hope_for_things Posted March 27, 2018 Author Posted March 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said: The way I see it is like this. Before humans, the universe did its thing as the universe. But with the emergence of sentience, life forms began to distinguish and discriminate between what they perceived as distinct functions of the universe. Obviously this ramped way up with human beings as we can talk and coordinate. So when we say "This water is cold." Or, "This water is hot." We are using the distinctions we perceive to give a name to something we observe in the universe. No such thing as "hot" existed prior to human language. "Hot" is entirely a product of the human mind. However, the state we now call "hot" (and understand to be emissions of energy) has always been. So if we want to be really pedantic we can say things like "Things we now call stars are what we now call very hot in the center." The fundamental point is that there is no objective distinction between "things" in the universe. Distinction and difference is *purely* a function of the human mind and human language. Does our language change or impact the universe being the universe? No, but it allows us to communicate and coordinate within it. The trick is not to mistake the name we give things for the things themselves. This is where the philosophical games start to get annoying. Are you saying differences in temperature don't exist unless humans are there to describe them? Animals also respond to temperature differences and so the raw elements, solids, liquids, gases are all states of that elements go through at different temperatures. Are you saying that without humans being alive to describe these different states, that we wouldn't have a liquid ocean on earth, that instead it might be a solid or a gas? I understand the rest of what you're saying about how we describe things. However, I'm trying to make a clear point that there are attributes to the elements in the universe that are true and factual independent of humans and our observations and descriptions created through language to describe these attributes.
CV75 Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Use of the word "power" sounds supernatural in that context. God doesn't have any "power" in my view. Our potential, the potential of a rock, the potential of a black hole, they are all rooted in nature and nurture. I can't define God, we have nothing that we can use to define God. God is an imaginary friend, so whatever people imagine defines what they think about God, but none of it can be evaluated objectively. Whatever I believe that is not so, I will adjust that belief as soon as I see compelling data to support it. I try to follow the evidence. Why does that make it so I functionally believe in the supernatural, I don't understand. So you don't believe in God because He is supernatural, while other things that cannot be evaluated objectively are natural (???). 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Right, and I couldn't speak or think before I came into existence. But what's the point? Does the Sun exist because humans exist to observe it, or would the Sun exist independently? The point is the difference between something that exists and something that is real. Something can exist in the imagination and not exist anywhere else. Or it just well might. But just because it exists doesn’t mean it is real. It can be real and not measured, yet perceived and experienced (do you do this?), and it can exist and not be experienced and therefore not be real. A computer and a rock and a bird interact with the environment, but do they experience the environment as real? Maybe you think they do, but still your humanity the only factor involved with what is real among all the things that might exist.
Michael Sudworth Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is where the philosophical games start to get annoying. Philosophy is absolutely annoying! 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying differences in temperature don't exist unless humans are there to describe them? Just the ways to describe them. As I said above, the universe did its universe thing long before we were around, and will continue to do do long after. So yes, of course temperature existed. But if I want to be absolutely technically correct I would say "What we now call temperature existed before life." 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Animals also respond to temperature differences and so the raw elements, solids, liquids, gases are all states of that elements go through at different temperatures Yep. Animals do the same thing we do. They look at the environment and discriminate between different states. They must in order to survive. 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying that without humans being alive to describe these different states, that we wouldn't have a liquid ocean on earth, that instead it might be a solid or a gas? That is the opposite of what I"m saying. Although if we wanted to do a deep-dive into metaphysics I would keep hammering on the idea that there is nothing about "gas" that inherently and objectively makes it gas. "Gas" is only "gas" relative to the mind/language we apply to it. 49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: However, I'm trying to make a clear point that there are attributes to the elements in the universe that are true and factual independent of humans Of course. The universe does its "thing" regardless of human existence. Edited March 27, 2018 by Michael Sudworth
