Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I am still thinking someone correlated it for you.

Sorry, the internet has TONS of info out there and I love to read, so it was really just me.  

I'm glad you think someone "correlated" it for me though--I'll take that as a compliment. 😆

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe I'm missing your point. Are you proposing some specific scientific way of distinguishing between an internally generated visionary experience and one generated by a third party? The fact that people hallucinate has been established scientifically. "Authentic" (not self-generated) visions have not. I concede that would be theoretically possible to distinguish them, if indeed the latter kind exist.

I do find that Mormon naturalism is only a kind of technical naturalism that has more in common with supernaturalism in actual practice. When I say that, I mean primarily in the types of experiences described and also generally distancing itself from scientific inquiry that most naturalists seem to welcome. It's still significant that Mormonism embraces a kind of naturalism, but on the other hand it's like having a form of naturalism but denying the power thereof, if you'll forgive the scriptural turn of phrase.

I guess we are talking past each other.  I am talking pure science, while you are talking supernaturalism and delusions.  Please reread what I said.

Quote

The scientific method does not apply to what you are describing above, and I did not describe a "Ghostbusters" approach to forensic evidence.  You need to disabuse yourself of non-scientific evaluation of visionary claims, which is what you keep harping on.  No progress can be made with your approach -- which is indistinguishable from supernaturalism on the one hand, and psychological delusion on the other.  One can only describe and classify such phenomena.  However, neither explanation can be examined by hard science.  Once you have accepted that set of limitations, it is then possible to begin considering the circumstantial evidence presented by actual artifacts, e.g., books, claims, systems, etc., for forgery or authenticity, just the way we do in a standard crime lab.

If you don't understand what science is, you can ask me about it.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just a note but I think your post to me never appeared. At least I've not seen it. Although the list doesn't always pick up replies if they aren't done to the exact post with the reply buttons. So I may have missed it. I only skim a few things but in general just look at the actual replies with the bright red numbers. I don't read the whole list anymore.

That said I tend to agree with you although I'd also say that a few hundreds of people I trust have more weight than thousands I don't.

No it's gone.

Don't know what happened, yet another lost post.

Maybe I will have time in the morning maybe not.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess we are talking past each other.  I am talking pure science, while you are talking supernaturalism and delusions.  Please reread what I said.

If you don't understand what science is, you can ask me about it.

Okay, I can tell you're annoyed at me. 😛 Of course I understand what science is. Maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/1/2018 at 2:02 PM, hope_for_things said:

I couldn't find a reply to Clark in this thread, are you referring to a post in another thread?  

As for the # of people claiming alien abductions, I'm not sure why the # of people would then make it so their experiences can have "the beginnings of some of objective structure".  When you get time (no rush), can you elaborate on that, because it seems to contradict what I thought you were saying earlier about nothing being objectively verifiable about religion. 

Are you saying that we should use objective criteria to evaluate the veracity of alien abduction claims, but we shouldn't use objective criteria to evaluate religious claims?  It sounds to me like you are making a case for a special status for religious claims.  Can you confirm?  

No I do not claim special status for religion. Of course not.

I will respond later, but I want to reply to Clark because he speaks philosophy.

But please respond to my other questions directed to you. How can language correspond to what is not observable?

By saying it corresponds to reality instead of to human observations that is exactly what you're doing.

We can not know anything beyond human mental States because knowledge is self as a human mental state. We cannot get outside of human mental states to reality.

Please explain how that happens.

Edited November 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

Okay, I can tell you're annoyed at me. 😛 Of course I understand what science is. Maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly.

Have you ever worked in a science lab, or had training in a science lab?  You know, chem lab, physics lab, biological lab, etc.  Do you understand the experimental method, and the systematic way in which results must be repeatable, the research design must be adequate, etc., any theories falsifiable?  If you are stuck on delusions and supernaturalism, then you have no idea what I am talking about, because I am talking about real science conducted by legitimate scientists under the conditions long accepted by science.  I keep getting the impression from you that you think that Ghostbusters is science.  Am I wrong?  If you are stuck in that fever swamp, no progress is possible.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Have you ever worked in a science lab, or had training in a science lab?  You know, chem lab, physics lab, biological lab, etc.  Do you understand the experimental method, and the systematic way in which results must be repeatable, the research design must be adequate, etc., any theories falsifiable?  If you are stuck on delusions and supernaturalism, then you have no idea what I am talking about, because I am talking about real science conducted by legitimate scientists under the conditions long accepted by science.  I keep getting the impression from you that you think that Ghostbusters is science.  Am I wrong?  If you are stuck in that fever swamp, no progress is possible. 

I don't think I mentioned Ghostbusters or anything resembling Dr. Venkman, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If you have an idea how to make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab, I'm all ears. The floor is yours.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think I mentioned Ghostbusters or anything resembling Dr. Venkman, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If you have an idea how to make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab, I'm all ears. The floor is yours.

I guess that is just the point:  I did not at any time suggest that one could "make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab," and I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from anything I said.  Real science has nothing to do with delusions and supernaturalism.  It can only deal with the natural world.  As long as you are stuck on delusions and supernaturalism, we cannot communicate at all.  Once you put that behind you, and are prepared to deal with science and the experimental method, we might be able to make some progress.

Pretend science is not science.  Real science is defined by scientists under laboratory conditions, not by me.  Unless and until you are prepared to accept that, we can get nowhere.  Denouncing visions and the supernatural is not science, but meaningless and illogical pseudo-science.

