Jump to content

Do LDS misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness?


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Thank you for this, mfbukowski.

I realize that I haven't communicated as clearly as I'd intended, since you have misunderstood what I've been trying to do and say here.

And I won't try to explain further, as I can't be sure that I'll do any better!

If I left the impression that I'm trying to puff myself up (though I did try to explain my contribution here through a certain amount of self-description) ... that couldn't be further from the truth.  I highly respect the intelligence and depth of knowledge and experience of so many of you on this board.  I'm not a strong logical thinker, and you and others could run circles around me in a debate.  (I know ... I tried debating once, and it was absolutely terrible!  That was over 50 years ago, and I'm sure nothing has changed!)

When I think about how hard it can be to communicate clearly on a message board, I'm thinking about how wise smac is to break down the posts he's responding to, section by section, and answer as clearly, politely and respectfully as possible.

Overall, I really like this board and the people on it.  And I like the way that frequent posters have become a community, all with their different styles and quirks.  But it can be hard for people who very rarely post, to fit in.  And that's probably especially true when the 'relative stranger' comes from a different faith position.  Having said that, I also see that this board can be very welcoming and respectful of newcomers, including those who are not LDS.

I'm here to learn and to make peaceful connections where possible (my name Paloma means peace!), and sometimes to try to explain parts of my faith because I think it may be interesting or enlightening ... but I don't mean to ever be arrogant or patronizing.  It makes me sad when my attempts to 'share' are misunderstood as attempts to correct, or to argue.  

 

 

In honor of you, Paloma, I present the great Slim Whitman — the falsetto king! — belting out his unforgettable hit single Una Palmoma  Blanca! May you always be as peaceful and free as the sweet little bird in the song!

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Teddyaware, thank you!

There's a reason that I find LDS people beautiful, and you've just provided such a sweet and gracious illustration of that.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 1/4/2021 at 4:29 PM, teddyaware said:

In honor of you, Paloma, I present the great Slim Whitman — the falsetto king! — belting out his unforgettable hit single Una Palmoma  Blanca! May you always be as peaceful and free as the sweet little bird in the song!

 

I've sent this to my daughter.  I think she will have great fun with his guitar playing, but knowing her she may love the song anyway.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've sent this to my daughter.  I think she will have great fun with his guitar playing, but knowing her she may love the song anyway.

The funny thing about Slim Whitman is that while he had great success in England, in his native United States he was hardly known until a cheesy national TV commercial campaign propelled him to belated popularity. Here’s the T.V commercial that turned things around for Slim in the US in the late 1970s:

 

 

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 11:08 PM, mfbukowski said:

Very sorry. 

I am not sure how emotion figures into a discussion about logic, which to me, it was. I expected a come back straightening me out

I felt you were citing as experts on our beliefs, people you admitted did not understand our beliefs in the first place

There must have been a miscommunication, probably my fault or most likely I am just a jerk, too hardened on "anti" boards whose denizens would cite their philosophical brilliance about matters about which in reality they knew nothing.

Very sorry I have offended now you, @Navidad and @3DOP

I need to repent.

No excuses, it is not Christlike and I need to change.

