clarkgoble Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 Just now, mfbukowski said: I would just like to point out that what you are describing is a psychological state of absence of doubt. It says nothing about the world "out there". But it depends upon the interaction between the two. So it's not only psychological. I'm here rejecting solipsism as I find it implausible. Without sollipsipsism the assumption of something other than me seems impossible to doubt.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: But it depends upon the interaction between the two. So it's not only psychological. I'm here rejecting solipsism as I find it implausible. Without sollipsipsism the assumption of something other than me seems impossible to doubt. Nobody is talking about solipsism here. Not Gadamer, not James,Dewey, Rorty,or Wittgenstein, nor scientists. We are talking about communities of believers here. Peer review and 12 peers in a jury is hardly solipsism We are talking about" Beyond A Reasonable Doubt," within a community of believers. That's hardly solipsism.
clarkgoble Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 I raise sollipsism just relative to the question of an external world in idealism.
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: To me that which we can not help but believe after continued inquiry and after doing ones epistemic duty in terms of investigating in a skeptical fashion as part of inquiry is what we consider knowledge. If we can't doubt after such inquiry it is knowledge in practical terms. That doesn't mean we may not be mistaken, but again I think the idea that knowledge must be infallible to be knowledge is an unfortunate remnant of Cartesian foundationalism In fewer words, "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt." The nature of reality is determined by a jury of peers. Edited June 25, 2019 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I raise sollipsism just relative to the question of an external world in idealism. I can't think of any idealists who were solipsists can you? You have to be in the Looney Bin to think that when you talk to people especially those smarter than you they are really not there. Where do new ideas come from? I think the idealist issue is pretty clearly simply about whether or not we can know anything about the world outside of human perception/experience when human p/e is all we have to work with. Edited June 26, 2019 by mfbukowski 1
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I can't think of any idealists who were solipsists can you? Solipsism is usually just a logical position one has to deal with rather than a position anyone actually holds. (Some might point to Gorgias but I think it safe to assume Plato is giving a caricature of a real position) I think it usually pops up in the "other minds" debate. And "other minds" is where an external world becomes unavoidable I think. Other minds are the classic "other" in philosophy. So while no one takes solipsism seriously as a position to hold, I think as a logical problem it's quite interesting. One might see a lot of Berkeley's work as trying to figure out how logically to avoid solipsism, for instance.
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Solipsism is usually just a logical position one has to deal with rather than a position anyone actually holds. (Some might point to Gorgias but I think it safe to assume Plato is giving a caricature of a real position) I think it usually pops up in the "other minds" debate. And "other minds" is where an external world becomes unavoidable I think. Other minds are the classic "other" in philosophy. So while no one takes solipsism seriously as a position to hold, I think as a logical problem it's quite interesting. One might see a lot of Berkeley's work as trying to figure out how logically to avoid solipsism, for instance. I guess I am just wondering why solipsism came up at all after I said that certainty and doubt are psychological issues, and not about "the world" or its "reality". It seemed to be an exception or something to the idea that all can know is.... what humans CAN know about "reality". I can't see how that is debatable. If doubt is NOT a psychological state what could it be? I mean on this board all we talk about is that some people have "doubts" about the church and others do not. If that is not an interpretation of the data within an individual mind, what is it?
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 Rember that I see doubt and belief as non-voluntary. They just happen to us and aren't something we choose in a straightforward way. More or less the reason I think one need always keep solipsism in mind is that one has to consider what is "other" to my mind and thinking. There's an engagement there between two things. It's that engagement particular as one power influences the other that shapes its conclusions. The example of this is looking at a blue sky. My beliefs are partially psychological but unless my brain is really malfunctioning badly, I can't look at a blue sky and believe it is something else. That relationship of power is why inquiry functions and ends up being the basis of all of Peirce's philosophy.