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Sometimes these philosophical discussions get frustrating, because of the limits of communication. Which makes me question at some level the merits of such tedious discussions that require so many precise definitions of terms that you lose the regular guy with these discussions. You want me to keep re-reading a quote I've read a hundred times now? I guess if you keep doing something long enough its supposed to all the sudden make sense, or a person might die in the process. I'm not critiquing Rorty's quote, I'm critiquing your use of it, and I'm trying to explain this in regular terms that I use in street parlance because I'm not educated in philosophy and can't quickly get up to speed on it. Facts or attributes about the universe must exist independent of humans trying to describe them. Can you agree on that statement as an a priori statement? I'm not talking about how humans describe the facts, or put them into language, I'm talking about the attributes about the universe that exist before humans ever discovered them. I'm talking about what is out there in the universe, something is out there, and it has attributes, whether or not humans observe these attributes and try to explain them, the objects that are in the universe EXIST and they have unique attributes. When science makes conclusions about how electronics work and is able to use these conclusions to build a computer that allows me to type this message to you, I find that truly amazing. Who cares that its all tied up in our perceptions. You seem to want to discount the practical and pragmatic use of science because you are so stuck on trying to prove a point. We get great value from the sciences, it seems like you are trying to fight a battle that is completely pointless to try and win some kind of argument that has no utility. And for someone who's a pragmatist, don't you find the efforts you keep putting forth on topics like this to be ironically counter pragmatic? What are you trying to gain through this argument that has value? I'm not claiming peer review is perfect or that the truths we get are complete and perfected. Of course there are elements of bias and group think involved. The system is still the best that our human race has created up to this point. Its not a beauty contest though, there is rigor in many cases and incentives to disprove the theories of others or come up with a new theory that overturns the prior consensus. Wir sprechen verschiedene Sprachen. This conversation is about language and you keep using words I do not understand in your terms and I speak in words you don't understand The universe was working fine before we decided it had "attributes" and did not need to have us define those for it. It has a lot more we have no clue about and probably will never know. "Attributes" are human definitions like "big" or "little" or "blue" or "red" or "hot" "cold" etc. No there could be no "attibutes" before there were people to see things that way. Yes we know there are causes out there like what we CALL "walls" or "cliffs" which may be "dangerous" to humans or block our progress- no question. This discussion is about what we can know and speak about, not about what we do not know and cannot speak about. I am truly sorry but this is not working and apparently never has. Yes philosophy and all human thought - when spoken- is ABOUT language- it cannot be otherwise. Let me show you one last time the problem. I will take some words of one comment and show you the difference between my language and yours and why we are not communicating. Quote Facts or attributes about the universe must exist independent of humans trying to describe them. Can you agree on that statement as an a priori statement? "Fact" = a sentence about human experience or mental states which predicts accurately future experiences under the same conditions. I experience water bubbling when a thermometer shows 212 degrees F and it always shows that UNLESS the "altitude" is different etc It is not a statement about the "world as it is"- it is a statement in language observing the experience of water bubbling and the thermometer's reading simultaneously . "universe"- the set of all possible human experiences. "attrbute" = quale. Quote qua·le ˈkwälē/ noun PHILOSOPHY a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person. "a priori"- Quote a : deductive b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori c : presupposed by experience 2a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive b : formed or conceived beforehand 1- A statement stating equality of two variables as logically identical. A=A would be one such statement. "the word 'water' is defined by the chemical formula H2O", "87+3=90" The statement expresses logical equivalence between two terms: "All bachelors are unmarried" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/ 2- a prior assumption taken for granted. I don't think you are using it correctly. You use the words of a "regular guy". Fine. Philosophy is a different language. Sorry I can't help that. We are speaking two different languages. "Regular guy" does not translate into philosophical language. Learning a new language requires time and effort. I can't do that for you. But if you stop speaking "regular guy" or want to - I am here. We could do that but it would last all night- one line at a time I suppose. Disregard image below- I cannot delete it for some reason Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
Michael Sudworth Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You use the words of a "regular guy". Fine. Philosophy is a different language. Sorry I can't help that. We are speaking two different languages. "Regular guy" does not translate into philosophical language. How do you reconcile the above with this: Quote My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism. To influence others you have to meet them where they are, not where you are. You can't demand the use of highly technical philosophical language from those who are unfamiliar. How many years have you studied these things? Many, I assume. To teach and persuade others you have to tolerate a lack of technical precision in favor of achieving a general understanding. If you want to see some great examples of this you can check out Reddit's "Explain it like I'm five" https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/ 1