Mark, please no. You have this belief...that I was offended...I wasn't...I never have been...Angry? Sometimes. Frustrated? Yes. Offended? No. Nothing ever "offended" me more than the accusation, as I perceived it, that I was offended, and that mildly. You are supposed to defeat your intellectual antagonist. You did, in my opinion, successfully interrupt my discussions with other LDS who seemed to me of being susceptible to my explanations of what the Catholic Church means by expressions like essence and nature. You would insist that my ideas (not really mine at all), taken from Aristotle, which Aquinas used in his speculative theology to explain a way of looking at Catholic theology, explains nothing. I understood you to be saying these ideas were absurd, useless, and ridiculous ideas, and you would apparently win, due, in my opinion, to my own meagre intellectual resources. I was always utterly unpersuaded and remain so, as you probably know.  I did not believe that you were entirely forthright, in believing that substance/accident philosophy is so deserving of ridicule. If I am wrong, and you truly think it is stupid, well...my apologies. In a way, I would be very pleased to know that you truly think scholastic philosophy is meaningless/absurd. But you need not say. It is okay. It almost always worked. It is hard not to use what works. I remember once, gratefully, calmoriah (name?) giving you a mild rebuke for jumping me about my alleged "Platonism". Other than that, maybe five or ten years ago, according to my recollection, all the LDS always gave way to you, and I felt like David without any stones, against you know who. You were their champion; I blame you not. I sincerely like you Mark. I haven't always, I admit. But I have seen another side to Goliath that I admire during these times when we refrain from engagement. Heh. 

Anyway...Mark...I bare my soul without regard to winning arguments and with a care to mend old wounds. This is a true account to the best of knowledge of my feelings about our interactions over the years, up to this day. I would unburden you of any thought that I harbor continuing resentment, or that I would wish anything but all of the happiness possible to you and yours in this life and the next life. By the way I do not believe that you are the primary antagonist that alienated Navidad with finality, unless you also received a private e-mail. I am pretty certain it was me.

Your friend...tonight at least...heh.

Take care...Happy Feast of the Epiphany.

Rory 

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Take care...Happy Feast of the Epiphany.

And we need an Epiphany this week, don't we ;) ?

 Thanks for your reply. 

The essence of what I tried to tell people- and notice the usage of that word-  Is that it's all just really words. Words are tools. If the word works for you,  and the particular interpretation you pick changes your life, you better darn well go with it,  because words can never actually represent reality.

 I would never denigrate the feelings and direct experience of someone when a particular phrase makes it all gel for them.

 But in Analytical Philosophy  the objective is to speak with logic and make everything as clear as possible. So what I meant to attack if indeed I was attacking anything, was simply the usage of those 21st century English words to represent  the beautiful and highly nuanced  thoughts and feelings of one of the most intelligent and inspired men of God who wrote in the 13th century, in Latin. 

And therein lies the challenge.  If no one noticed, even after yesterday, it's time to quote that great philosopher Bob Dylan, "the times- they are a changin'!"

 Aquinas thought and spoke in the  context of his times. 

In the 13th century they had no  way to  understand atoms or molecules or physics in our modern sense, "flesh substance" was flesh and bread substance was bread.  But you could not see the underlying difference between substances because we live in a world where all we see is appearance, or "accidents".  Swap out substance without changing their appearance- why not?  "Substance" is really invisible by definition.

 So using  terms like "substance" in today's world is very vague. Yet oddly if you read the Rorty quote "that I always quote" in my siggy,  you may notice that he speaks of unknowable causes of experience.

 So now we have unknowable causes and we have the experience or appearance of those causes, generated in our nervous systems. 

What we see is generated within our bodies yet we know there are causes of our perceptions "out there" in the world, but what we actually experience is unknowable.  When we see "blue"- that appearance/experience is created in our nervous system.  If we are blind and that portion of our nervous system doesn't work properly, we do not experience  the sensation we call "blue". 

So is blue "real"- or just an "appearance/experience/perception/accident/"?  Is light a "substance"?  So if we swap a red piece of glass for a blue piece of glass we change the appearance without changing the substance.   Why not the other way around?

Yet using a different paradigm, one of the conflicting "scientific" explanations is that what the invisible reality is, is photons of light which manifest different wavelengths, and our eyes have evolved to distinguish these different wavelengths to distinguish one color from another, so as primates, presumably swinging between branch to branch, we don't grab the blue fruit, which let us pretend is poisonous, but we do grab the red fruit which is "tasty" because we have evolved to think "tasty" IS tasty because it is nutritious and promotes health so we can make more babies and keep the species alive and strong.