Archeological excavations and crime scenes are studied by scientists  through hard forensic scientific analysis of artifacts and other materials taken back to the lab -- where one puts them through a battery of tests which provide data.  Microscopy and electron-micorscopy are sometimes useful, as are biochemical analyses (such as DNA)  and spectroscopic analyses.

You say that you understand science, but have you ever been in a science lab?  How many years of science did you have in high school?  How many in college?

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess that is just the point:  I did not at any time suggest that one could "make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab," and I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from anything I said.  Real science has nothing to do with delusions and supernaturalism.  It can only deal with the natural world.  As long as you are stuck on delusions and supernaturalism, we cannot communicate at all.  Once you put that behind you, and are prepared to deal with science and the experimental method, we might be able to make some progress.

Pretend science is not science.  Real science is defined by scientists under laboratory conditions, not by me.  Unless and until you are prepared to accept that, we can get nowhere.  Denouncing visions and the supernatural is not science, but meaningless and illogical pseudo-science.

Archeological excavations and crime scenes are studied by scientists  through hard forensic scientific analysis of artifacts and other materials taken back to the lab -- where one puts them through a battery of tests which provide data.  Microscopy and electron-micorscopy are sometimes useful, as are biochemical analyses (such as DNA)  and spectroscopic analyses.

You say that you understand science, but have you ever been in a science lab?  How many years of science did you have in high school?  How many in college?

This is also @clarkgoble

And @hope_for_things

Thanks Bob I quite agree!

But I think what we have here is a "failure to communicate"! 

William James speaks of "radical empiricism" in which true science is engaged in discovering also empirical accounts of phenomenological experiences, which is relevant here in that a "true science" would explore ALL of human experience, including the MAJOR insight, which I think you recognize, of social constructivism that what science explores is the HUMAN experience and human experience only, in the community of scientists.

Science within its divisions explores "reality" as always seen through a human lens and cannot escape or separate the human experience of reality from reality "as it is" but it is the rare scientist who understands this.

The key to all this is understanding what "objectivity" is and is not and how objectivity works.  There is an excellent, famous and watershed article by Thomas Nagel called "What Is It Like to Be a Bat"  - a peculiar name for an important work, found in its entirety here:

https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

The central issue of the essay is making the point that what humans observe are.... human observations and not necessarily "reality" and that other beings like perhaps whales and dolphins and bats - and perhaps alien species- would see things from a different perspective than we do and then actually make science more "objective" because more perspectives could be added to what each species sees as its own "reality".

He makes the point that true objectivity is in some sense another side of the coin of subjectivity when one realizes that every scientific observation published as "objective" are actually a pool of individual private experiences.  True objectivity becomes a pool of many experiences that we describe as similar or identical to the observations of others, yet they are still about the commonality of individual  human observations.   When a scientist across the world replicates an experiment of another, he follows a "recipe" which predicts a private experience he will have which "confirms" the private experience of the dozens or hundreds or thousands of others who have had the "same" experience. 

"Put the well defined sample of "substance x" into the gizmo-meter and subject it to these conditions- and you will observe the gizmo meter dial to point to the reading "ABC" indicating the presence of substance xx in the sample"

That is the recipe- the human scientist follows the recipe and gets the same observation- and now we call it "objective verification of reality" when what it is, is a repeated observation of something NOT directly observed- because we have not nor could we, get outside of human observations to "reality"

We might CALL it "reality" but all it "really" is is an observation which one human brain pronounces to be  the "same" as the observation of another human brain

If we were sitting in a cafe and I suddenly saw a pink elephant fly across the ceiling- I would immediately without even thinking- turn to you and say "DID YOU SEE THAT?"  It would be instinctive.!  I would be looking for a confirmation of my private experience of seeing the pink elephant.  This is the beginning of determining an "objective" observation.   Did someone else see it?

Suppose you DID see it!!  What would immediately happen?  We would turn to others in the cafe and point toward the ceiling and say "DID YOU see that?""

We would be confirming the observation that we both had and see if others saw the same "thing"

Some would see it presumably directly above their heads.  Others would see the left side, others the right side.

All these additional observations, now becoming communal, give different perspectives to the original observation- but now they are  still communal OBSERVATIONS of humans making observations and uttering linguistic descriptions of their observations- filtered thought their perceptions and the language they learned as children with all the hermeneutic issues attached and intact.

At some point, when Galileo first looked through his primitive telescope and "discovered" the rings of Saturn- THAT was a private experience.  When any scientist in the world performs any publishable experience- going through the same procedures- he gets the same observation.

And because they are consistent we might say he is seeing "reality" when in fact all we know is that the OBSERVATIONS are DESCRIBED in a similar fashion.

And now Nagel makes the point that even a bat would have another observation perspective which would confirm or establish another perspective never understood by a human thereby in some sense making those observations even "more objective" about the "thing in itself" than humans could understand.   There would be information in the bat's "description" if it could be gleaned- not available to humans BECAUSE of his organs of perception are different than ours- YET it would STILL be more perceptions and still not reveal all of what the object is "itself".

So Nagel makes the point that a true science- something to work toward- would first understand that the perceptions - are not of "what is" but of different viewpoints AS viewpoints- and NOT "reality"

This is the Pragmatic point that Pragmatism eliminates the "appearance reality distinction" which I have quoted so many times in my favorite Rorty video.

When science KNOWS that what it studies is appearance, the theory goes that such phenomena as Joseph's vision could be accounted for, even if it could not be replicated- it would be able to study such phenomena in a scientific manner.

And I think that is what you are essentially saying to Gray here.

In medieval times pictures appearing out of the air would be "witchcraft" but now we see them as a very common experience called "television".   Theoretically IF we knew enough about how we perceive matter in a refined state- we might be able to understand the physics of visions as we now understand television.  There is nothing supernatural about television though in medieval times it might have been thought of that way.

