Also posted here:
https://unexaminedfaith.blogspot.com/2018/08/almas-theory-of-knowledge.html

Once the decision was made to serve the mission, I took my preparation terribly seriously. I completed 4 years of seminary, read the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and inspired by President Benson’s counsel regarding its centrality to the LDS faith, I particularly studied the Book of Mormon [1] To ensure I had the most adequate understanding of the Book of Mormon that I possibly could, I read it multiple times, sometimes focusing on the theology, sometimes the history, sometimes on the message/prophecy for our present times, etc. A fascinating Institute class that I took in the months prior to checking into the MTC suggested an entirely different approach to studying the Book of Mormon. The Book, we were told, was not just a book, it was a tool of personal revelation, and if we read closely and carefully, in its pages we would discover the keys to unlock mysteries and truths available only through direct revelation.

One of the central keys to this approach to studying the Book of Mormon was found in Alma 32—Alma’s sermon on faith to the outcasts of the Zoramites.

A brief note on context. The two main groups through a majority of the BoM narrative are the typically righteous Nephites, and the typically less righteous Lamanites. The Zoramites were a group of people who separated from the Nephites. They believed themselves to be God’s chosen and holy people (Alma 31: 16-18), had become fixated on external signs of prosperity (Alma 31: 25-28) and religiosity (Alma 31: 20-23); Curiously they claimed that God had revealed to them that there would be no Christ[ii] (Alma 31: 16, 29). Consequently, Alma leads a missionary delegation to the Zoramites (Alma 31: 5, 6) to win them back to Christ (Alma 31: 34, 45). As the delegation begins to preach, they find the poor who have been cast aside and neglected by the wealthy Zoramites (Alma 32: 2, 3) to be particularly receptive. It is to these cast outs that the sermon in Alma 32 is directed.

As a teacher who lecturing in areas relating to the nature of knowledge, I have had a number of students make reference to Alma 32 as being something that is profoundly insightful. In a lecture that involved trying to derive the necessary conditions for a knowledge claim, one student (a recently returned missionary), without directly referencing the Book of Mormon, suggested that true knowledge is when you no longer have doubt. Another student referred specifically to Alma 32, and tried to make a case for it being a revolutionary concept in epistemology.

Definition: epistemology is a branch of philosophy that tries to define and understand knowledge.

That is what this post is about: epistemology and Alma 32. My contention is that Alma 32 adds nothing to our real understanding of knowledge, and can impede the acquisition of true knowledge in at least two ways. First it convinces us that we have knowledge when we only have belief, and second, it inoculates us against evidence that might demonstrate to us that we are mistaken.

Alma 32 is set out like a proposal for an experiment (v. 27) and suggests that the purpose of the experiment is take our beliefs and see if we can transform them into full blown certain knowledge, one principle at a time (v. 34).

Alma proposes that seekers of truth plant a seed in their hearts—meaning try living a gospel principle. If one lives it sincerely, one will feel a swell of emotions (v. 28) as the seed grows—meaning you stop having faith in the principle, and your faith will be replaced by knowledge of that principle. One will know that the principle is true.

There are issues with this experiment.

My first observation is that the whole notion of using Alma 32 as a blueprint for the acquisition of knowledge is logically dubious in that it is a circular argument.

First, the fact that you are willing to try the experiment means that you already have decided that you want to believe in the principles taught in the Book of Mormon, and that you are already inclined to accept that the Book is what it purports to be. The seeker has to already accept the conclusion, perhaps implicitly, prior to running the experiment. It seems unlikely that if you desire to believe a principle, that following the principle in order to prove it to yourself could lead to anything but an affirmation.

At the same time, any other book (Quran, Bible, Vedas) could be making similar claims. After running the proposed experiment on one holy book, even if the results are positive, one has no way of knowing if the same results would not be obtained from the Bhagavad Gita or the Mabinogion, for example. In order to figure out if the experience that follows from Alma 32 and the Book of Mormon is unique, the seeker would have to apply the same test to every other book that makes similar supernatural claims[iii]. If one runs the Alma 32 experiment, obtains a positive result, and fails to apply the test to similar texts, the action reveals that the seeker is in fact biased toward wanting the Book of Mormon to be true, but not other equivalent holy books.