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: How do you reconcile the above with this: To influence others you have to meet them where they are, not where you are. You can't demand the use of highly technical philosophical language from those who are unfamiliar. How many years have you studied these things? Many, I assume. To teach and persuade others you have to tolerate a lack of technical precision in favor of achieving a general understanding. If you want to see some great examples of this you can check out Reddit's "Explain it like I'm five" https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/ Those are all scientific questions about how things work. Philosophy is about WHY questions about things that are important It's all Alma 32 and I don't understand why LDS folks have trouble with their own scriptures. Very simple stuff. A statement is true if it helps you in your life. That's it! I suppose I should just frame it all in those terms and I suppose that would work best. Let me try it I have many here who got it the first time through. I have testimonials from some "stars" of apologetics who have thanked me for the education. Thanks for the suggestion. I explained it to my kids when they were young and they totally got it. It is as easy as understanding that words are not things. Some people think words like "attribute" describe real things instead of our perceptions of things. Ideas are not things in the world nor are words. They think things can be true or false instead of statements about things. They are very confused. There are no true houses unless you are speaking to a group who uses that term oddly. If you understand the Tower of Babel story that language is confounded, you understand it all I frankly don't know how anybody could misunderstand what words I have quoted from Rorty below. Clear as a bell and that is why I chose them. My wife got it the first time through also and now she corrects ME. All I can do is my best. Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 2 hours ago, CV75 said: So you don't believe in God because He is supernatural, while other things that cannot be evaluated objectively are natural (???). I didn’t say I don’t believe in God because he is supernatural, I said we have no objective measures to define what or who God is, or if God even exists. 2 hours ago, CV75 said: The point is the difference between something that exists and something that is real. Something can exist in the imagination and not exist anywhere else. Or it just well might. But just because it exists doesn’t mean it is real. It can be real and not measured, yet perceived and experienced (do you do this?), and it can exist and not be experienced and therefore not be real. A computer and a rock and a bird interact with the environment, but do they experience the environment as real? Maybe you think they do, but still your humanity the only factor involved with what is real among all the things that might exist. This is not at all how I’m using the term exist. If something exists in the way I’m describing it is not just inside someone’s imagination. It is real if you want to use that term, but I purposely avoided using the term “real” because that typically is used to describe subject perspectives about things. Question, do you agree or disagree that things in the universe are real/exist independently of whether a human observes then? This seems similar to the question about if a tree falls in the forest and whether or not it makes a sound if no human is there to hear it. What say you?
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: Philosophy is absolutely annoying! Just the ways to describe them. As I said above, the universe did its universe thing long before we were around, and will continue to do do long after. So yes, of course temperature existed. But if I want to be absolutely technically correct I would say "What we now call temperature existed before life." Yep. Animals do the same thing we do. They look at the environment and discriminate between different states. They must in order to survive. That is the opposite of what I"m saying. Although if we wanted to do a deep-dive into metaphysics I would keep hammering on the idea that there is nothing about "gas" that inherently and objectively makes it gas. "Gas" is only "gas" relative to the mind/language we apply to it. Of course. The universe does its "thing" regardless of human existence. Whew! This post gave me hopes again, you aren’t as crazy as that first post sounded. We’re good, I agree with this and it makes sense. 😆
Michael Sudworth Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Those are all scientific questions about how things work. You only glanced at a few of the top listings? 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I explained it to my kids when they were young and they totally got it. Smart kids. Did you start with coloring books about apriori synthetic judgments and then move on to books about "Rorty and His Dog Spot?" "Philosophical Investigations" at bedtime? Forgive me if I am skeptical. 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have many here who got it the first time through. I have testimonials from some "stars" of apologetics who have thanked me for the education Ok. I can buy this. Other highly-educated dudes familiar with the language, technicalities, and terms used in the humanities gained insight from what you have said. Makes sense. 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I frankly don't know how anybody could misunderstand what words I have quoted from Rorty below. Did you share Rorty with your kids too? Are you telling me they got it on the first try?