Unfortunately though on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is/was discovered that light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes a wave.  So is that "substance" of light which can change appearances, now be seen as a particle or (let's pretend) or now as a "wave"? (thereby altering its "substance")?

Why not?   We must remember it's all just different interpretations of words!!

And words alone then become an example of the substance  or appearance changing.  We can imagine the "appearance of what someone said" as opposed to the "substance of what they said" very easily.     In that context, we can change the substance of what was said and make it seem that only the appearance of the meaning was changed, or change the appearance of what was said without changing the substance.   And around and around we go!!

So Aquinas appears as sensible as Rorty under real analysis of what is "really happening".

*I've looked at light from both sides now, as a wave and a particle but still somehow it's light's illusions I recall, I really don't know LIGHT at all!  *

 Really to me that seems not so much different than believing in substances and appearances.

 And who taught me that?

 Our dear friend Robert Barron who is very adept at translating 13th century Latin philosophy into 21st century Pragmatism and Phenomenology.

 So now I feel much closer to that Priest from India who allowed me the highly unusual compliment, to speak from within the sanctuary at my mother's funeral since I was a "Mormon Bishop"

 He only asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the savior to which I answered yes and then he said  "Oh well then it's all the same anyway."

 I don't believe that's exactly Catholic policy, but I think there was true wisdom in his simple philosophy that it was "all the same anyway" ;)

*With apologies to Joni Mitchell- I had better include the song since many below -50- year- old- youngsters out there may have no clue what I am talking about! This is the metaphysics of our age- we really don't know any THING at all ;).   Paradigms and theories- yes we have a lot of those but "Things"? We are a little short on those unfortunately.   And so Thomism meets William James and Robert Barron and Richard Rorty and Joni Mitchell and the circle is complete- No I will not quote Joni M. on circles.  ;) *

 

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And we need an Epiphany this week, don't we ;) ?

 Thanks for your reply. 

The essence of what I tried to tell people- and notice the usage of that word-  Is that it's all just really words. Words are tools. If the word works for you,  and the particular interpretation you pick changes your life, you better darn well go with it,  because words can never actually represent reality.

 I would never denigrate the feelings and direct experience of someone when a particular phrase makes it all gel for them.

 But in  Analytical Philosophy  The objective is to speak with logic and make  Everything as clear as possible. So what I meant to attack if indeed I was attacking anything, was simply the usage of those 21st century English words to represent  the beautiful and highly nuanced  thoughts and feelings of one of the most intelligent and inspired men of God who wrote in the 13th century, in Latin.

 He thought and spoke in the  context of his times.  In the 13th century they had no  way to  understand atoms or molecules or physics In our modern sense.

 So using  terms like "substance" in today's world is very vague. Yet oddly if you read the Rorty quote "that I always quote" in my siggy,  you may notice that he speaks of unknowable causes of experience.

 So now we have unknowable causes and we have the experience or appearance of those causes,  Generated in our nervous systems. 

What we see is generated within our bodies yet we know there are causes of our perceptions out there in the world.

 Really to me that seems not so much different than believing in substances and appearances.

 And who taught me that?

 Our dear friend Robert Barron  Who is very adept at translating 13th century Latin philosophy into 21st century Pragmatism.

 So now I feel much closer to that Priest from India who allowed me to speak  From within the sanctuary at my mother's funeral since I was a mormon Bishop.

 He only asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the savior to which I answered yes and then he said oh well then it's all the same anyway.

 I don't believe that's exactly Catholic policy wink

- Under construction, cleaning up on another device.

So when I hear you say "words can never actually represent reality" what exactly should I understand you to be saying?  And I ask you that because by just my understanding of those words, alone, I am inclined to disagree with you and say that is what words actually can do.  Words can represent reality, or at least I would say and am now saying they can.

