The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I know the Bible is God's word because the Bible plainly says it is God's word and because atheists, skeptics, unbelievers and LDS theology cannot prove the Bible is not God's word.

Where do you see "feelings" anywhere in my belief process?

So if I wrote a book and said it was God's word, a few thousand years ago, you would accept it as true?

How do you know you have eternal life now where before you didn't?

Do you have any clue how many books state that they are God's word while not being so?

Here's just one

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Avesta,_the_Bible_of_Zoroaster

Upanishads, God's word

https://msu.edu/~puhek/miem/Upanishads.html

How many would you like?

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

You've proven my point.  Not a single one of these passages equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  

Just because the Bible mentions the word "heart" doesn't mean God is allowing us to trust in it or use it to divine truth.  It is always the Word of God that is the test of truth.

The heart is the origin of good and evil thoughts and imaginations, emotions, conscience and the seat of one's beliefs.  But that doesn't mean we're supposed to use feelings within our hearts as a test for truth. 

Read the passages you provided - not one of them equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

The Bible warns us that the heart of man is most capable of being deceived, is desperately wicked and no one can know it (Deut 11:6, Jer 17:9).

Consider how Satan uses the heart to initiate deception and false doctrine in Isaiah 44:20:

"He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

The spiritual battle ground for the soul is the heart.  That is where all spiritual truths and lies are told.  That is why we are counseled "above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Proverbs 4:23).  The question is, which spirit are you going to follow?  Here is a test to see if you can trust your heart - Go deep within your soul and honestly ask yourself this question, "where is my treasure?" 

Quote

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart... (Deut 4:29)

If we seek the Lord with all of our hearts, where will we find him?

Answer: Your heart (Ephesians 3:17).

When you find him there, what are you to do?

Answer: Trust in him with all of your...yes, heart - because that is where he resides.  That is where his spirit testifies of all truth.  That is where his word is written - so long as our treasure is the Lord. 

Quote

The heart is the origin of good and evil thoughts and imaginations, emotions, conscience and the seat of one's beliefs.  But that doesn't mean we're supposed to use feelings within our hearts as a test for truth. 

How did these men recognize the voice of the Lord?

Quote

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38).

And these?

Quote

Did not our heart burn within us, Luke 24:32. 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Where do you see "feelings" anywhere in my belief process?

You are right,  I don't see your heart involved in the belief process at all - that is why I am concerned.  Because we are taught that "with the heart man believes unto righteousness (Rom 10:10).  Instead of believing with your heart, you lean unto your own understanding, when he have clearly been taught to "trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

I know the Bible is God's word because the Bible plainly says it is God's word and because atheists, skeptics, unbelievers and LDS theology cannot prove the Bible is not God's word.

 You don't care that this is circular?  I thought you told me that you believe the Bible because "life" taught you.  You have yet to give me specifics about how "life" taught you the Bible is the word of God. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

"That thing" being your limited relative perspective.

The thing is the thing I'm experiencing not just a perspective. That's putting experience only in my head. But experience is not just me but with the objects I'm encountering. Certainly I can be wrong about the objects but to say I'm wrong about an object in my experience is to logically presuppose the object in question. So I'm rejecting a Cartesian view where there's a divide between the knower and the thing known. There's just experience.

This isn't to say our knowledge isn't limited. It is. But that's also not to make an absolute divide between the knower and thing known.

Rather than address the other comments I'll just note they all depend upon that gap along with the particular type of holism you espouse. That's fine. Once we see we share very different foundational beliefs then the rest follows. No sense just going through things that are just applications of those differences. I just think holism of that sort wrong.

Edited April 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The thing is the thing I'm experiencing not just a perspective. That's putting experience only in my head. But experience is not just me but with the objects I'm encountering. Certainly I can be wrong about the objects but to say I'm wrong about an object in my experience is to logically presuppose the object in question. So I'm rejecting a Cartesian view where there's a divide between the knower and the thing known. There's just experience.

This isn't to say our knowledge isn't limited. It is. But that's also not to make an absolute divide between the knower and thing known.

Rather than address the other comments I'll just note they all depend upon that gap along with the particular type of holism you espouse. That's fine. Once we see we share very different foundational beliefs then the rest follows. No sense just going through things that are just applications of those differences. I just think holism of that sort wrong.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot comprehend the idea that there could possibly be a gap between the knower and the thing known. The thing known is a perception of the knower. In a sense the thing known as part of the knower.