A second significant issue is the implied definition of knowledge that is derived from this process, and widely accepted throughout the church (if every fasting testimony meeting is any indication). The definition of knowledge in the LDS faith (at minimum informally) is to believe without doubt (Ether 3:19-28, Mormon 9:21). While it may be true that whenever we have true knowledge, belief without doubt follows, belief without doubt on its own is not enough to constitute knowledge. I could, based on faulty information, believe without doubt that there has been an assassination or an earthquake or any number of things. After my friend robs a liquor store, he might cry to me that he’s been set-up, and I could quite easily believe him without doubt. Belief without doubt may be a necessary condition for knowledge, but it is not a sufficient condition.

There are a couple of important conditions that must be met in order for the experiment to succeed. Because there is this list of qualifiers, if for some reason the seeker fails to obtain a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the believer can always fall back on the assurance that the seeker failed to meet one of the following conditions.

First, the chapter strongly implies that humility (whether voluntary or not) is necessary prerequisite for faith (v. 1-16, 25), and this is confirmed in Moroni 7:43.[iv]

Then, Alma 32: 27 “…even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.” In order for the experiment to work, and to determine if a principle is true, you have to want it to be true.

Alma 32: 28 (similar sentiment in Mormon 9:21): “…behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts…” (my italics). In order for the experiment to work, one must not cast out the seed by unbelief. What is the object of the experiment? To determine if a principle is true. So one of the conditions for determining if a principle is true is *don’t not believe it?*

This is worth restating. To discover whether a Book of Mormon principle is true, don’t not believe it!

“Doubt your doubts” anyone?[v]

Finally, you have to act as though you believe it to be true (Alma 32: 28-34). Act as though you believe it to be true.

Recall Elder Packer’s counsel[vi] to missionaries who lack a testimony: “Oh, if I could teach you this one principle: a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!”

Joseph B. Wirthlin says something very similar[vii]: "We should be patient in developing and strengthening our testimonies…we should pray for a testimony, study the scriptures, follow the counsel of our prophet and other Church leaders, and live the principles of the gospel…”

What happens when somebody acts as though they believe something, even if, like Packer’s missionaries, they do not?

Cognitive Dissonance Theory[viii] suggests that when our attitudes and our behaviors come into conflict, we feel a sense of unease, and feel compelled to change either our attitude or our behavior. And it turns out that it is actually easier to change attitudes than it is to change our behaviors[ix]. This means that if we act as though we believe something, if we had been experiencing doubt, our natural psychological tendencies will lead us to believe.

If the experiment is a success, a tree will grow, the seeker will feel “swelling motions.” If that happens, now you longer have faith, now you know.

“Swelling motions” are a means of distinguishing knowledge from mere beliefs (v. 28). Um…it’s difficult to know what to say to this. A significant portion of Alma 32 was dedicated to establishing the necessity of humility as a prerequisite to faith, yet verse 28 tells the seeker that they have an internal truth detector that, although indistinguishable from ordinary non supernatural emotions, is more accurate than relying on evidence, and is more accurate than the internal truth detectors of the sincere believers in other faiths. Such can hardly be described as humility.

Once obtained, the knowledge of Book or Mormon principles is fragile, it can be easily damaged (Alma 32: 38-39):

But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

So, even if you once knew that something is true
1. if you stop “knowing” it, the problem lies not in the truth value of the principle, but in your barren heart.
2. if you stop “knowing” it is because you did not try hard enough to believe. NOT BELIEVING IS A SIGN OF MORAL WEAKNESS! When the true believer assumes that your disbelief is a moral defect, he has scriptural support for his opinion of you,


In sum:
- we will follow the advice of Alma 32 only if we have already decided we want to be believers
- we have to be sufficiently humble
- then we have to want it be true
- then we have to not not believe
- then we have to act as though we believe the proposition until our natural psychological defenses tell us that we do believe it
- a subjective emotion (swelling motion) is supposed to be a reliable indicator of truth
- if we set the bar low enough (that knowledge means simply having no doubt) we will believe that we know the truth of the principles
- and finally, if we don’t believe it, the Book of Mormon bullies us into believing because if we don’t, it’s a sign that there is something wrong with the non-believer, not that the principle is false

And that, my friends, is Alma’s contribution to the theory of knowledge.