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Sometimes these philosophical discussions get frustrating, because of the limits of communication. Which makes me question at some level the merits of such tedious discussions that require so many precise definitions of terms that you lose the regular guy with these discussions. You want me to keep re-reading a quote I've read a hundred times now? I guess if you keep doing something long enough its supposed to all the sudden make sense, or a person might die in the process. I'm not critiquing Rorty's quote, I'm critiquing your use of it, and I'm trying to explain this in regular terms that I use in street parlance because I'm not educated in philosophy and can't quickly get up to speed on it. Facts or attributes about the universe must exist independent of humans trying to describe them. Can you agree on that statement as an a priori statement? I'm not talking about how humans describe the facts, or put them into language, I'm talking about the attributes about the universe that exist before humans ever discovered them. I'm talking about what is out there in the universe, something is out there, and it has attributes, whether or not humans observe these attributes and try to explain them, the objects that are in the universe EXIST and they have unique attributes. When science makes conclusions about how electronics work and is able to use these conclusions to build a computer that allows me to type this message to you, I find that truly amazing. Who cares that its all tied up in our perceptions. You seem to want to discount the practical and pragmatic use of science because you are so stuck on trying to prove a point. We get great value from the sciences, it seems like you are trying to fight a battle that is completely pointless to try and win some kind of argument that has no utility. And for someone who's a pragmatist, don't you find the efforts you keep putting forth on topics like this to be ironically counter pragmatic? What are you trying to gain through this argument that has value? I'm not claiming peer review is perfect or that the truths we get are complete and perfected. Of course there are elements of bias and group think involved. The system is still the best that our human race has created up to this point. Its not a beauty contest though, there is rigor in many cases and incentives to disprove the theories of others or come up with a new theory that overturns the prior consensus. OK let's start with Alma 32 Quote 6 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? 36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good....... 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing upunto everlasting life. 42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruitthereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst. 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you. OK so let's apply that to what you said here Quote Facts or attributes about the universe must exist independent of humans trying to describe them. Can you agree on that statement as an a priori statement? I'm not talking about how humans describe the facts, or put them into language, I'm talking about the attributes about the universe that exist before humans ever discovered them. I'm talking about what is out there in the universe, something is out there, and it has attributes, whether or not humans observe these attributes and try to explain them, the objects that are in the universe EXIST and they have unique attributes. How can we exercise Alma 32 in looking at what you have written here? Does believing it bear sweet fruit? Is your life better for the understanding? Suppose we believe that facts existed before God created the world. Could there be "facts" if no one ever tried them out? How could they, as beliefs, ever be tested by the experimental method suggested here? I would propose that God organized reality according to specific rules already in existence, rules know to bear sweet fruit by Him one way or another through his experience or even perhaps known to other generations of Gods- in a "Family Council" of Gods God know what kind of world people would need for precisely those reasons and that is what he gave us- a world perfectly suited for humanity. These rules were KNOWN BY HUMAN GODS who were exalted beings LIKE US but infinitely above us in intelligence. But all human intelligence is like God's intelligence- only our intelligence is infintely lesser than God's intelligence. But to say that there were no rules before there were HUMANS- (exalted or not) does not make sense. Before intelligence there was only "matter unorganized" and GOD imposed order on what is now the "universe" as we know it. Before humans there was only disordered material. And God gave us language to help us communicate and help us learn to give order to things. God named them through his Son- the Messenger known as "The Word" by whom all things were created. Without the Word nothing was created. So in a very real way, we cannot have beliefs which are "sweet" to us if we cannot put those beliefs into words!! Science would not work! We could not have cars if the experiences of others could not be communicated! We could not have geometry if the ideas and words were not given through inspired intelligence and communicated to others. Pythagoras, an ordinary human like us, but quite intelligent, I am sure was inspired by God to understand the principles of geometry but what is important is that he was able to put those principles to work through the gift of language so that others could understand them!! If he thought them up and did not communicate them, someone else might have done so or not- but what is important is that God allowed those ideas to be communicated to others so that fields could be laid out, measurements could be accurately made