Edited April 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FormerLDS]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So if I wrote a book and said it was God's word, a few thousand years ago, you would accept it as true?

Depends.  Are you one of 35 authors who wrote the book over a 2000 year time span with thousands of fulfilled prophesies, scientific, archaeological, historical accuracy?  (And numerous additional proof of authenticity factors) 

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How do you know you have eternal life now where before you didn't?

I have eternal life because Jesus Christ plainly said I have eternal life in His word and I choose to believe Him.

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you have any clue how many books state that they are God's word while not being so?

Yes, there are many false Christs, false gospels (i.e. "restored gospels"), false apostles, false spirits, etc... 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Depends.  Are you one of 35 authors who wrote the book over a 2000 year time span with thousands of fulfilled prophesies, scientific, archaeological, historical accuracy?  (And numerous additional proof of authenticity factors) 

I have eternal life because Jesus Christ plainly said I have eternal life in His word and I choose to believe Him.

Yes, there are many false Christs, false gospels (i.e. "restored gospels"), false apostles, false spirits, etc... 

So, no answer. I need to be a biblical author to be infallible, as evidenced by the flawless science in the bible. Circular reasoning. Bad science. Unfulfilled prophecy, subject to ambiguous interpretation. You take the science literally and the prophecy allegorically. Which is it?

So, no feelings about it, perfectly reason alone?

And now you have eternal life reading the same words you read while you were LDS. Now you choose to believe the same words based on what?

The bible has not changed since you were LDS, but now you choose to believe it?

You have not answered the question.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Depends.  Are you one of 35 authors who wrote the book over a 2000 year time span with thousands of fulfilled prophesies, scientific, archaeological, historical accuracy?  (And numerous additional proof of authenticity factors) 

I see.  So those who do not believe in the Bible are just not smart enough, or have not done enough research... and therefore they are going to hell for all eternity.  That makes sense to you?  What about those who have never even heard of the Bible?  How are they supposed to have a chance at salvation? 

Eternal judgment will have nothing to do with heeding or ignoring the voice of the spirit which speaks to the heart?  Instead, eternal judgment will be more of a test of how much we have researched Biblical claims to see if it is scientifically/archaeologically justified?  I don't see where the Bible says that only smart people will be saved. 

Again, are you trusting in the Lord with all your heart, or are you leaning unto your own understanding of hermeneutics, science, archaeology, and history, etc.?

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The thing is the thing I'm experiencing not just a perspective. That's putting experience only in my head. But experience is not just me but with the objects I'm encountering. Certainly I can be wrong about the objects but to say I'm wrong about an object in my experience is to logically presuppose the object in question. So I'm rejecting a Cartesian view where there's a divide between the knower and the thing known. There's just experience.

This isn't to say our knowledge isn't limited. It is. But that's also not to make an absolute divide between the knower and thing known.

Rather than address the other comments I'll just note they all depend upon that gap along with the particular type of holism you espouse. That's fine. Once we see we share very different foundational beliefs then the rest follows. No sense just going through things that are just applications of those differences. I just think holism of that sort wrong.

The thing is not a perspective, it is a cause of your inescapable perspective, which you cannot escape to get "down " to the thing.

No one is saying there are no objects, just that they are unknowable without a perspective. One must have a have a perspective to know that there are things.

To have a perspective is to be alive. When it comes to not being alive I can't tell you much about that.

But of course I have my suspicions.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The thing is not a perspective, it is a cause of your inescapable perspective, which you cannot escape to get "down " to the thing.

No one is saying there are no objects, just that they are unknowable without a perspective. One must have a have a perspective to know that there are things.

To have a perspective is to be alive. When it comes to not being alive I can't tell you much about that.

But of course I have my suspicions.

I suspect we're all equivocating over perspective. Certainly experience is essentially perspectival in nature. To suggest that somehow we're not "down to the thing" in experience doesn't seem to follow though. Put an other way if experience is us and a relation to the thing and that relation is perspective in nature, then that means the thing is part of that by definition.

[FormerLDS]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

The spiritual battle ground for the soul is the heart.  That is where all spiritual truths and lies are told.  That is why we are counseled "above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Proverbs 4:23).  The question is, which spirit are you going to follow?  Here is a test to see if you can trust your heart - Go deep within your soul and honestly ask yourself this question, "where is my treasure?" 

