything you know to be everything that the brain has encoded, then the statement "everything YOU KNOW are mental states" is not accurate.  If mental states is just the state of brain, then "everything YOU KNOW are mental states" is a redundant statement.  In short, I find that statement oddly constructed.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Object permanence occurs in your brain and yet somehow it is outside your brain in the world?

Object permanence is your estimated object location tracking when a object is obscured.  Typically refers to at the sub-conscious level but there is a different set of neurons that work more in a hierarchical symbolic fashion at closer to the conscious level (not untypical in the brain).  This is (somewhat) distinct from the set of neurons that track visible objects (somewhat as some neurons do both).   Your neurons only exist in your brain, unless you are a zombie.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We never see the world "as it is"

Your an agnostic?  

[Not Sure]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You give meaning and significance to your views about neuroscience. Your views about science help you to think you have all the answers and give you a sense of satisfaction.  That is a form of religion as I see it. It is basic to your perception of the world and you see everything in terms of science, at least insofar as I can determine from the discussion so far. 

I don't think I have all the answers  One could say that "your views about philosophy help you to think you have all the answers and give you a sense of satisfaction and it is a form of religion".  But that  would be creating a "straw" "mfbukowski" and we wouldn't want that.  Seriously, can we avoid creating a straw-man "Not Sure" please - it's really not acceptable.  I'll try to do the same and feel free to point out if I falter.  I am a reasonable person.

Science just one methodology of modeling the world and yes, I do like that model because science is awesome and it works!!!   There are other methodologies such as historicity that I like.  I occasionally like philosophy.  De rerum natura is close to my all time favorite book, not to say that I agree with the philosophy but it is interesting no the less.  

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I felt that your somewhat condescending review of neuroscience had something to do with the question of atheism, silly me.  I am sorry if I am coming on strong but I just feel that I must push back with as much force as I encounter and as much arrogance as is presented.  

Put yourself in another person's shoes.  Can you image that is my exact perspective of how you are presenting?   Including the bit about being condescending and arrogant and that it might have something to do with your Christianity.  But I do understand that I also can come often strong but yet am always willing to accept a call to professionalism and treating each other as peers and would hope that you would do the same.

[Not Sure]

12 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

condescending review

I didn't at the time realize that you wrote the article.  I probably would have been less strong if I had known that.  But to be honest I do feel that you did miss-characterize Anil Seth position as supporting anti-realism which goes against what I know Anil Seth position.  I also still would say the article could improvements scientific accuracy especially around the terminology of "brain chemicals".  

"Does a brain chemical “represent” the color nuances of a sunset?" - I still hold by my honest review of this statement just maybe with a less strong tone.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Not Sure said:

To give a metaphor, the brain creates a diorama (or a stage) that you (your consciousness) can act on.  But the brain has also built a couple of different stages and storage closets that your conscious is not aware of where your brain (the sub-conscious part) can act on.  Which stage (and/or closets) do the mental states represent, the consciousness ones exclusively, the storage closets exclusively, or all stages/and storage closets? 

If  mental states are only conscious states and everything you know to be everything that the brain has encoded, then the statement "everything YOU KNOW are mental states" is not accurate.  If mental states is just the state of brain, then "everything YOU KNOW are mental states" is a redundant statement.  In short, I find that statement oddly constructed.

Object permanence is your estimated object location tracking when a object is obscured.  Typically refers to at the sub-conscious level but there is a different set of neurons that work more in a hierarchical symbolic fashion at closer to the conscious level (not untypical in the brain).  This is (somewhat) distinct from the set of neurons that track visible objects (somewhat as some neurons do both).   Your neurons only exist in your brain, unless you are a zombie.

Your an agnostic?  

Oh my. 

Tell me one thing you know that is not a mental state. If you had no brain would you still know it?

Where is your knowledge if not in your brain/mind?

What you know about is not outside in the world, you only know what's gotten into your brain through perceptions, which are essentially other brain functions.

All You can talk about is about what is in your mind as your brain represents "reality" to you. It is not things as they are, it is only things as you perceive them.

You have no understanding of epistemology, and I can't help you with that.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Not Sure said:

I don't think I have all the answers  One could say that "your views about philosophy help you to think you have all the answers and give you a sense of satisfaction and it is a form of religion".  But that  would be creating a "straw" "mfbukowski" and we wouldn't want that.  Seriously, can we avoid creating a straw-man "Not Sure" please - it's really not acceptable.  I'll try to do the same and feel free to point out if I falter.  I am a reasonable person.

Science just one methodology of modeling the world and yes, I do like that model because science is awesome and it works!!!   There are other methodologies such as historicity that I like.  I occasionally like philosophy.  De rerum natura is close to my all time favorite book, not to say that I agree with the philosophy but it is interesting no the less.  

Put yourself in another person's shoes.  Can you image that is my exact perspective of how you are presenting?   Including the bit about being condescending and arrogant and that it might have something to do with your Christianity.  But I do understand that I also can come often strong but yet am always willing to accept a call to professionalism and treating each other as peers and would hope that you would do the same.

Sorry I came off that way.

I have studied philosophy and psychology for 50 years and right now I don't have time to pursue this.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Tell me one thing you know that is not a mental state. If you had no brain would you still know it?

I think he's asking if by mental state you mean brain/nervous states or if you mean conscious states. I'll confess I'm a bit confused on your view there as well. Rorty typically talks brain states in Mirrors of Nature as I recall. (It's been a few years though) But my impression is that when you're talking about these things you mean conscious states.

If you do mean conscious states then it's easy to show you know things without being conscious of knowing them. When you're driving and thinking of one thing you show you know how to get home. (This is what Heidegger describes as phenomena withdrawing - it's still knowledge but is no longer conscious - when typically become aware of it just when there's a breakdown of some sort)