Once we understand that ALL phenomena we observe are interactions of something outside us with the physical properties of our bodies, and that all these are at least now theoretically subject to scientific observation once science catches up- there will BE no "supernatural" because it is all "natural"

And once we understand more about the observations scientists make and call "physics" we may indeed have much more to say about objective theories about how Joseph's body was able to generate/receive what we now call "visions" in our primitive state of descriptive ability.

But until we can talk to bats and whales and alien intelligence, I think we will still be stuck not knowing "reality" in itself but simply our perceptions of it- and then THEN we will simply have different perspectives of what is out there which cannot by definition be perceived because "Now we see though a glass darkly, but then face to face".

God is the only one who can perceive "what really is".

Til then we can do our best but let's remember that for us there is no distinction between appearance and reality.  Joseph's dream was real.  How do I know?  The spirit tells me.  Is that supernatural?  Not if we knew how it all worked!

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think I mentioned Ghostbusters or anything resembling Dr. Venkman, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If you have an idea how to make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab, I'm all ears. The floor is yours.

Central to your point here is that science sees "reality" and therefore could theoretically- IF we knew enough about visions- make them falsifiable since the vision did not "correspond to reality" which is of course what science observes

If we give up on the reality /appearance distinction suddenly what science studies is human perception and not "reality"

Suddenly psychology becomes the "Queen of the Sciences" instead of physics because psychology knows that all human knowledge is a psychological state about how we perceive what is called "reality", and therefore visions like all human observations are not about something outside ourselves but how we create theories which describe our own perceptions to account for what happens to us.

See Rorty's book "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

Quote

 

Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty explains how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

 

But when you give up the reality/appearance distinction you know that "what you see is what you get".

What Joseph saw no more corresponds to "reality" than what we see, it is just that his was a private perception that we cannot replicate.  Perhaps if we knew more about how what we call "physics" interacts with the human brain/mind in interpreting what is called "reality", that would be helpful.

But still what is the problem is the reality/appearance distinction.   It ain't real. 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It can only deal with the natural world. 

Perhaps this was brought up earlier in the thread (sorry, I'm just skimming), but doesn't Mormonism believe in naturalism and materialism? Spirit is just refined matter seems to put spirit in the realm where science should be able to detect it (if it is matter). Also, God having a body, living in a physical location, part of time, etc, lends itself to scientific inquiry.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You say that you understand science, but have you ever been in a science lab?  How many years of science did you have in high school?  How many in college?

Philosophers of science understand what science is better than scientists, because scientists study the subject of inquiry (chemicals, biology, etc), while philosophers of science study science itself. Scientists themselves routinely make mistakes about science that philosophy of science has refuted.

So, your question should probably ask about philosophy of science instead of asking how many years of lab work.

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Philosophers of science understand what science is better than scientists, because scientists study the subject of inquiry (chemicals, biology, etc), while philosophers of science study science itself. Scientists themselves routinely make mistakes about science that philosophy of science has refuted.

So, your question should probably ask about philosophy of science instead of asking how many years of lab work.

Philosophy of science is very important, but that does not supersede elementary knowledge of lab procedures.  I got 4 years of science in high school, and further science classes in college.  That together with at least 4 classes in philosophy, logic, and critical thinking in college helped me put it all in context.  In addition, I started reading Isaac Asimov, Fred Hoyle, and many other scientist-scyfy writers when I was 12.  At 18 I was reading C. P. Snow while on an attack transport in the East China Sea, and soon graduated to Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, and Karl Popper.

One of the most difficult classes I ever took was Paleoethnobotany at UCLA.  As archeologists, we typically gather materials in the field and then bring them back to the lab for study and evaluation.  Same procedure for crime scenes (I have a certificate in crime scene analysis).  Ethereal philosophy and theology is of little value in the absence of hard forensic evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this was brought up earlier in the thread (sorry, I'm just skimming), but doesn't Mormonism believe in naturalism and materialism? Spirit is just refined matter seems to put spirit in the realm where science should be able to detect it (if it is matter). Also, God having a body, living in a physical location, part of time, etc, lends itself to scientific inquiry.

Those are the LDS basics.  However, finding evidence of a finite, naturalistic god is no easier for us than detecting dark matter and dark energy.  We simply do not have the instruments or lab procedures for that.  Consequently, we have to apply the instruments we do have to examine and validate natural phenomena which can be measured and which verify the artifacts of God's actions.  The best we seem able to do in that vein is Bayesian statistical indications -- preponderance of evidence.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Philosophers of science understand what science is better than scientists, because scientists study the subject of inquiry (chemicals, biology, etc), while philosophers of science study science itself. Scientists themselves routinely make mistakes about science that philosophy of science has refuted.

So, your question should probably ask about philosophy of science instead of asking how many years of lab work.

Really depends upon the topic. Heaven knows there's a lot of naive scientists. However it's pretty hard to have a humanities degree and get science. So the best philosophers of science have both typically. Can't really understand philosophy of physics without being able to do the math (which is quite complex). Also a problem some philosophers of science have is being too prescriptive without being aware of the nuances of how the science is actually done. That sociology of practiced science was a big problem with a lot of philosophy of science in the 20th century although since the 80's they've done a much better job.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this was brought up earlier in the thread (sorry, I'm just skimming), but doesn't Mormonism believe in naturalism and materialism? Spirit is just refined matter seems to put spirit in the realm where science should be able to detect it (if it is matter). Also, God having a body, living in a physical location, part of time, etc, lends itself to scientific inquiry.