etc, and the ideas of mathematics could become "sweet" in their use and be believed by others BECAUSE those ideas were also "sweet" as they experimented and found them to be sweet and improve their lives. And on it goes and science moves forward by finding out what beliefs are useful in our lives. If the beliefs were not useful and found to be so by people actually using them- they would be forgotten! If the ideas and beliefs could not be communicated- all of creation would be in vain!! We could not fulfill our potential as human beings if these principles of finding "sweet" beliefs that worked in our lives never happened. So do facts about the universe exist independent of humans? If they do they are irrelevant to our lives!! Let's suppose they do exist independently- but we don't know them! What good are they?? They are only good and useful and "sweet" if we know about them and use them. Perhaps God knew them but we never figured them out? Still useless! How could anything be true or false if we did not test it out to see if it was useful to us?? It is a pagan Greek idea that goes back to Plato that such rules "exist" independent of humanity- it is not an original biblical idea nor the Hebrew way of seeing the world at all. Quote I'm talking about what is out there in the universe, something is out there, and it has attributes, whether or not humans observe these attributes and try to explain them, the objects that are in the universe EXIST and they have unique attributes. I think that is literally a useless idea! It doesn't matter either way if you want to believe that I guess- but what good is that belief? Why is that sweet to you as a belief? Does it help you live your life better? Then go for it, but it makes no sense to me! Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 59 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: How do you reconcile the above with this: To influence others you have to meet them where they are, not where you are. You can't demand the use of highly technical philosophical language from those who are unfamiliar. How many years have you studied these things? Many, I assume. To teach and persuade others you have to tolerate a lack of technical precision in favor of achieving a general understanding. If you want to see some great examples of this you can check out Reddit's "Explain it like I'm five" https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/ OK check out the above post and see what you think
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 24 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: You only glanced at a few of the top listings? Smart kids. Did you start with coloring books about apriori synthetic judgments and then move on to books about "Rorty and His Dog Spot?" "Philosophical Investigations" at bedtime? Forgive me if I am skeptical. Ok. I can buy this. Other highly-educated dudes familiar with the language, technicalities, and terms used in the humanities gained insight from what you have said. Makes sense. Did you share Rorty with your kids too? Are you telling me they got it on the first try? Check out the above posts No I explained it simply as above and to the audience. Problem here is that there is a vast audience at different levels as you yourself point out
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) Rorty translated into Mormonese: 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. Mormonese: Quote To say that the world is out there and not organized by our HUMAN FATHER for the human mind to understand, is to say, with common sense, that most things in time and space are "out there" independent of Human Intelligence. But common sense is incorrect because it leaves out God as the Organizing Human Intelligence. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that in Matter Unorganized, where there are no sentences and Intelligence to organize them, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are the creation of Human Intelligence. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind and Intelligence, because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there as Matter Unorganized, but descriptions of the world organized by Intelligence, are not. Only descriptions of the world as organized can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the organizing, describing activities of human intelligent beings- cannot. The only advantage of the first above the second is that the first communicates to secular people while the second does not. And that is how you explain it to kids. "If Heavenly Father did not give us our wonderful minds we could not understand anything! It would be just a noisy MESS! (silly gestures wiggly fingers etc) We could not talk to each other or tell each other what was good to eat or good for anything! WE could not have invented cars or TV or even houses if we could not talk toeach other!! WE could not even think right! So we have to thank him for letting us make sense of everything we see-the pretty trees and the sun! Without our minds it would just be a MESS that we could not understand!! He made us smarter than all the animals so we could make houses and clothes and have nice homes and not be outside all the time Heavenly father made everything and he taught us how to make things too, because he made us smart like him, but just a little bit because he knows EVERYTHING and we just know a little bitty bit!" Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 The importance of language to Helen Keller: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Helen-Keller-learn-to-read-write-and-speak
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) One of the most important things to learn from Alma 32 is that it NEVER GETS TO DEFINING PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. The most important part is what is NOT there!! That's because we can never get there on this side of the veil. It gets sweeter and more complex and more complete but never ends- progression continues forever. Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