God has already very plainly revealed to us the truth about the heart of man.  The heart can be good but then bad a moment later.

Perhaps you should examine your own heart and consider the very rhetorical question asked in Jeremiah 17:9 "Who can know it?"

Why is God asking you this question?

Why would a loving Heavenly Father ask you to place your eternal destiny in something He has already labelled as "deceitful above all things"? [Deceitful mean "capable of being deceived" or "misleading"]

Say whatever you want - come up with whatever form of logic that you prefer, but no one can know their own heart.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart... (Deut 4:29)

If we seek the Lord with all of our hearts, where will we find him?

Answer: Your heart (Ephesians 3:17).

When you find him there, what are you to do?

Answer: Trust in him with all of your...yes, heart - because that is where he resides.  That is where his spirit testifies of all truth.  That is where his word is written - so long as our treasure is the Lord. 

You're never going to read feelings into a biblical test for truth.  It's simply not there.

Ephesians 3:17 says "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love"

Do you have Jesus Christ living within your heart?

In Revelation 3:20, Jesus Christ says "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Has Jesus Christ ever come into you?

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

The heart is the origin of good and evil thoughts and imaginations, emotions, conscience and the seat of one's beliefs.  But that doesn't mean we're supposed to use feelings within our hearts as a test for truth. 

How did these men recognize the voice of the Lord?

Quote

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38).

And these?

Quote

Did not our heart burn within us, Luke 24:32. 

Read Luke 24:27-32

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.  And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

Did a feeling in their heart open their eyes to the truth, or not?

Again, the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

[FormerLDS]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

On 4/24/2018 at 3:15 PM, FormerLDS said:

Where do you see "feelings" anywhere in my belief process?

You are right,  I don't see your heart involved in the belief process at all - that is why I am concerned.  Because we are taught that "with the heart man believes unto righteousness (Rom 10:10).  Instead of believing with your heart, you lean unto your own understanding, when he have clearly been taught to "trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Once again you bring up two verses that mention the word "heart" and read feelings into that which is not there.  Belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

On 4/24/2018 at 3:15 PM, FormerLDS said:

I know the Bible is God's word because the Bible plainly says it is God's word and because atheists, skeptics, unbelievers and LDS theology cannot prove the Bible is not God's word.

 You don't care that this is circular?  I thought you told me that you believe the Bible because "life" taught you.  You have yet to give me specifics about how "life" taught you the Bible is the word of God. 

Again, belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling. 

If you read that God's test of truth were a burning feeling in your bosom, how would you know this is true?

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Again, the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

Pretty sure when people talk about heart they're being metaphoric. Of course just having had heart surgery maybe I'm a bit sensitive about feeling things in my heart. But I think the reference is more to Romans 10:10. "for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That and of course the famous Luke 24:32. But it's not the metaphor I'd use to describe the holy ghost's witness. But some like that metaphor.

Quote

 

Once again you bring up two verses that mention the word "heart" and read feelings into that which is not there.  Belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling.

Again, belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling. 

If you read that God's test of truth were a burning feeling in your bosom, how would you know this is true?

 

I think the metaphoric idea --- let's be clear we're not being literal here -- is that belief happens in the heart (not necessarily a choice) and we recognize it by looking to the heart. But what does the heart do (in this metaphoric sense)? It feels whereas the mind thinks.

Again, not what's really happening but once you see how the metaphor progresses it makes sense.

Edited April 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot comprehend the idea that there could possibly be a gap between the knower and the thing known. The thing known is a perception of the knower. In a sense the thing known as part of the knower.

I'm saying in knowing there's a relationship - both are present. To make a gap is to return to Cartesianism. IMO. This is the basic issue in externalism vs. internalism. Certainly as we experience thing we experience only traces of them rather them in their wholeness. But they're still there.

[FormerLDS]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So, no answer. I need to be a biblical author to be infallible, as evidenced by the flawless science in the bible. Circular reasoning. Bad science. Unfulfilled prophecy, subject to ambiguous interpretation. You take the science literally and the prophecy allegorically. Which is it?

So, no feelings about it, perfectly reason alone?

And now you have eternal life reading the same words you read while you were LDS. Now you choose to believe the same words based on what?