Reality is truth, and words can represent truth, and at times can also represent what is not true or real.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

So when I hear you say "words can never actually represent reality" what exactly should I understand you to be saying?  And I ask you that because by just my understanding of those words, alone, I am inclined to disagree with you and say that is what words actually can do.  Words can represent reality, or at least I would say and am now saying they can.

Reality is truth, and words can represent truth, and at times can also represent what is not true or real.

Oh my

We have been over this and over this a million times.   I love you as a brother, but man there are times....  I am telling you as a brother and as someone concerned about you.  Please read every word and try to make sense out of it and think about it- I know you will see this because you actually DO speak this way sometimes- and that lures me in to not ignore you, but then you say something that seems you do not get it at all.

I know you think the exact same thing of me.

But this is the most lucid, clearly stated and undebatable way I can put it

You are confusing what things appear to be and their reality.   Does the word "mirage" represent Truth? Does the word "orange" represent Truth???   How is that possible?

Someone asks you what "truth" is and you hand him a brick?   Not a convincing definition.

 

Quote

Rorty: 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.

Is the world out there or is it all "in our heads"?  Yes it is "out there" and real- otherwise you get a free trip to the funny farm.

Did we create it? No

Did we create bricks in our minds, out of nothing?

No.

What are our perceptions of bricks then?

The PERCEPTION is caused by something OUTSIDE our minds but all we can know about it is our PERCEPTIONS.  AS a thing in space and time we did not create it, but its very existence in the world causes us to "perceive" it. 

BUT we see only our perception of it, as like a picture or "mental state" in our minds "caused" by the brick "in reality"

Is a brick inside your head when you see a brick- or is that "picture" you see in your mind a picture and not a brick?   How may bricks would fit into your head as compared with a brick building?   If we cut open my head and removed my brain, how may real bricks would fit in your head?   Maybe One?   NO!   So the brick you "see" in your head is a mental state- it is the "picture" you see which is NOT REALLY a brick- unless we remove your brain and put a brick in your head- it is a mental state- not  the"REALITY" of being a brick.

What you see is a mental state - a picture - of what you CALL a "brick"   The picture you see is a mental state "caused" by something outside your head but bricks are constructed of mud and who knows what else.  BUT YOU DO NOT SEE ALL THOSE COMPONENTS OR THEIR ATOMS< MOLECULES ETC- you see a picture of what you have learned to call a "BRICK".   In fact those ideas of atoms molecules etc are themselves human ideas or constructions all constructed by a communal enterprise- "Science" itself!  Those things are not in your head- the mental state or picture is in your head and that is a "mental state"

What you SEE is an effect/picture!   It is caused by what you call "a brick"!

Is the word "brick" true or false?   The word- not the THING.   If I say to you "brick" is that true or false? 

Neither

It is simply a word.

But if reality is truth - why don't we say that a brick or a tree or a rock is true ?   Is the church true because the wall is plumb?  Different sense of  "True".   "The church is true" means that the beliefs and practices of the church is/are "true".   In this context "the church" is a set of statements and beliefs.

THINGS are not true or false-reality is not true or false- only statements in language are true or false!

Reality is not true or false- it simply IS   Only statements ABOUT reality can be true or false.

Truth and falsity is a property of sentences not reality.

"The cat is on the mat" is only TRUE IF the cat IS on the mat.   Cats are not true or false, mats are not true or false but the STATEMENT "The cat is on the mat" CAN be true or false.   It is a statement about the relation between the cat and the mat.  If that statement about the RELATION of the subject and object are the case, the statement is true or false.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

So when I hear you say "words can never actually represent reality" what exactly should I understand you to be saying? 

Words may represent perceptions- but they do not re-create or make a mirror of reality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/#A

This is about the best I can do for you dude!