[i] Ensign, November 1986: “…the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon…if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.”
[ii] Even though this story is set in the decades before the birth of Jesus, the characters of the Book of Mormon knew of his coming and even new his name.
[iii] The same can be said of Moroni’s Promise (Moroni 10: 3-5)
[iv] Curiously, this principle did not apply to Alma himself as, much like St Paul, he was converted by an angelic intervention (Mosiah 27).
[v]Deiter F. Uchtdorf. Come, Join with Us. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng
[vi] Boyd K. Packer. The Candle of the Lord. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng
[vii] Joseph B. Wirthlin. Patience, a Key to Happiness", Ensign, May 1987, 30
[viii] Festinger, L (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL.; Row, Peterson.
[ix] Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 203-210.

I have a theory of knowledge. It is that the information that I have accumulated is worthless without context. And I don't mean the context of how I acquired that information. I mean the context of the measuring stick of reality.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I mean the
> context of the measuring stick of reality.

"...Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion."
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2146402

I was naive and not particularly bright back when I was missionary age, but I was able to see Alma and Moroni were saying the first step to "knowledge" was pretty much believing it already.

But I can see how Mormons love this feelings-equal-truth concept. It means any crazy ass thing in life they feel good about must be real, factual and right. BAM! Divine validation! Holy Ghost-approved certainty! Having access to absolute truth other people don't have! Not needing to explain of justify myself!

Yet I've seen so many of them have the things which gave them a burning in the bosom backfire on them. They blame their unworthiness, of course, rather than blaming the feelings-equal-truth BS, because they don't want to lose that.

I was a young missionary, I wasn’t quite able to see the circularity of what Moroni & Alma were saying.
My Spidey senses were tingling, I could see something was amiss, But I could never quite put my finger on it. I remember hearing in the MTC that under normal circumstances, You see the evidence, and then you believe. But when it came to spiritual matters you have to believe, and then you would see the evidence. That use to keep me up at night…

S. Richard Bellrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My Spidey senses were tingling, I could see
> something was amiss, But I could never quite put
> my finger on it.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/30/marvel-removes-logo/

Aren’t you talking about the Rigdon theory of knowledge? The 19th century was great and all, but they thought slavery and the Civil War were good ideas.

Yeah, it's a good theory to have if you're a preacher developing your own fringe religious doctrines and trying to steal followers from your former boss.

They weren’t getting by on their money digging skills.

I was referring to his time when he fell in with Alexander Campbell (the Campbellite Baptists) and was excommunicated from his previous church where he was one of the pastors. He'd gotten a bunch of new, supposedly heterodox, doctrinal ideas from Campbell. Campbell claimed to recognize many of his unique doctrines in the BoM. The sermons and doctrinal sections of the BoM were probably old Rigdon sermons.

"I know that Donald Trump is a _______,________ President! And when I studied the correct literature, my knowledge was confirmed! Good thing my parents raised me to be a good _______!


I find it intriguing that you can hook up individuals on both sides of an issue to a lie detector and EVERYONE is telling the truth!

Apparently, it is part of human nature to believe what we need to be true.