Somewhat. The meaning of D&C 131 is pretty nebulous. Typically Mormons are materialists but they don't have to be. I think a case could be made that many Mormons who adopt a tripartite model of the human soul (body, spirit, intelligence) treat intelligence as immaterial. So the assumption that Mormons are physicalists seems false, although it's a common position. 

Mormons do think God and spirits are essentially spatially located. However things are really surprisingly open beyond that.

Edited November 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Central to your point here is that science sees "reality" and therefore could theoretically- IF we knew enough about visions- make them falsifiable since the vision did not "correspond to reality" which is of course what science observes

If we give up on the reality /appearance distinction suddenly what science studies is human perception and not "reality"

I think that's an artificial divide even though I agree with what you wrote earlier. I'd call objectivity as a kind of intersubjective agreement. That's why Peirce sees the real as still caught up with subjectivity, just not what any particular set of subjects might say. I think that tends to avoid why people worry about subjectivity. In practice people worry about subjectivity due to particularities of how an individual judgment is made. It's errancy due to the single individual that I think we have to at least try and overcome. To me the whole subjective/objective dichotomy ultimately is a bit of a side show since what we're really trying to do is less what Nagel was after than simply reduce error. At a certain point of reducing error what's left is the only sense of reality that really matters IMO.

The question with Joseph's First Vision is less about subjectivity than it is about error in the descriptions.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...........................

Somewhat. The meaning of D&C 131 is pretty nebulous. Typically Mormons are materialists but they don't have to be. I think a case could be made that many Mormons who adopt a tripartite model of the human soul (body, spirit, intelligence) treat intelligence as immaterial. So the assumption that Mormons are physicalists seems false, although it's a common position. 

Mormons do think God and spirits are essentially spatially located. However things are really surprisingly open beyond that.

Intelligence is a mystery.  Since it is the only identifiable part of us which has been coexistent with God forever (all else being some sort of material addition or construct), we might define it as the entelechy or nous from which godlings are made, but that doesn't actually tell us what it is.  And that takes us back to "the absurdities of immaterialism."  Could it be that immaterialism is a contradiction in terms?  And Illogical?  No physical law we know of allows matter or energy to be destroyed, and we know of nothing in the universe outside those two interchangeable categories.

[Exiled]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The question with Joseph's First Vision is less about subjectivity than it is about error in the descriptions.

For me, Joseph makes this claim to have seen something, not unlike what many of his contemporaries claimed at the time.  Then there is the confusion with some of the accounts regarding moroni/nephi's appearance in conjunction with getting the plates and the "first" vision, e.g., what was really first and was the "first" vision even spoken about prior to 1832 and was the real first vision that of moroni/nephi?  Finally, there is the problem as you say with the various descriptions.  The accounts seem to get more fantastical as time goes on.  First only Jesus appeared, then it becomes many angles appearing, and finally God himself is there (a really fantastical claim given that the Bible and the D&C say that no one can see the face of God and live).  The result is a lot of confusion.

[Gray]

On 11/3/2018 at 3:21 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess that is just the point:  I did not at any time suggest that one could "make a vision from God falsifiable that involves science lab," and I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from anything I said.  Real science has nothing to do with delusions and supernaturalism.  It can only deal with the natural world.  As long as you are stuck on delusions and supernaturalism, we cannot communicate at all.  Once you put that behind you, and are prepared to deal with science and the experimental method, we might be able to make some progress.

Pretend science is not science.  Real science is defined by scientists under laboratory conditions, not by me.  Unless and until you are prepared to accept that, we can get nowhere.  Denouncing visions and the supernatural is not science, but meaningless and illogical pseudo-science.

Archeological excavations and crime scenes are studied by scientists  through hard forensic scientific analysis of artifacts and other materials taken back to the lab -- where one puts them through a battery of tests which provide data.  Microscopy and electron-micorscopy are sometimes useful, as are biochemical analyses (such as DNA)  and spectroscopic analyses.

You say that you understand science, but have you ever been in a science lab?  How many years of science did you have in high school?  How many in college?

I suppose I asked about laboratory science, only because you kept bringing it up. That made me think you had something in mind in that direction, as a way to test visions in some way.

As to my science experience, I'm not a science nor have I ever represented myself to be a scientist. I have basic familiarity with the scientific method from both general science requirement courses in college and from being a curious adult who reads science news and watches science programs from time to time. Baseline layperson stuff.

Did you have some specific scientific approach in mind that could reasonably test the "validity" of visions (ie whether or not there is a source external to the mind)? Because as you might recall, my original statement was that I didn't think they could be practically tested, as a way to verify that the source was from a third party. My original comments:

 

Quote

Yes, I agree. A visionary experience is by definition something internal and subjective to the person experiencing it, rather than an external, objective experience.

I don't attribute them to the supernatural. Visions are a natural part of the human experience. A sizeable percentage of the population experiences them. Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable. Personally I don't think God literally sends communications to anyone, but that doesn't mean people don't really experience visions.

 

To which you replied: "Natural systems are always subject to hard, forensic examination."

I never hinted that I was talking about the supernatural. But I'm still curious to see what hard forensic examination you have in mind. Whatever method might be applied, I think we both know the faithful ultimately rejected falsification when they don't like the answer, and find different interpretations that allow them to maintain their original paradigm. It doesn't matter whether you define Mormonism as naturalistic or not. That's easy to see in the rather disappointing results in studies about the efficacy of prayer. Alternative interpretations are always available.

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I suppose I asked about laboratory science, only because you kept bringing it up. That made me think you had something in mind in that direction, as a way to test visions in some way..........................