changed Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) To know if the existence of spirits is real, start with your own personal spirit - with the nature of life / self-awareness / conscience - I like the term "intelligence(s)", what is intelligence? what makes you self-aware? it is more than just information - books hold information and are not alive, something interprets that information, transmits it, writes it down, studies it - intelligence is more than information. The universe seems to be made up of energy, matter, information, and intelligence - you can measure intelligence, test it, people go to school a good part of their life to gain wisdom and intelligence - it is a real thing, you can analyze it within yourself, and then analyze it within others. When someone dies what has changed about them? Chemically they are the same, the matter in their body is the same, the temperature and energy can be the same - the only thing different between something alive and something dead is intelligence... Now does this intelligence just poof into nothingness? Does anything magically disappear? Will the chair you are sitting on suddenly evaporate into nothingness? It can change form - but everything is eternal. Laws of thermodynamics - conservation of energy and matter and intelligence - things change form, but nothing just disappears... and if this thing intelligence is real, and follows the pattern of all real things in that it does not magically appear and disappear at whim - then yes, these things - "intelligence" or call them "spirits" are floating around out there. I have had experiences where I know the spirit(s) are real - I do not know the details of all things, I do not know who g-d is, or who the spirits were/are (relatives?) if you have not had those experiences - just think for a time about your own spirit, your own intelligence - your own self-awareness and conscience - your mind - your will that is free and consists of more than nature/nurture - it is real. Edited March 28, 2018 by changed 1
changed Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: One of the most important things to learn from Alma 32 is that it NEVER GETS TO DEFINING PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. quote from another... "An all-knowing person would be precluded from doing many things. He could not wonder. He could not have a question. He could never experience surprise. He could never hear a melody for the first time. He could not experience the thrill of learning – or any thrill at all. This lack of all new things is a reasonable definition of death." - CB Does g-d eternally progress? Edited March 28, 2018 by changed
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, changed said: quote from another... "An all-knowing person would be precluded from doing many things. He could not wonder. He could not have a question. He could never experience surprise. He could never hear a melody for the first time. He could not experience the thrill of learning – or any thrill at all. This lack of all new things is a reasonable definition of death." - CB Does g-d eternally progress? Bruce R. Says that he progresses through his children. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/ That quote is inaccurate in my view but that is for another thread. In fact I personally disagree with both mcconkie and your quote. But that's not the topic of this thread. Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, changed said: To know if the existence of spirits is real, start with your own personal spirit - with the nature of life / self-awareness / conscience - I like the term "intelligence(s)", what is intelligence? what makes you self-aware? it is more than just information - books hold information and are not alive, something interprets that information, transmits it, writes it down, studies it - intelligence is more than information. The universe seems to be made up of energy, matter, information, and intelligence - you can measure intelligence, test it, people go to school a good part of their life to gain wisdom and intelligence - it is a real thing, you can analyze it within yourself, and then analyze it within others. When someone dies what has changed about them? Chemically they are the same, the matter in their body is the same, the temperature and energy can be the same - the only thing different between something alive and something dead is intelligence... Now does this intelligence just poof into nothingness? Does anything magically disappear? Will the chair you are sitting on suddenly evaporate into nothingness? It can change form - but everything is eternal. Laws of thermodynamics - conservation of energy and matter and intelligence - things change form, but nothing just disappears... and if this thing intelligence is real, and follows the pattern of all real things in that it does not magically appear and disappear at whim - then yes, these things - "intelligence" or call them "spirits" are floating around out there. I have had experiences where I know the spirit(s) are real - I do not know the details of all things, I do not know who g-d is, or who the spirits were/are (relatives?) if you have not had those experiences - just think for a time about your own spirit, your own intelligence - your own self-awareness and conscience - your mind - your will that is free and consists of more than nature/nurture - it is real. And all the German idealists and those who have come after them including pragmatists and phenomenologist would agree with you, at least an affirming it as a valid Paradigm for you and your community of like believers. Works for me.