The bible has not changed since you were LDS, but now you choose to believe it?

You have not answered the question.

I think what you're really asking is "How do I know the Bible is the perfect, pure, infallible and complete Word of God?"

Am I right?

The Bible is one of the LDS "standard works" after all, but may be worth creating a new post if that's correct (FAIR won't allow me to create posts anymore).

[FormerLDS]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

25 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Again, the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

Pretty sure when people talk about heart they're being metaphoric. Of course just having had heart surgery maybe I'm a bit sensitive about feeling things in my heart. But I think the reference is more to Romans 10:10. "for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That and of course the famous Luke 24:32. But it's not the metaphor I'd use to describe the holy ghost's witness. But some like that metaphor.

Quote

 

Once again you bring up two verses that mention the word "heart" and read feelings into that which is not there.  Belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling.

Again, belief is a choice made in the heart, not a feeling. 

If you read that God's test of truth were a burning feeling in your bosom, how would you know this is true?

 

I think the metaphoric idea --- let's be clear we're not being literal here -- is that belief happens in the heart (not necessarily a choice) and we recognize it by looking to the heart. But what does the heart do (in this metaphoric sense)? It feels whereas the mind thinks.

Again, not what's really happening but once you see how the metaphor progresses it makes sense.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but when I first started reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it and seeking truth, the feelings that I felt in my heart were not metaphorical.

I literally felt as if God's fingers were touching my soul; it was very real and nothing can change my mind about what I experienced.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I think what you're really asking is "How do I know the Bible is the perfect, pure, infallible and complete Word of God?"

Am I right?

The Bible is one of the LDS "standard works" after all, but may be worth creating a new post if that's correct (FAIR won't allow me to create posts anymore).

That's the question, yes.

I do not understand the third sentence, what that has to do with FAIR or "creating a new post".

You are making excuses- just answer the question.

And the answer better include how you know you are "saved" by archaeology if it includes mixing archaeology with spiritual matters.  Facts don't save people- the Lord does that and the only way to know it is not based on logic.

You can't even show God exists much less writes books using scientific evidence.   If you could, every scientist would be "saved" if that can be proved by reason and science.

So what's the answer?

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Well, I can only speak for myself, but when I first started reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it and seeking truth, the feelings that I felt in my heart were not metaphorical.

I literally felt as if God's fingers were touching my soul; it was very real and nothing can change my mind about what I experienced.

So precisely what changed that FEELING so you FELT something else?

Clearly you no longer feel that, right, or are you going against your present feelings, keeping that original feeling and now going on pure logic without feeling?

That latter explanation would have to be it for the rest of your position to be consistent.  It is not about feeling, therefore the feeling changed or it did not.  If it did not, you no longer accept the BOM but feel the same about it because of logic?

OR perhaps you are no longer LDS but some other sect that accepts the BOM?

Very confusing.

[Calm]

This board has severed its connection with FairMormon years ago, over a decade.  A few members of FM, like myself, still post here, but besides me and others using the board to share FM info as well as other groups' conferences and publications, not much connection.

As far as I know (I don't know the identity of most moderators), no member of FM is involved in any decision on whether or not you, FormerLDS, posts threads here.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Perhaps you should examine your own heart and consider the very rhetorical question asked in Jeremiah 17:9 "Who can know it?"

This is likely a mistranslation, as the Septuagint reads something entirely different.

Bible:

Quote

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Septuagint:

Quote

The heart is deep beyond all things, and it is the man, and who can know him?

The Septuagint seems to make much more sense in the context of the greater Bible. The heart is the man for all intents and purposes, as "everything we do flows from it".   "Who can know the man?"  It is clear that we may not know ourselves as well as we think we do.  Most people are unawares of the inner workings of the heart.  They give it no attention.  But within the heart, there is much to be aware of.  There is that which is precious, and that which is worthless.  It is up to the observer (you) to go in and "extract the precious from the worthless" (Jer 15:19).   Who can know the man/heart?  This speaks to the judgments of man, where man judges the outward appearances, but God judges the heart - the man.    Again, consider the following verse, "above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it (Proverbs 4:23).  Why should we guard our heart above "all else", if it is of no spiritual consequence?  "Everything you do flows from it"  If the contents of your heart are unknowable to yourself, then who is in control if everything you do flows from your heart?  You say that you believe because the Bible tells you to, but that is not what the Bible says.  It says that you believe because your heart tells you to - not only belief comes from the heart - but every other spiritual manifestation in your life comes from the heart.  It is the spiritual center.