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Rember that I see doubt and belief as non-voluntary. They just happen to us and aren't something we choose in a straightforward way. More or less the reason I think one need always keep solipsism in mind is that one has to consider what is "other" to my mind and thinking. There's an engagement there between two things. It's that engagement particular as one power influences the other that shapes its conclusions. The example of this is looking at a blue sky. My beliefs are partially psychological but unless my brain is really malfunctioning badly, I can't look at a blue sky and believe it is something else. That relationship of power is why inquiry functions and ends up being the basis of all of Peirce's philosophy. I remember my 3 year old son playing with legos, building a toy "airplane", I praised him and asked how he figured out how to do that. He said triumphantly "My brain told me!" He never had a problem thinking that the blue in the sky was something other than what his brain told him Now he teaches engineering. Edited June 26, 2019 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Rember that I see doubt and belief as non-voluntary. While I can understand where you are coming from, this is hard for me to reconcile with the gospel. Quote Doubt not, but be believing Quote While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light... But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him... Quote I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. Quote He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. If belief/doubt is not voluntary, then how are the consequences of belief (being given more light)/disbelief (abiding in darkness) just? In fact, in Alma 32 vs 28 it suggests that the only way that the test can work is if we don't cast off the seed because of unbelief - but if that unbelief is non-voluntary, then how can an unbeliever even have a shot at belief. And if he doesn't have a shot at belief, how can he be condemned for something that is non-voluntary? Edited June 26, 2019 by pogi 1
clarkgoble Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 22 minutes ago, pogi said: While I can understand where you are coming from, this is hard for me to reconcile with the gospel. If belief/doubt is not voluntary, then how are the consequences of belief (being given more light)/disbelief (abiding in darkness) just? We affect our beliefs indirectly by choosing what to focus on and what to do. So belief comes indirect from testing (Alma 32). Condemning doubt is often shorthand for condemning a refusal to engage with God. But of course it's sometimes more complex than that as with say Thomas in the Gospels. When doubt is condemned in the scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, it's because usually there's more than enough to discover the truth but people reject that because it's not what they want. In that sense it's less doubt proper than it is rejecting what they know. That's particularly the case with ethical knowledge. The person who knows it's wrong to drink but drinks anyway. They may say they doubt it's wrong, but is that a real doubt or a paper doubt? There's no shortage of fake skepticism and avoiding thinking about issues because it'd mean changing ones behavior. In the Old Testament that is the type of doubt frequently condemned particularly relative to political matters. (Don't trust Egypt to protect you from Babylon etc.) So ultimately in a gospel sense questions of belief or doubt become questions of inquiry. Do we try and find out? 1
pogi Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: So belief comes indirect from testing (Alma 32). But if I don't test out of an already established unbelief (Alma 32:28), and that unbelief is non-voluntary, then what? 1
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 4 hours ago, pogi said: But if I don't test out of an already established unbelief (Alma 32:28), and that unbelief is non-voluntary, then what? Depends upon the context and what one did. Most condemnations of unbelief to my mind are natural consequences of rejecting warnings. What passage are you thinking of?
changed Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, clarkgoble said: We affect our beliefs indirectly by choosing what to focus on and what to do. So belief comes indirect from testing (Alma 32). Condemning doubt is often shorthand for condemning a refusal to engage with God. But of course it's sometimes more complex than that as with say Thomas in the Gospels. When doubt is condemned in the scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, it's because usually there's more than enough to discover the truth but people reject that because it's not what they want. In that sense it's less doubt proper than it is rejecting what they know. That's particularly the case with ethical knowledge. The person who knows it's wrong to drink but drinks anyway. They may say they doubt it's wrong, but is that a real doubt or a paper doubt? There's no shortage of fake skepticism and avoiding thinking about issues because it'd mean changing ones behavior. In the Old Testament that is the type of doubt frequently condemned particularly relative to political matters. (Don't trust Egypt to protect you from Babylon etc.) So ultimately in a gospel sense questions of belief or doubt become questions of inquiry. Do we try and find out? Doubt for most is not refusal to engage God - quite the opposite - most ex-mo's and atheists I know have studied quite a bit more than most believers I know. Ignorance = belief. Study your brains out =doubt religious institution. Test it (go to temple, read scriptures, pray, fast, serve, see what happens) → test is failed (kids get abused, betrayal, depression - no feelings of joy or happiness, no support) → the result of "experiment on the words" leads some to horror. If God is loving and just? then great - when you study and find the teachings of a church to not be loving or just? this is not about disliking the loving/just nature of God - it is about disagreeing with church policies and histories. Edited June 27, 2019 by changed