changed Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Bruce R. Says that he progresses through his children. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/ That quote is inaccurate in my view but that is for another thread. In fact I personally disagree with both mcconkie and your quote. But that's not the topic of this thread. All knowing, does that include knowing what it feels like to be damned/isolated/eternally condemned - knowing what that feels like, as well as knowing what obedience and perfection is? Does g-d know what it is to be a sinner, as well as a saint? Not vicarious second-hand knowledge - but first-hand knowledge? ... the nature of g-d, the nature of perfection - is perfection equal to complete, rather than perfection being free of sin? Omniscience... all-knowing vs., all-wise, vs. has personally had all-experiences... not vicarious experiences, not feeling another's pain, but feeling their own pain, their own remorse from their own sins? vicarious knowledge vs. first-hand experience - do you think g-d has had all experiences to gain all-knowledge? the difference between knowledge/wisdom/experience - all-knowing, all-wisom, all-experiences??? how do you gain all-experiences and all-knowledge without both descending into the depths of hell, as well as reaching up into the nature of light? Yin/Yang - can a full knowledge of evil and goodness be contained within the same being? 1. The idea that he actually exists; 2. A correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; and 3. An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the divine will. I've made it through #1, I am a long ways from #2.... Back to the thread - revelation is required - knowing the spirits are real is required, a bit frustrating as we only have control over our own spirit... Edited March 28, 2018 by changed
CV75 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I didn’t say I don’t believe in God because he is supernatural, I said we have no objective measures to define what or who God is, or if God even exists. This is not at all how I’m using the term exist. If something exists in the way I’m describing it is not just inside someone’s imagination. It is real if you want to use that term, but I purposely avoided using the term “real” because that typically is used to describe subject perspectives about things. Question, do you agree or disagree that things in the universe are real/exist independently of whether a human observes then? This seems similar to the question about if a tree falls in the forest and whether or not it makes a sound if no human is there to hear it. What say you? If you have no objective measure to define what or who God is, or if He exists, do you believe in Him being real anyway? I understand how you use the terms "exist" and "real." I understand what you are saying. Since your responses indicate you not understand another perspective on these terms, if you are trying to understand, all I can recommend at this point is to study the material that has been offered to you rather than reiterate things I already understand. Without any ears around (human or animal) there can be no sound, but let's say for argument's sake only vibration. Vibration, as a "disturbance" of equilibrium is a subjective determination (which you purposely avoid), as is any "change" from one condition or state to another, since things such as vibrations and change are dependent on a subjectively determined scope and context. Consistent with its potentially infinitesimal or infinite scale, a vibration within a vibration does not a vibration make; likewise a change within a change does not a change make. We have to organize those worlds, so to speak, which cannot be done objectively. Edited March 28, 2018 by CV75
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 47 minutes ago, CV75 said: If you have no objective measure to define what or who God is, or if He exists, do you believe in Him being real anyway? I understand how you use the terms "exist" and "real." I understand what you are saying. Since your responses indicate you not understand another perspective on these terms, if you are trying to understand, all I can recommend at this point is to study the material that has been offered to you rather than reiterate things I already understand. Do I believe in God is a difficult question. The only belief in God that I currently feel like I can honestly ascribe to is a belief in an experience, and that experience is what I call God. I'm not convinced you do understand what I'm saying, I admit I don't fully understand what you're saying either. I have looked at the materials offered, and will continue to do so, but I'm not convinced that the problem here is completely on my end. 50 minutes ago, CV75 said: Without any ears around (human or animal) there can be no sound, but let's say for argument's sake only vibration. Vibration, as a "disturbance" of equilibrium is a subjective determination (which you purposely avoid), as is any "change" from one condition or state to another, since things such as vibrations and change are dependent on a subjectively determined scope and context. Consistent with its potentially infinitesimal or infinite scale, a vibration within a vibration does not a vibration make; likewise a change within a change does not a change make. We have to organize those worlds, so to speak, which cannot be done objectively. Whether you call it sound or vibration, how can you say the existence of some kind of disturbance of equilibrium is a subjective determination? The way the disturbance is observed or perceived might be subjective, but the fact that some disturbance is happening out there in the universe seems an indisputable fact we should be able to agree on. The ways we measure and observe the "sound waves" or "vibrations" or whatever humans have developed to label this phenomena is limited to human capacity and we very well may be misinterpreting much of the data, we are likely only seeing a small portion of the whole picture. Our human perceptions are what is subjective, not the fact that some kind of disturbance happens when a tree falls, and those events would happen whether or not humans exist or humans observe them.