Did you have some specific scientific approach in mind that could reasonably test the "validity" of visions (ie whether or not there is a source external to the mind)? Because as you might recall, my original statement was that I didn't think they could be practically tested, as a way to verify that the source was from a third party. My original comments:.......................

Quote

A visionary experience is by definition something internal and subjective to the person experiencing it, rather than an external, objective experience.

I don't attribute them to the supernatural. Visions are a natural part of the human experience. A sizeable percentage of the population experiences them. Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable. Personally I don't think God literally sends communications to anyone, but that doesn't mean people don't really experience visions.

To which you replied: "Natural systems are always subject to hard, forensic examination."

A scientist would want hard data to show that visions are by definition either internal & subjective, or external & objective.  Instead, you have reached an apriori conclusion that visions are always internal & subjective.  Then, in contradiction to your apriori conclusion, you state that whether there is anything external going on is unknowable.  If it is unknowable, how is it that you are prepared to make definite statements about it?  Since we cannot replicate in any lab the circumstances and phenomena of prayer or visions, no purpose is served by pretending to do so in a scientific manner.  Instead, we need to closely examine the artifacts of those visionary claims:  The Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham provide plenty of grist for the scientific mill.  There are a host ways in which questioned document examiners study such questions, and many scientific avenues of approach are available.  One of the most recent and vexing is the work of Skousen & Carmack.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwt-1hqRlyE&feature=youtu.be .  Decades of such careful scientific work must not be ignored.

Quote

I never hinted that I was talking about the supernatural. But I'm still curious to see what hard forensic examination you have in mind. Whatever method might be applied, I think we both know the faithful ultimately rejected falsification when they don't like the answer, and find different interpretations that allow them to maintain their original paradigm.

Science never accepts or rejects data based on bias or prejudice.  That misunderstanding indicates that you simply have not had any real scientific experience.

Quote

It doesn't matter whether you define Mormonism as naturalistic or not.

Of course it matters.  If Mormonism rejects belief in supernaturalism, why would you or anyone else object?  Such a rejection is a self-declaration that all natural systems are subject to naturalistic inquiry.  Delusions and the supernatural are automatically outside the pale of that sort of inquiry.  You seem always to miss that crucial point.

Quote

That's easy to see in the rather disappointing results in studies about the efficacy of prayer. Alternative interpretations are always available.

It is only a pseudo-scientist who would put the question of the efficacy of prayer to a lab test.  That is not only silly, but also extremely irresponsible.  On the other hand, I thought it very useful in a practical sense to have Harry Houdini closely examining all claimants of real seances or real magic.  Naturally Harry found that all of them engaged in trickery

Edited November 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

On 11/3/2018 at 8:11 PM, clarkgoble said:

I think that's an artificial divide even though I agree with what you wrote earlier. I'd call objectivity as a kind of intersubjective agreement. That's why Peirce sees the real as still caught up with subjectivity, just not what any particular set of subjects might say. I think that tends to avoid why people worry about subjectivity. In practice people worry about subjectivity due to particularities of how an individual judgment is made. It's errancy due to the single individual that I think we have to at least try and overcome. To me the whole subjective/objective dichotomy ultimately is a bit of a side show since what we're really trying to do is less what Nagel was after than simply reduce error. At a certain point of reducing error what's left is the only sense of reality that really matters IMO.

The question with Joseph's First Vision is less about subjectivity than it is about error in the descriptions.

How could one discover "errors" in the descriptions ? 

Not possible.

Inconsistencies in memory?

When do those NOT happen over the years?

To me that is proof that something "real' happened.  Ever argue with siblings about some childhood event?

It seems inconsistent to me two on one hand speak up the peculiarities of subjectivity and then still insist that there could be "errors" in descriptions of a vision.

On one hand they are natural "peculiarities" and on the other and they are "errors."

I don't think Nagel would ever use the word "error" in speaking about descriptions. 

Nagels whole point is that there is no such thing as an accurate description of 'reality", and he is but one representative of an entire School of contemporary philosophy which is widely accepted, including Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Davidson, Rorty, Searle and many many others.

And yet here we still sit demanding accuracy of a vision and condemning errors.

And yet their point of view makes our case stronger but of course we miss that point entirely. They all think as we do in the mode of Alma 32 and Moroni 10, even some of them as atheists, yet we do not adopt their strong strong arguments in favor of such phenomena, still demanding the false notion of Correspondence of language to reality.

Well if the church lasts through another hundred years of it's present believer's lack of theology, I'm sure our great-grandchildren will finally figure it out and let the stone roll forth and allow the church to become what it should be.

It always takes a few hundred years for a new world religion to take hold if it survives that long.

Eastern religions get it. Maybe they will save us from our Western Heritage. We have had this problem of mixing science and religion since Copernicus. It just doesn't exist over there. They understand spirituality.

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

On 11/5/2018 at 8:29 AM, mfbukowski said:

How could one discover "errors" in the descriptions ? 

Consistency as better and better inquiry is done. It seems odd to deny there aren't erroneous descriptions. Surely that's a fact of life.

On 11/5/2018 at 8:29 AM, mfbukowski said:

I don't think Nagel would ever use the word "error" in speaking about descriptions. 

Isn't his whole line of reasoning in critiquing moral luck precisely that? He doesn't have a full answer, recognizing that the sources of our morality are not purely from within us in a conscious sense. I think though Peirce anticipated that line of reasoning long ago. Nagel is skeptical of traditional accounts of agency (as am I) but I don't see how that means error doesn't apply. I rather like Nagel's analogy to epistemology in his "Moral Luck."