This is the real deal but probably unreadable to those outside the field

Quote

 

 Antirepresentationalism

Rorty's enduring attitude to relativism and subjectivism is that both are products of the representationalist paradigm. Though the theme is explicit in PM and CP ("Pragmatism, Relativism, Irrationalism"), it is with Rorty's later and further appropriation of Davidson that his criticism of the idea of knowledge as representation becomes fully elaborated (ORT "Introduction" and Part II). Drawing on Davidson's criticism of the scheme-content distinction ("On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme") and of the correspondence theory of truth ("The Structure and Content of Truth"), Rorty is able to back up his rejection of any philosophical position or project which attempts to draw a general line between what is made and what is found, what is subjective and what is objective, what is mere appearance and what is real. Rorty's position is not that these conceptual contrasts never have application, but that such application is always context and interest bound and that there is, as in the case of the related notion of truth, nothing to be said about them in general. Rorty's commitment to the conversationalist view of knowledge must therefore be distinguished from subjectivism or relativism, which, Rorty argues, presuppose the very distinctions he seeks to reject. Equally, Rorty's epistemological behaviorism must not be confused with an idealism that asserts a primacy of thought or language with respect to the unmediated world, since this, too, is a position that is undercut by Rorty's Davidsonian position. In light of the view of truth and of meaning that Rorty appropriates from Davidson, his conversationalism is not a matter of giving priority to the subjective over the objective, or to mind's power over world's constraint. Rather it is the other side of his anti-representationalism, which denies that we are related to the world in anything other than causal terms. Differently put, Rorty argues that we can give no useful content to the notion that the world, by its very nature, rationally constrains choices of vocabulary with which to cope with it. (TP "The Very Idea of Human Answerability to the World: John McDowell's Version of Empiricism").

 

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my

We have been over this and over this a million times.   I love you as a brother, but man there are times....  I am telling you as a brother and as someone concerned about you.  Please read every word and try to make sense out of it and think about it- I know you will see this because you actually DO speak this way sometimes- and that lures me in to not ignore you, but then you say something that seems you do not get it at all.

I know you think the exact same thing of me.

But this is the most lucid, clearly stated and undebatable way I can put it

You are confusing what things appear to be and their reality.   Does the word "mirage" represent Truth? Does the word "orange" represent Truth???   How is that possible?

Someone asks you what "truth" is and you hand him a brick?   Not a convincing definition.

 

Is the world out there or is it all "in our heads"?  Yes it is "out there" and real- otherwise you get a free trip to the funny farm.

Did we create it? No

Did we create bricks in our minds, out of nothing?

No.

What are our perceptions of bricks then?

The PERCEPTION is caused by something OUTSIDE our minds but all we can know about it is our PERCEPTIONS.  AS a thing in space and time we did not create it, but its very existence in the world causes us to "perceive" it. 

BUT we see only our perception of it, as like a picture or "mental state" in our minds "caused" by the brick "in reality"

Is a brick inside your head when you see a brick- or is that "picture" you see in your mind a picture and not a brick?   How may bricks would fit into your head as compared with a brick building?   If we cut open my head and removed my brain, how may real bricks would fit in your head?   Maybe One?   NO!   So the brick you "see" in your head is a mental state- it is the "picture" you see which is NOT REALLY a brick- unless we remove your brain and put a brick in your head- it is a mental state- not  the"REALITY" of being a brick.

What you see is a mental state - a picture - of what you CALL a "brick"   The picture you see is a mental state "caused" by something outside your head but bricks are constructed of mud and who knows what else.  BUT YOU DO NOT SEE ALL THOSE COMPONENTS OR THEIR ATOMS< MOLECULES ETC- you see a picture of what you have learned to call a "BRICK".   In fact those ideas of atoms molecules etc are themselves human ideas or constructions all constructed by a communal enterprise- "Science" itself!  Those things are not in your head- the mental state or picture is in your head and that is a "mental state"

What you SEE is an effect/picture!   It is caused by what you call "a brick"!

Is the word "brick" true or false?   The word- not the THING.   If I say to you "brick" is that true or false? 

Neither

It is simply a word.