"Affectivity"!!!!

dang ~


ziller's brain pan be hurtin" after reading OPie post ~


in b 4 ~ once the decision was made to serve the mission ~


brb ~ ziller took the preparation terribly seriously ~



ziller read the BoM an decide it was total bullchips ! ~



in b 4 ~ mission plan aborted ~



brb ~ welcome ~ welcome ~ sweet apostasy ~

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brb ~ ziller took the preparation terribly
> seriously ~
> ziller read the BoM an decide it was total
> bullchips ! ~
> in b 4 ~ mission plan aborted ~

in b 4 ~ wish I'd know ziller then. Could have saved hie 2 years :(

“Swelling motions” are a means of distinguishing knowledge from mere beliefs (v. 28). Um…it’s difficult to know what to say to this. A significant portion of Alma 32 was dedicated to establishing the necessity of humility as a prerequisite to faith, yet verse 28 tells the seeker that they have an internal truth detector that, although indistinguishable from ordinary non supernatural emotions, is more accurate than relying on evidence, and is more accurate than the internal truth detectors of the sincere believers in other faiths. Such can hardly be described as humility.”

The idea of the “still small voice” came from the Quakers. It’s a big part of Mormonism. The idea is that the body is the placenta of the soul. It feels into the domain of possibilities in a way the brain can’t, so the HG is a technology of intuition. That’s the theory. Whether there’s something to it is a whole other thing. But that meme has been with us for thousands of years, from Buddha to Luke Skywalker. So maybe there is. Horny Joe sure didn’t invent it.

The 19th century was much different than today. Mormonism would have helped. All of the useful ideas that Mormonism brought to the forefront have been adopted by the world. Maybe it’s just time for it to fade into history. We live in a time of suddenly naked emperors. They are bound to get weird.

Mormons are now stuck with an antiquated 19th century language. They refuse to evolve because they made it who they are. Their language is their dogma. It puts a box around their thinking. Better linguistic structures and memes do emerge, especially now in the interconnected world. They see this as competition, so the male aggression comes out. Usually passive aggression, the Mormon Way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 11:27AM by babyloncansuckit.

Excellent reply.

COMMENT: I don't want to get deep into defending Alma or the Book of Mormon here, but my main criticism is that it treats a difficult concept, i.e. epistemology, in a very superficial and confusing way. That said, a charitable reading of Alma 32 implies only the existence of an inner sense--call it intuition, inspiration, or the HG, or whatever--that is a factor when determining truth and falsity.

There is a wonderful little book by Jacques Hadamard, called The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (1945) that addresses mathematical inspiration. In the book, the author relates the famous experience of Poincare when struggling with a particular mathematical problem. While traveling, Poincare relates the following experience:


"The incidents of travel made me forget my mathematical work. Having reached Coutances, we entered into an omnibus to go some place or other. At the moment when I put my foot on the step, the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming to have pave the way for it, that the transformations I had used to define the Fuchsian functions were identical with those of non-Euclidian geometry. [Don't worry about the details of this.] I did not verify the idea; I should not have had time, as, upon taking my seat in the omnibus, I went on with a conversation already commenced, but I felt a perfect certainty. On my return to Caen, for conscience' sake, I verified the result at my leisure."

Similar accounts can be found by many other scientists and mathematicians, where truth seemed to emerge from a mere flash of inspiration. What the ultimate source for such inspiration is, of course, is debatable, however the phenomena is not limited to pre-20th century enlightenment. In fact, I suggest it is a very basic fact of human experience.

Thus, we should probably not fault the Book of Mormon for suggesting that humans have an "inner voice" that can be productive in revealing truth. Unfortunately, Alma seems to imply that the "swelling motions" are definitively reliable, when at best such intuitions are merely relevant, and most certainly subject to the filter of regular evidence.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In
> fact, I suggest it is a very basic fact of human
> experience.
>
> Thus, we should probably not fault the Book of
> Mormon for suggesting that humans have an "inner
> voice" that can be productive in revealing truth.
> Unfortunately, Alma seems to imply that the
> "swelling motions" are definitively reliable, when
> at best such intuitions are merely relevant, and
> most certainly subject to the filter of regular
> evidence.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

Giving your brain's unconscious time to work out a problem is not the same as "swelling motions" in my opinion.

Human's inner voice instigated by human voices telling them to read a book isn't intuition.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Giving your brain's unconscious time to work out a problem is not the same as "swelling motions" in my opinion.