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, changed said: Doubt for most is not refusal to engage God - quite the opposite - most ex-mo's and atheists I know have studied quite a bit more than most believers I know. Ignorance = belief. Study your brains out =doubt religious institution. Test it (go to temple, read scriptures, pray, fast, serve, see what happens) → test is failed (kids get abused, betrayal, depression - no feelings of joy or happiness, no support) → the result of "experiment on the words" leads some to horror. If God is loving and just? then great - when you study and find the teachings of a church to not be loving or just? this is not about disliking the loving/just nature of God - it is about disagreeing with church policies and histories. The question is how they engage. But there I suspect we'll just disagree. By way of analogy I know people that studied hard for an exam and still didn't get the right answers. We may be unable to doubt our beliefs if we've done inquiry, but that doesn't guarantee we've done our inquiry in such a way as to get the right answer. However over time and continued investigation we become more confident in our inquiry. To resolve disagreements in a community the solution is to examine closely how people investigate. To your other point, I think you've discussed that here a fair bit over the months and I won't get into the details. However the question is what actions are God's actions and what actions are the actions of individuals not in tune with God. Likewise there can be disputes over what is or isn't of God. Which merely takes the cycle back again. i.e. is obeying the prophet and scriptures on LGBT following God or is it unloving and unjust? How are we investigating that question? After all we may in the short term judge something as unloving that actually is intended in a loving way. (And I make no claims about having answers to everything - I have many unanswered questions. I merely have some answers I can not doubt.) Edited June 27, 2019 by clarkgoble
changed Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: The question is how they engage. But there I suspect we'll just disagree. By way of analogy I know people that studied hard for an exam and still didn't get the right answers. Outliers? Most who study hard get the right answer....
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 15 minutes ago, changed said: Outliers? Most who study hard get the right answer.... Umm. Having worked in tutorial labs in college I can definitely say that is not correct. 1
pogi Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Depends upon the context and what one did. Most condemnations of unbelief to my mind are natural consequences of rejecting warnings. What passage are you thinking of? Belief (an element of faith) is one of the first principles of the gospel, and is a prerequisite to almost all spiritual blessings, including exaltation. So, to say that it is non-voluntary, then it almost smells of predestination. For example, if person is never compelled to test the seed because of a non-voluntary unbelief, then they will miss out on the blessing in eternity for reasons that are out of their control.
Calm Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Umm. Having worked in tutorial labs in college I can definitely say that is not correct. Quote Test anxiety was detected in the 48.0% of students (n=208). Additionally, exam anxiety was found in 40.3% of the males (n=87) and in 55.8% of the girls (n=121) and the difference between them was statistically significant (p<0.001). There was a statistically significant relation between test anxiety and WURS, ASRS, STAI-II (Trait anxiety), LSAS anxiety, BDI scores. The symptoms of depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), social anxiety avoidant behavior, and the state of taking additional courses were found as the independence factors that affect the exam anxiety. A lifetime rate of suicide attempts were significantly more in those with exam anxiety. There was a relationship between test anxiety and the time spent for internet. http://www.dusunenadamdergisi.org/ing/fArticledetails.aspx?MkID=1026
changed Posted June 27, 2019 Posted June 27, 2019 47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Umm. Having worked in tutorial labs in college I can definitely say that is not correct. Umm... being a college professor I can say it is correct in my classes
clarkgoble Posted June 28, 2019 Posted June 28, 2019 18 hours ago, pogi said: Belief (an element of faith) is one of the first principles of the gospel, and is a prerequisite to almost all spiritual blessings, including exaltation. So, to say that it is non-voluntary, then it almost smells of predestination. For example, if person is never compelled to test the seed because of a non-voluntary unbelief, then they will miss out on the blessing in eternity for reasons that are out of their control. But again while belief isn't volitionary, inquiry is and that is what leads to belief. 17 hours ago, changed said: Umm... being a college professor I can say it is correct in my classes Depends upon what you are teaching and how you are grading it. In science it just wasn't true as very anxious freshmen in introductory classes can attest. Even in my upper division classes the people getting As often were only getting maybe 80% of the questions right. 1
