What's it like to be a bat (or convert)

[Nofear]

So Nagel  has this very fun attack on physicalism (see postscript below for my resonse). But the basic idea is that, to quote the video's paraphrase, "There are facts that can only be known by getting into a particular subjective perspective."

Later in the video he also quotes Nagel saying, "Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us. If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity--that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint--does not take us near to the real nature of the phenomenon, it takes us farther away from it."

Change the subjects to converts to the Gospel and those not converted. Nagel would seem to be saying the experience of the Holy Spirit can only be fully comprehensible to those that experience the Holy Spirit. We can try to describe it (e.g. burning in the bosom, warmth, glow, etc. etc. etc.) but to be a convert because of an experience of the Holy Ghost, one must experience the Holy Ghost. Thoughts?

 

PS: I'm a physicalist. I just hold that there are other form of stuff than what our current physics describes. Nonetheless, experience would reduce, I believe, to a complex "state" of something unique and thus not transferable objectively to others. It would be "experience".

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

So Nagel  has this very fun attack on physicalism (see postscript below for my resonse). But the basic idea is that, to quote the video's paraphrase, "There are facts that can only be known by getting into a particular subjective perspective."

Later in the video he also quotes Nagel saying, "Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us. If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity--that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint--does not take us near to the real nature of the phenomenon, it takes us farther away from it."

Change the subjects to converts to the Gospel and those not converted. Nagel would seem to be saying the experience of the Holy Spirit can only be fully comprehensible to those that experience the Holy Spirit. We can try to describe it (e.g. burning in the bosom, warmth, glow, etc. etc. etc.) but to be a convert because of an experience of the Holy Ghost, one must experience the Holy Ghost. Thoughts?

 

PS: I'm a physicalist. I just hold that there are other form of stuff than what our current physics describes. Nonetheless, experience would reduce, I believe, to a complex "state" of something unique and thus not transferable objectively to others. It would be "experience".

Elder Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Jan. 1983, tells a story of describing a testimony in terms of describing the taste of salt.

2 Nephi 33:1-2, "...when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men. But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught." Conversely, those who soften their heart toward the Holy Spirit give place to it within them and so accept these descriptions and esteem them highly.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

"Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us. If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity--that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint--does not take us near to the real nature of the phenomenon, it takes us farther away from it."

Yep! Exactly correct, imo.

We would be classed as "psychotic" if we believed there was NO world out there, but our own world, but the problem is "correctly" PERCEIVING EVERYTHING as filtered by human senses.  We don't see waves/photons or atoms, we see colors and solid surfaces.

The problem is this still appears to be some sort of unreachable world called "the real nature" of "things as they are" independent of humans.

So we invent spectrometers and microscopes, telescopes etc., but who is creating the paradigms and INTERPRETING these phenomena?

Humans.  Who puts things into math and words and write "papers" peer reviewed by.... HUMANS? Humans of course!

How does an intelligent whale or bat with our intelligence see " the world"?

We cannot know. Period.  The best we can come with is a paradigm or theory about how that world out there which surely exists- "actually" works.

And that works as well for theology as it does for science.   We don't fully understand the nature of God/Gods etc- but we come up with PRAGMATIC theories that "feel right" in both science and religion- but of course there are different critera in both to define what paradigms we call "true"

So now can we just describe things "OBJECTIVELY"

HOW??  THE MORE WE STRIP, for example photons as "real" in favor of colors being "real", the farther we get from what is "real" to us- colors and solid surfaces, sounds of music, the beauty and richness of human experience.

In religion we have Alma 32- that which is "sweet" to our feelings about God, since he is postulated to be the giver of peace of mind and love.

Rorty:

The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

Edited March 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

I love Thomas Nagel. One of the best philosophers of the 20th century imo. 

This is the great problem with learning to experience revelation, btw. I grappled with this a lot in my teenage years, and it still is more or less the defining question of my life. There is nobody to tell you what it feels like. It cannot be done. In revelation, everyone must be their own pioneer. The wheel has to be re-invented with each person. Vague hints can be given, but that's about it. 

I'm not a physicalist, btw. My acquaintance with qualia and the ontology of mathematics have convinced me that physicalism is an insufficient ontological paradigm, but the physical world seems to be the meeting place of various ontological orders. The best metaphor is probably a canvas. Matter is a canvas, and non-material things like mathematics and semantics descend on it like paint, the whole being created and observed by the conscious. 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by OGHoosier