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Do you have Jesus Christ living within your heart?

In Revelation 3:20, Jesus Christ says "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Has Jesus Christ ever come into you?

Absolutely.  Alive and active.  I have experienced his presence profoundly.  He is in all things and through all things via the light of Christ. Jesus can only be experienced and known in the heart.  He is there writing his law and knocking on the walls of our hearts, waiting for us to to turn inward where he will be revealed to us.  He is always within.  He is always in the present moment.  But we rarely are. That is why most are not aware of Him.

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.  And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

Did a feeling in their heart open their eyes to the truth, or not?

Again, the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

 No, you have it backwards.  It was opening their spiritual eyes that caused them to be aware of Christ in their hearts.  This is spelled out in the parable of the sower.  The word of God is compared to a seed.  Where is it sown?  You guessed it...our hearts!  But we cannot see it/understand it/know it until we allow our spiritual eyes to gaze inward on our hearts.  "He who has eyes to see, let him see...that he might understand with his heart and be healed."  Only then can our hearts be healed to understanding and knowledge of God.  The word of God is in our hearts!  It says this over and over and over directly and in parable throughout scripture.  You need to open your spiritual eyes and look inward to your heart - that is where the seed is sown my friend.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm saying in knowing there's a relationship - both are present. To make a gap is to return to Cartesianism. IMO. This is the basic issue in externalism vs. internalism. Certainly as we experience thing we experience only traces of them rather them in their wholeness. But they're still there.

What trace of them do we experience exactly?  Aren't our experiences/perceptions simply the mental projection we create from the processing of neurochemical transmissions(all of which are internal)?

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What trace of them do we experience exactly?  Aren't our experiences/perceptions simply the mental projection we create from the processing of neurochemical transmissions(all of which are internal)?

To make a claim about what is or isn't internal you need to be able to define exactly the boundary. Are you sure you want to do that via the skin or nerves?

Also for a Mormon the mind isn't necessarily equivalent to the biological nervous system. 

More to the point, nerves leading up to the brain, while part of the nervous system, seem just as much intermediaries for my experience of objects as other mediaries are such as photons or phonons in the air.

Edited April 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To make a claim about what is or isn't internal you need to be able to define exactly the boundary. Are you sure you want to do that via the skin or nerves?

Also for a Mormon the mind isn't necessarily equivalent to the biological nervous system. 

More to the point, nerves leading up to the brain, while part of the nervous system, seem just as much intermediaries for my experience of objects as other mediaries are such as photons or phonons in the air.

Actually I wasn’t making any claims, I was just asking questions.  You are the one making the claim that we experience a trace of objects outside of us.   If you are going to make that claim, then you are going to need to define things.  What trace of them do we experience?  

As far as the nerves go, those are just the pathway of the neurochemical transmissions (neurotransmitters) I was speaking of.  All internal.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually I wasn’t making any claims, I was just asking questions.  You are the one making the claim that we experience a trace of objects outside of us.   If you are going to make that claim, then you are going to need to define things.  What trace of them do we experience?  

As far as the nerves go, those are just the pathway of the neurochemical transmissions (neurotransmitters) I was speaking of.  All internal.

But again internal to the body not necessarily the mind. That's more or less what I'm getting at. Internal/external are somewhat problematic terms when put in physicalist terms.

To the first part all I'm saying is that the perspective on the objects we encounter shouldn't be separated from the object. To draw an analogy suppose you fall asleep driving and hit a tree. Now we can't talk about your perspective on the tree at all. But we don't want to say you haven't hit the tree. Now you may object and say it's the perspective of the person making that claim, which is fine. But that's not an objection to talking about reference and relation. Ultimately all I'm saying is that we can talk about relations between objects that seem logically prior to talking about perspectives. The counterpoint (that I assume Mark would make although I don't want to guess his position since I've got it wrong before) would be that to talk about the object we have a perspective with first requires a perspective. So there's a chicken/egg problem. My rejoinder would be we can abstract from our encounters with objects the general idea of objects and relations. Once you have that inductively arrived at the rest follows logically.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To make a claim about what is or isn't internal you need to be able to define exactly the boundary. Are you sure you want to do that via the skin or nerves?

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.