But if reality is truth - why don't we say that a brick or a tree or a rock is true ?   Is the church true because the wall is plumb?  Different sense of  "True".   "The church is true" means that the beliefs and practices of the church is/are "true".   In this context "the church" is a set of statements and beliefs.

THINGS are not true or false-reality is not true or false- only statements in language are true or false!

Reality is not true or false- it simply IS   Only statements ABOUT reality can be true or false.

Truth and falsity is a property of sentences not reality.

"The cat is on the mat" is only TRUE IF the cat IS on the mat.   Cats are not true or false, mats are not true or false but the STATEMENT "The cat is on the mat" CAN be true or false.   It is a statement about the relation between the cat and the mat.  If that statement about the RELATION of the subject and object are the case, the statement is true or false.

 

I agree with much of what you say here but it seems to me that you don't seem to see much of the power of words.  

Do you agree that when we say something is true that what we mean is that it is what we are saying it is?  That "it" agrees with the word(s) we use to represent "it".  Whatever the "it" is that we are referring to by the use of a word or series of words?

Say for example that we say something is orange.  Well, is it orange or is it not orange?  Maybe we need to first understand what we are referring to or talking about when we use the word orange.  Do you know what it means for something to be orange?

Or maybe what we need to talk about next is what it means when we say something "represents" something.  Like what a word can be said to represent.  Do you understand that words are symbols?  Symbols that can be used to refer to or represent concepts/ideas/feelings and/or real or true objects/subjects in reality?  An object like a planet, for example.  Or a subject like love.  With words used as symbols to refer to or represent those or other objects or subjects that truly exist in or are a part of reality.

I think we do think in very much the same terms a lot of the time but then you go and say something like "words can never actually represent reality" and then I think something like "Good grief.  Rorty has really messed this guy's mind up big time!"

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
9 hours ago, Ahab said:

I agree with much of what you say here but it seems to me that you don't seem to see much of the power of words.  

Do you agree that when we say something is true that what we mean is that it is what we are saying it is?  That "it" agrees with the word(s) we use to represent "it".  Whatever the "it" is that we are referring to by the use of a word or series of words?

Say for example that we say something is orange.  Well, is it orange or is it not orange?  Maybe we need to first understand what we are referring to or talking about when we use the word orange.  Do you know what it means for something to be orange?

Or maybe what we need to talk about next is what it means when we say something "represents" something.  Like what a word can be said to represent.  Do you understand that words are symbols?  Symbols that can be used to refer to or represent concepts/ideas/feelings and/or real or true objects/subjects in reality?  An object like a planet, for example.  Or a subject like love.  With words used as symbols to refer to or represent those or other objects or subjects that truly exist in or are a part of reality.

I think we do think in very much the same terms a lot of the time but then you go and say something like "words can never actually represent reality" and then I think something like "Good grief.  Rorty has really messed this guy's mind up big time!"

This is the last try.

Is "blue" real?

Is it true?

What part of reality does blue represent?

 Whatever your answers are they also apply to the 1st vision.

 Just so you know that this discussion is actually about religious experience.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the last try.

Is "blue" real?

Is it true?

What part of reality does blue represent?

 Whatever your answers are they also apply to the 1st vision.

 Just so you know that this discussion is actually about religious experience.

Blue is a word we (our species) often use to refer to a spectrum of color which some forms of matter appear to project when viewed with our natural eyes, unless our eyes are defective or our brain is defective.  That is some of the reality of what blue actually is.

So, first, in reality, blue is a word.  A real word.  A true word.  A true, real word which itself is a symbol we use to represent or refer to something which we see in reality.  Even if it is only within our own minds, as a species, it is a part of reality, and I say a part of reality because there are more things in reality than words or colors... such as other objects and subjects and words/symbols we use to represent other forms of matter we see in real existence.

I don't understand what you mean by saying what I said about blue also applies to the first vision.  Are you talking about how that is also a part of reality? That Joseph actually saw what he said he saw while he used words to symbolize that real experience?