"...knowledge consists of true beliefs formed in certain ways, and that it does not require all aspects of the process to be under the knower's control, actually or potentially. Both the correctness of these beliefs and the process by which they are arrived at would therefore be importantly subject to luck. The Nobel Prize is not awarded to people who turn out to be wrong, no matter how brilliant their reasoning."

The very notion of luck, especially as used by Nagel, presupposes that error makes sense. Otherwise luck isn't a criticism at all. Now one could read Nagel as promoting a kind of epistemological and moral nihilism. I don't think that's his intent though. Rather I think he's just critiquing a certain stance towards epistmology and morality that sees them in absolute terms. Again Peirce was critiquing this and offering solutions a century earlier.

Edited November 7, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

On 11/4/2018 at 10:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

A scientist would want hard data to show that visions are by definition either internal & subjective, or external & objective.  Instead, you have reached an apriori conclusion that visions are always internal & subjective. 

I don't present that as a scientific conclusion, just my opinion based on observation. I suppose from a scientific perspective that would be the null hypothesis.

 

Quote

Then, in contradiction to your apriori conclusion, you state that whether there is anything external going on is unknowable.  If it is unknowable, how is it that you are prepared to make definite statements about it? 

Are we on a board about Mormonism or aren't we?

 

Quote

Since we cannot replicate in any lab the circumstances and phenomena of prayer or visions, no purpose is served by pretending to do so in a scientific manner.  Instead, we need to closely examine the artifacts of those visionary claims: 

Whether or not the BOM or BOA are historical (spoiler: they almost certainly aren't) really has no bearing on the first vision, Robert. That should be obvious.

 

Quote

The Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham provide plenty of grist for the scientific mill.  There are a host ways in which questioned document examiners study such questions, and many scientific avenues of approach are available.  One of the most recent and vexing is the work of Skousen & Carmack.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwt-1hqRlyE&feature=youtu.be .  Decades of such careful scientific work must not be ignored.

Thanks for clarifying at least what you were getting at before.

 

Quote

Science never accepts or rejects data based on bias or prejudice.  That misunderstanding indicates that you simply have not had any real scientific experience.

Who said that it did? Straw men make great sparring partners, right?

 

Quote

Of course it matters.  If Mormonism rejects belief in supernaturalism, why would you or anyone else object?  Such a rejection is a self-declaration that all natural systems are subject to naturalistic inquiry.  Delusions and the supernatural are automatically outside the pale of that sort of inquiry.  You seem always to miss that crucial point. 

You mean one interpretation of Mormonism rejects supernaturalism. That's not what's really happening in normative, 21st century Mormonism, however. And almost all strains of Mormonism posit supernatural-like experiences. Mormon naturalism is after all merely taking traditionally supernatural experiences and redefining them as natural, without the actual scientific rigor normally accompanying naturalism.

 

Quote

It is only a pseudo-scientist who would put the question of the efficacy of prayer to a lab test.  That is not only silly, but also extremely irresponsible.  On the other hand, I thought it very useful in a practical sense to have Harry Houdini closely examining all claimants of real seances or real magic.  Naturally Harry found that all of them engaged in trickery

Real scientists have tested it. Results so far seem consistent with the placebo affect. Nothing wrong with that - a real naturalist would expect that to be the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer#Studies_on_the_efficacy_of_prayer

Edited November 8, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't present that as a scientific conclusion, just my opinion based on observation. I suppose from a scientific perspective that would be the null hypothesis.

Are we on a board about Mormonism or aren't we?

Scientists do not wallow in illogic or unscientific assertions.  You seem not to understand that.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Whether or not the BOM or BOA are historical (spoiler: they almost certainly aren't) really has no bearing on the first vision, Robert. That should be obvious.

Since such works are the physical artifacts of Joseph's visions (plural) and claims, they are certainly subject to forensic verification pro or con.  Indeed, under the rules of Bayesian analysis, the preponderance of evidence carries the day -- and can even verify biblical claims, since they are part of the context of the BofM and BofA claims.  The hard historical claims made in those works are readily testable by science and have presented us with an overwhelming case for positive verification.  You clearly do not understand the rules of extrapolation in science.  Facts do not stand independently.  They have far reaching scientific implications.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Thanks for clarifying at least what you were getting at before.

Who said that it did? Straw men make great sparring partners, right?

Your commitment to apriorism is itself indicative of rejection of science and logic.  Those who reject hard forensic evidence traditionally do just what you do:  "Take em out and hang em.  No need for evidence or a trial !!"  Your commitment to lynch law for things Mormon tells us where you stand on science.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You mean one interpretation of Mormonism rejects supernaturalism. That's not what's really happening in normative, 21st century Mormonism, however. And almost all strains of Mormonism posit supernatural-like experiences. Mormon naturalism is after all merely taking traditionally supernatural experiences and redefining them as natural, without the actual scientific rigor normally accompanying naturalism.

Yokels do often think that Mormonism is just as supernaturally oriented as any other religion.  However, even if that were so (which it is not), supernaturalism is not subject to scientific inquiry.  Since you consider Mormonism to be supernatural, you agree with me that Mormon visions and personal revelation it is out of bounds for scientific inquiry.  Since visions and personal revelation are not amenable to laboratory experiment or controlled observation, we are not able to scientifically examine them -- even if Mormonism is naturalistic at base.  Science can only examine real, tangible artifacts, not subjective feelings and conjectures.  That is why a testimony is personal and non-transferrable.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Real scientists have tested it. Results so far seem consistent with the placebo affect. Nothing wrong with that - a real naturalist would expect that to be the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer#Studies_on_the_efficacy_of_prayer

Again, only a yokel would consider a subjective vision, prayer, or personal revelation as testable by science.  Real scientists know that such claims cannot be tested by science.  Religion is a subjective belief system, which may or may not correspond to reality.  One may only test the artifacts of such a belief system, not the belief system itself.  The methods of testing are already available within academic disciplines such as archeology, linguistics, physics, chemistry, biology, math, and the like.