CV75 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Do I believe in God is a difficult question. The only belief in God that I currently feel like I can honestly ascribe to is a belief in an experience, and that experience is what I call God. I'm not convinced you do understand what I'm saying, I admit I don't fully understand what you're saying either. I have looked at the materials offered, and will continue to do so, but I'm not convinced that the problem here is completely on my end. Whether you call it sound or vibration, how can you say the existence of some kind of disturbance of equilibrium is a subjective determination? The way the disturbance is observed or perceived might be subjective, but the fact that some disturbance is happening out there in the universe seems an indisputable fact we should be able to agree on. The ways we measure and observe the "sound waves" or "vibrations" or whatever humans have developed to label this phenomena is limited to human capacity and we very well may be misinterpreting much of the data, we are likely only seeing a small portion of the whole picture. Our human perceptions are what is subjective, not the fact that some kind of disturbance happens when a tree falls, and those events would happen whether or not humans exist or humans observe them. I understand what you're saying because I have seen things that way myself and for convenience often operate under such a premise, but the more practical bottom line (for me personally) is to see things as I've been describing them (see D&C 93:30; existence is only possible when intelligence acts for itself). I say that because by definition, sound (a specific kind of vibration or disturbance of equilibrium) requires ears and a brain in the mix to exist. Sound does not exist independently, in a vacuum (even when under some circumstances vibrations can jump between objects in a vacuum...). Is such and such a vibration a sound if you can't hear it? (No.). This is so for any product of a disturbed equilibrium, hence disturbed equilibria, which themselves are the products of other disturbed equilbria, are a subjective determination.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Wir sprechen verschiedene Sprachen. This conversation is about language and you keep using words I do not understand in your terms and I speak in words you don't understand The universe was working fine before we decided it had "attributes" and did not need to have us define those for it. It has a lot more we have no clue about and probably will never know. "Attributes" are human definitions like "big" or "little" or "blue" or "red" or "hot" "cold" etc. No there could be no "attibutes" before there were people to see things that way. Yes we know there are causes out there like what we CALL "walls" or "cliffs" which may be "dangerous" to humans or block our progress- no question. This discussion is about what we can know and speak about, not about what we do not know and cannot speak about. I am truly sorry but this is not working and apparently never has. Yes philosophy and all human thought - when spoken- is ABOUT language- it cannot be otherwise. Sometimes I wonder if you're intentionally using this language barrier as cover for not having a persuasive argument. I'm not trained in philosophy, so I don't understand that language well, but you know both the language of philosophy and regular human language. So you should be able to speak in both languages and translate a general understanding to me. This would be the same as if you spoke both German and English and I only spoke English. You should be able to translate any German into English in order to have a sufficient understanding to communicate ideas. Attributes is just another way of me saying that the objects in the universe, starts, planets, atoms, etc, have structure or have some elements about them. These elements of structure exist independent of whether humans observe them or not. The words to describe these things like blue, hot, big, are human created words and human created descriptions that are connected to human perceptions and therefore limited by definition. What I'd like to understand in a clear answer from you is whether you are making an argument that there is no structure in the universe independent of human observation. Are you claiming that all that's out there in the universe is just a giant blob of something that has no unique attributes or structure about it, and that it never had any form or structure or attributes or facts or whatever you want to call it, until humans came into existence. This is my question to you.
Recommended Posts