pogi Posted June 28, 2019 Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: But again while belief isn't volitionary, inquiry is and that is what leads to belief. If this is true, then it seems that our exaltation is largely based on how inquisitive we are. While I think there is truth to that, the problem is that a previously established non-voluntary belief inhibits honest inquiry (Alma 32:28). How many people are going to honestly question whether or not the sky is blue, for example? Edited June 28, 2019 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2019 Posted June 28, 2019 53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: But again while belief isn't volitionary, inquiry is and that is what leads to belief. Not sure about that one. So what leads to inquiry then- and how far back do we want to trace the alleged causal chain and at what point does it become semantics? I think yet again about Hume on causality. What was the" cause" of our existence? Our parents? Why not our great grandparents? How about the first cell in that ancient ocean puddle? One could argue that doubt leads to inquiry, - ie- lack of belief leads to inquiry which now makes it voluntary.... and around and around we go. One has a problem and then seeks a paradigm to solve it. No problems no paradigms- nothing to solve. Sleep on the couch all day. Stimulus > response > change in state > change becomes stimulus> response etc forever. It's hard to say where it becomes "voluntary" but certainly the choice of paradigms in building our own worlds seems to be it. So there are elements of voluntary choice and random problems that pop up during the whole process. Ask an insurance adjuster. He will know all about those random problems that pop up! Voluntary or not? Our response is all that counts in that department.
clarkgoble Posted July 1, 2019 Posted July 1, 2019 (edited) On 6/28/2019 at 10:46 AM, mfbukowski said: Not sure about that one. So what leads to inquiry then- and how far back do we want to trace the alleged causal chain and at what point does it become semantics? I think yet again about Hume on causality. What was the" cause" of our existence? Our parents? Why not our great grandparents? How about the first cell in that ancient ocean puddle? I tend to see causality as ultimately not a fruitful way to think about all these issues. (I'm a Hamiltonian formulation fan rather than the Newtonian causality fan) So I'd agree causality can lead us astray. However here all I'm really saying is where we put our attention tends to be more important and produces belief. This isn't a technical point either. You see it in day to day life. Lots of people believe various false pseudoscientific ideas because they don't want to investigate. Ditto with conspiracy theories. The theories are comforting for whatever emotional reasons and investigating isn't worth it to the person. Happens all the time. I'm really not making a point about free will or volition. I've no idea what, if anything, is free in the way some demand. (Say Blake Ostler) It may well turn out that we have free will but a rather limited sort. That gets felt indirectly. All I'm saying is the rather demonstrable point that we can't by pure act of will make ourselves believe something. Given that, I'm not sure why it's fruitful to talk about belief being volitional as opposed to things where clealry I can by force of will do something, like read a book or look out a window. I think that distinction can hold without necessarily worrying about what volition even ultimately is. On 6/28/2019 at 10:02 AM, pogi said: If this is true, then it seems that our exaltation is largely based on how inquisitive we are. While I think there is truth to that, the problem is that a previously established non-voluntary belief inhibits honest inquiry (Alma 32:28). How many people are going to honestly question whether or not the sky is blue, for example? Not necessarily inquisitive. But yes, how much you care about something. That shouldn't be surprising. If salvation depends upon baptism by authority and baptism by authority requires people wanting to listen to the message and then spend enough time to pray about it, doesn't that follow necessarily? If we assume the spirit world isn't *that* different from missionary work here, then salvation will depend upon someone caring enough to find out if it's true. Most people don't. This is a long standing theological problem with the Mormon conception of salvation. The way it's typically solved (say in D&C 76) is simply by allowing a very, very long time for people to care. You're certainly correct that our beliefs impede our curiosity. But at a certain point reality has a way of crashing in against our beliefs as we continue to live. Presumably after thousands of years in the spirit world everyone will be given enough chance to care. Edited July 1, 2019 by clarkgoble
mfbukowski Posted July 2, 2019 Posted July 2, 2019 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I think that distinction can hold without necessarily worrying about what volition even ultimately is. A worry I have never had.
Recommended Posts