In his book The Tao of Physics, physicist Fritjof Capra correctly understood that he could not directly test the claims of Eastern philosophy or religion.  Instead, he compared the conclusions of modern Western physics with the teachings of Eastern philosophy & religion.  He was surprised to find that the ancient Eastern teachings corresponded closely with modern physics.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/7/2018 at 8:17 AM, clarkgoble said:

Consistency as better and better inquiry is done. It seems odd to deny there aren't erroneous descriptions. Surely that's a fact of life.

Isn't his whole line of reasoning in critiquing moral luck precisely that? He doesn't have a full answer, recognizing that the sources of our morality are not purely from within us in a conscious sense. I think though Peirce anticipated that line of reasoning long ago. Nagel is skeptical of traditional accounts of agency (as am I) but I don't see how that means error doesn't apply. I rather like Nagel's analogy to epistemology in his "Moral Luck."

"...knowledge consists of true beliefs formed in certain ways, and that it does not require all aspects of the process to be under the knower's control, actually or potentially. Both the correctness of these beliefs and the process by which they are arrived at would therefore be importantly subject to luck. The Nobel Prize is not awarded to people who turn out to be wrong, no matter how brilliant their reasoning."

The very notion of luck, especially as used by Nagel, presupposes that error makes sense. Otherwise luck isn't a criticism at all. Now one could read Nagel as promoting a kind of epistemological and moral nihilism. I don't think that's his intent though. Rather I think he's just critiquing a certain stance towards epistmology and morality that sees them in absolute terms. Again Peirce was critiquing this and offering solutions a century earlier.

I just discovered this today, Sat. 

For some reason I did not get my usual notifications of a reply to my post.

Ordinarily I would give a short response but this time let's do it in some detail  to include others who are not familiar with these points as we are, and so I have an account to post in other places.

We were talking about the First Vision and you commented earlier that it would be possible to discover more "errors" in the descriptions of the vision

You said: "The question with Joseph's First Vision is less about subjectivity than it is about error in the descriptions."

Then I replied "How could one discover "errors" in the descriptions ? "

And your answer started this post as follows: 

"Consistency as better and better inquiry is done. It seems odd to deny there aren't erroneous descriptions. Surely that's a fact of life."

This seems to me to not apply at all to Joseph's vision, so I am wondering what you intended to say here.

"Better inquiry" into a personal vision of a person which allegedly occurred 200 years ago seems obviously to me to be impossible.  In fact any serious "inquiry" into any personal spiritual experience seems to me to be impossible.

But perhaps your comment was simply to make the point that "errors exist" and that better inquiry solves the problem of errors.

With that I heartily agree!  

But I fail to see how that adds to our discussion about Joseph or even Nagel.  Nagel wrote about epistemological issues of course as you well know and how one inquires about "things as they are" as opposed to how we experience them- our central bone of contention when we discuss Rorty or Peirce or Nagel.  Nagel's entire point was that what we observe are OBSERVATIONS of "reality" and not reality itself.

And of course neither Nagel nor I would argue that it is impossible to make an error in observation- but an error in observation is just that- still an error in OBSERVATION- and the mere existence of error hardly indicates that what is happening in an error is a faulty perception of "reality as it is".

Let me introduce an abbreviation- WWOTB will stand for "What we observe to be"  So for example, the phrase "What we observe to be water" would be abbreviated as "wwotb water"

The reason I am using this is to emphasize that Pragmatists seek to eliminate the "Reality/Appearance" distinction.

That means that "reality" as we know it is always just that- reality as we observe reality- and not necessarily reality itself since all observations are filtered through our human minds.  That is the position of all those philosophers whom I have quoted- Wittgenstein (later) Rorty, Nagel, Davidson, Quine, Searle, etc.

So now let's talk about a common experience about which probably everyone has made an error, especially here in the Western USA where we have long roads in the sun which are seldom shaded by surrounding trees or buildings etc. 

We may look down these roads and "see water" on the road.  But are we actually "seeing water"?   That is what I would like to question.  And to that I would like to ask an additional question- do we ever see "Water as it is"?

I know that sounds absurd but let's carry it further.

So I will now suggest that what we see in such a case of driving down the road is what I have abbreviated before - wwotb water.

I think that we will find that if we think this way about the experience of "seeing water" will make it easier to understand my point- we never "see water" what we see is wwotb "water".  We see what we OBSERVE to be water- not water itself.

So driving down the road we see wwotb water on the road ahead of us.  Of course we know where this is going- we have made an error in perception and when we arrive at the spot in which we were supposed to observe "water" we only find wwotb more concrete roadway!

Of course we call this a "mirage".   If we were hoping to get a drink from wwotb water because we were dying of thirst- oops!

So "further inquiry", as you mention DOES IN FACT show us "error"  So you are perfectly right- at least half way

But where is the error?  Is it in "reality" or is it in "correspondence" of our observations to "reality"?

Suppose we arrive at the place where we observed water and in fact find wwotb a puddle of water!  YAY!  We are saved!  No death by thirst today!!

So we bend down to take a drink and suddenly we smell an odd odor.  Wwotb water now smells an awful lot wwotb "motor oil"!  Further inquiry now with our sense of smell- makes us suspicious. But is it "really" motor oil or just wwotb motor oil?   Further inquiry is called for!