Link to post
52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Blue is a word we (our species) often use to refer to a spectrum of color which some forms of matter appear to project when viewed with our natural eyes, unless our eyes are defective or our brain is defective.  That is some of the reality of what blue actually is.

So, first, in reality, blue is a word.  A real word.  A true word.  A true, real word which itself is a symbol we use to represent or refer to something which we see in reality.  Even if it is only within our own minds, as a species, it is a part of reality, and I say a part of reality because there are more things in reality than words or colors... such as other objects and subjects and words/symbols we use to represent other forms of matter we see in real existence.

I don't understand what you mean by saying what I said about blue also applies to the first vision.  Are you talking about how that is also a part of reality? That Joseph actually saw what he said he saw while he used words to symbolize that real experience?

As a former rock & roll singer, song writer, guitarist and an adventurous American youth who came of age in the 1960’s, I can tell you there’s a very big advantage to seeing the world in the philosophically detached way that Mark does — you get to spend your whole life as if you’re on a perpetual ‘acid trip (very mind expanding). And as one who’s had his share of acid trips, I can tell you that’s not necessarily a bad thing...

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

As a former rock & roll singer, song writer, guitarist and adventurous American youth who came of age in the 60’s, I can tell you there’s a very big advantage to seeing the world in the philosophically detached way that Mark does — you get to spend your whole life as if you’re on a perpetual ‘acid trip (very mind expanding). And as one who’s had his share of acid trips, I can tell you that’s not necessarily a bad thing...

Our Lord expands my mind/intelligence without the use of any acid... and he can do that for all of us... but I know what you're talking about.  I used those little pieces of paper when I was a lot younger and foolish but now I have found a more excellent way.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Our Lord expands my mind/intelligence without the use of any acid... and he can do that for all of us... but I know what you're talking about.  I used those little pieces of paper when I was a lot younger and foolish but now I have found a more excellent way.

It appears my sense of humor goes over your head. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Blue is a word we (our species) often use to refer to a spectrum of color which some forms of matter appear to project when viewed with our natural eyes, unless our eyes are defective or our brain is defective.  That is some of the reality of what blue actually is.

So, first, in reality, blue is a word.  A real word.  A true word.  A true, real word which itself is a symbol we use to represent or refer to something which we see in reality.  Even if it is only within our own minds, as a species, it is a part of reality, and I say a part of reality because there are more things in reality than words or colors... such as other objects and subjects and words/symbols we use to represent other forms of matter we see in real existence.

I don't understand what you mean by saying what I said about blue also applies to the first vision.  Are you talking about how that is also a part of reality? That Joseph actually saw what he said he saw while he used words to symbolize that real experience?

And it's a good thing that blue is always blue.

https://www.livescience.com/50842-dress-debate-color-perception.html

dress

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It appears my sense of humor goes over your head. 

It may appear that way to you but that is not reality.  I sensed and often sense your sense of humor.  It now appears to me that my thoughts and emotions aren't always apparent to you.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

And it's a good thing that blue is always blue.

https://www.livescience.com/50842-dress-debate-color-perception.html

dress

Yes it is a good thing that blue is always blue otherwise there would be some confusion about what blue actually is.  The issue involved in that dress debate was about what color(s) the dress actually was vs what color(s) it appeared to be.

Link to post
19 hours ago, Ahab said:

The issue involved in that dress debate was about what color(s) the dress actually was vs what color(s) it appeared to be.

How can there be a difference?  If my brain perceives a dress to be blue then for me the dress is blue.  Doesn't matter what color the dress "really" is.  My reality is that the dress is blue.

The same thing applies, I believe, to things like words and visions.

 

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I can tell you there’s a very big advantage to seeing the world in the philosophically detached way that Mark does — you get to spend your whole life as if you’re on a perpetual ‘acid trip (very mind expanding). And as one who’s had his share of acid trips, I can tell you that’s not necessarily a bad thing...

I find this insulting, and everyone who has a testimony, or any religious experience should as well.

Joseph was the one with visions, and you just took on the atheist position that tells us that religious experience are mere illusions and "only in our heads".

Great job backing them up.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How can there be a difference between?  If my brain perceives a dress to be blue then for me the dress is blue.  Doesn't matter what color the dress "really" is.  My reality is that the dress is blue.

The same thing applies, I believe, to things like words and visions.

 

Did you read the link you provided?  That difference was discussed in that debate and was explained... 

According to Conway's team, the differences in color perception are probably due to assumptions the brain makes about the illumination of the garment so that it will appear the same under different lighting, a property known as color constancy.

People who saw the dress as a white-gold color probably assumed it was lit by daylight, so their brains ignored shorter, bluer wavelengths. Those who saw it as a blue-black shade assumed a warm, artificial light, so their brains ignored longer, redder wavelengths. Those who saw the dress as a blue-brown color probably assumed neutral lighting, the researchers said.

Have you ever heard what people say about making assumptions?  Something akin to being like a donkey?

I think it's interesting that the person who wrote that article didn't say what the color of that dress actually was.  Tanya just reported what other people had assumed but did not say what was the actual color of the material(s).  There was a way to find out.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How can there be a difference between?  If my brain perceives a dress to be blue then for me the dress is blue.  Doesn't matter what color the dress "really" is.  My reality is that the dress is blue.

The same thing applies, I believe, to things like words and visions.

 

Thanks. 

Are visions and acid trips the "same thing?

Of course not.

The cause of the experience is the question. What is the cause of the experience?

In an acid trip, it is the acid, a psychotropic substance.

When you experience a bear chasing you, experience is caused by something outside your body, which causes electrochemical reactions in your brain, or at least that is today's paradigm

With acid, the chemical causes the experience.

So if your internal chemicals cause experience, that is "psychosis"

If the "external" experience causes the chemical reaction, that is called "reality". We say that the experience we call "bear" causes the reaction, that is reality.

That is 1000 times simplified and is not well said, but it's an attempt to state the difference.

 I believe God is embodied and was in the real world and Joseph saw him.

 The cause of the experience was an "actual" object in the world.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Did you read the link you provided?  That difference was discussed in that debate and was explained... 

According to Conway's team, the differences in color perception are probably due to assumptions the brain makes about the illumination of the garment so that it will appear the same under different lighting, a property known as color constancy.

People who saw the dress as a white-gold color probably assumed it was lit by daylight, so their brains ignored shorter, bluer wavelengths. Those who saw it as a blue-black shade assumed a warm, artificial light, so their brains ignored longer, redder wavelengths. Those who saw the dress as a blue-brown color probably assumed neutral lighting, the researchers said.

Have you ever heard what people say about making assumptions?  Something akin to being like a donkey?

I think it's interesting that the person who wrote that article didn't say what the color of that dress actually was.  Tanya just reported what other people had assumed but did not say what was the actual color of the material(s).  There was a way to find out.

Uh, no.

All it describes is an optical illusion.

It's a mirage.  So what?

 No one here is talking about optical illusions.

 The writer of the article knew better than to bring up the question of "reality"  because he knows better.

That has nothing to do with it.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no.

All it describes is an optical illusion.

It's a mirage.  So what?

 No one here is talking about optical illusions.

Right.  That was a red herring thrown into our discussion.  We were not talking about reality vs what is not real.  We were talking about how words can be used to represent reality.  Or at least I was.  You seemed to be denying that fact.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Right.  That was a red herring thrown into our discussion.  We were not talking about reality vs what is not real.  We were talking about how words can be used to represent reality.  Or at least I was.  You seemed to be denying that fact.

Let the reader, if any, decide.

You posted it and now you agree its irrelevant 

 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...