We might get brave and put our finger on the substance.  It feels slimy.  Our fingers now "observe" more information by using our sense of touch- but it is still wwotb possible "oil" but it is not yet completely confirmed.  I mean our life depends on getting this right- maybe we could drink it but it's just a little tainted with wwotb oil.

And so further inquiry is called for.  I will not belabor the point any longer- maybe now we taste it.  Nope.  Now let's take it further to make the point.  We call out a lab tech to analyze the substance.  He does his procedures and we still do not get beyond what HE -in this case- observes his instruments to tell him that this is NOT H20 but the chemical formula for what we call "oil"

I hope the point by this time is clear- even with more and more inquiry we still end up ONLY with WHAT WE OBSERVE.

We never get to "water itself" or "oil itself" but only what we observe!

So all the inquiry in the world will never get us "BEYOND" what we observe to "reality itself"

I went to a friend's house the other evening, and he has a monstrous telescope he built himself and we were looking first at Mars and then other stars and objects.

He remarked that even with near objects like Mars we were not seeing them "as they are" but as they were anywhere from a few minutes ago or in cases of distant stars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago.

But then I brought up this point and then extended it to even his telescope itself and what it was causing the light to do in order to bring that light into our brains/mind/perceptions/observations and brought this up this point that we can NEVER get "outside" of our observations and... what we observe it to be!

So no, further inquiry is not possible into what Joseph's mind saw- and to be a true skeptic I have to say "if anything" though in my heart I completely believe him.

Now to get to the rest of your comment - hopefully illuminated at least a little by what I have said so far.

Regarding Nagel you said that his view required "error" and therefore I suppose you meant that in terms of "errors in perceiving this as they are" when in fact what he was talking about was "Errors in observations" which NEVER get to things as they are- HOW We Observe Them

Quote

 

Isn't his whole line of reasoning in critiquing moral luck precisely that? He doesn't have a full answer, recognizing that the sources of our morality are not purely from within us in a conscious sense. I think though Peirce anticipated that line of reasoning long ago. Nagel is skeptical of traditional accounts of agency (as am I) but I don't see how that means error doesn't apply. I rather like Nagel's analogy to epistemology in his "Moral Luck."

 

Pragmatists think in an evolutionary manner.

Think of the theory of natural selection which drives the theory of evolution.  According to both theories, yes, errors are necessary to find what we call the "truth" of the matter - which both pragmatists and evolutionists see as relative to how the theories the observations engender work.

On the road our theory was that what we observed was water.  Further inquiry shows errors in our interpretation of observation and leads us to another interpretation- that drinking the substance would probably cause our death, which was too risky an experiment to make. 

Drinking it would not have brought about a desirable or "lucky" end.

I love the Didache which speaks of the "Way of Life" as opposed to the "Way of Death" and quite honestly I think Nagel would agree with that work and is precisely what he is talking about in his essay on "Moral Luck"

But of course he is an atheist and so does not think in terms of God.

So his view is one of a social evolutionist.  Morality simply "works" after civilization has experimented with its tenets for thousands upon thousands of years.   If one covets another's spouse, undesirable effects will happen and the community will not be peaceful.  A community thrives on peace- the more peaceful, the more unity there is, more babies are born who thrive in times of peace.

Murder and abuse leads to "unlucky" results.  Grief and misery happens in the community.  Fewer children who now are educated in more violent ways of dealing with things are "unlucky" results of their lifestyle

It is like the Didache!  The "Way of Death" - breaking the commandments- leads to death.  The "Way of Life" leads to peace in the community and "lucky results"

It is the same principle.

Being atheist Nagel is not about to call it anything more than "lucky" because evolution in his mind is caused by random mutation

Some work some don't.  To him, it is the same with behaviors.  Millions of people over thousands of years lead to lucky and unlucky decisions and those choices are DEFINED as lucky or unlucky by their pragmatic results.

NOW let's read your next comment applying what we hopefully now understand

Quote

 

"...knowledge consists of true beliefs formed in certain ways, and that it does not require all aspects of the process to be under the knower's control, actually or potentially. Both the correctness of these beliefs and the process by which they are arrived at would therefore be importantly subject to luck. The Nobel Prize is not awarded to people who turn out to be wrong, no matter how brilliant their reasoning."

 

Pure pragmatism!!

It's evolution in action- leading to lucky results which work or unlucky results which do not work.  Now we- you and I - can see it differently- perhaps that "Godless evolution" might well be "Godly evolution" but yet what we are talking about here is straight Alma 32 !!

Actions lead to "sweet" results which grow into a tree of sweet results upon which we can feast upon the fruit- or to bitter results which do not result in anything "sweet" but more misery and undesirable results

What he is saying here is straight Alma 32!!

Quote

The very notion of luck, especially as used by Nagel, presupposes that error makes sense. Otherwise luck isn't a criticism at all. Now one could read Nagel as promoting a kind of epistemological and moral nihilism. I don't think that's his intent though. Rather I think he's just critiquing a certain stance towards epistmology and morality that sees them in absolute terms. Again Peirce was critiquing this and offering solutions a century earlier.

The very notion of being rewarded with "sweet results" as used by Alma presupposes that error makes sense in teaching us what is "wrong"

And indeed when one says Alma teaches to "do what feels good" one can say that is Epicurean Nihilism.  It can be seen both ways. Epicurus taught that pleasure was the highest value.  And people take that to mean that he meant that sex drugs and rock n roll were the highest values  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Of course what he really meant was something quite close to Stoicism and what Alma teaches, as well.

And so as you know, that is the problem with pragmatism in general when one says "truth is what works".   It can be taken many different ways.