COMMENT: If Poincare's brain can work on a problem in mathematics while he is not thinking about it, and then deliver the answer to him in a flash of inspiration, then presumably the brain can work on other types of problems, including problems related to religious truth, and also deliver the answer in a flash of inspiration as to that problem. How is the experience itself different, other than the content of the experience?

The only obvious distinction is that Poincare could latter confirm the inspiration he received by rational methods, whereas the content of the religious experience cannot be rationally confirmed. Notwithstanding, in both cases a mental thought appeared coupled with some degree of intuitive certainty that the thought was correct.
________________________________________

"Human's inner voice instigated by human voices telling them to read a book isn't intuition."

COMMENT: You can't just announce your position without providing an account of what distinguishes one kind of inspiration (or intuition) from another. A person wrestling with a religious problem; for example whether or not to read the BofM, or even whether or not the BoM is true, may very well receive an affirmative "inspiration." The lesson is that our intuitions may or may not be reliable. However, we should not dismiss the important point of the Poincare account; namely that correct, positive inspiration happens. We can sometimes receive information that is correct, without understanding the source or timing of that information.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Human's inner voice instigated by human voices
> telling them to read a book isn't intuition."
>
> COMMENT: You can't just announce your position
> without providing an account of what distinguishes
> one kind of inspiration (or intuition) from
> another.

Sure I can. It is an opinion. I'll restate for you.

I believe a human's inner voice instigated by human voices telling them to read a book isn't intuition. It is more a superego.


> A person wrestling with a religious
> problem; for example whether or not to read the
> BofM, or even whether or not the BoM is true, may
> very well receive an affirmative "inspiration."
> The lesson is that our intuitions may or may not
> be reliable. However, we should not dismiss the
> important point of the Poincare account; namely
> that correct, positive inspiration happens. We can
> sometimes receive information that is correct,
> without understanding the source or timing of that
> information.

Um, two different things in my opinion and this sounds ridiculous to me.

"We can sometimes receive information that is correct, without understanding the source or timing of that information."


It is a truism for me in the context of living life and not intuition. In the context of intuition it seems laughable. Someone could tell me "information that is correct, without understanding the source or timing of that information."

If I think it is a ghost inside my head I believe that is a far cry from an intellectual inspiration. Apples and Oranges like I said.

Notice that Poincare didn't consider his "flash of inspiration" to be any kind of revealed truth. And that upon his return to Caen, he verified the "truth" of his flash of inspiration by actually doing the math...

Which is really the difference in what we're talking about here. Alma (and mormonism) assures us that our feelings reveal truth -- and that nothing else is needed to have "knowledge" of truth.

Poincare verified that his feeling was correct by doing the math and insuring it worked.

I'd bet real money Poincare had flashes of inspiration that didn't work out -- that couldn't be verified. And so were abandoned. In Alma's method, that's not even possible -- your "inspiration" is truth, no need to check on it, verify it with facts, or abandon it if it turns out to be wrong.

"Notice that Poincare didn't consider his "flash of inspiration" to be any kind of revealed truth. And that upon his return to Caen, he verified the "truth" of his flash of inspiration by actually doing the math..."

COMMENT: True, as I noted above. However, Poincare did view these type of experiences as remarkable. He attributed such inspiration to the workings of the "unconscious mind," in the manner of Freud and Helmholtz. Thus, he said: "Most striking at first is this appearance of sudden illumination, a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work. The role of this unconscious work in mathematical invention appears to me incontestable."

It is assumed in modern science that this Freudian view of an unconscious mind is metaphysically extravagant and as such unacceptable in materialist science. This is because it implies another "ego" at work independent and removed from conscious awareness; a sort of homunculus assistant at work behind the scenes. If modern science deems the idea of a metaphysical "soul" to be unnecessarily extravagant as an explanation of creative inspiration, the idea of an unconscious mind faces similar objections.

The modern idea, of course, is that the unconscious mind is just the brain processing sensory information outside of our conscious awareness, which is uncontroversial at that level of processing. On this view, there is no other mind aside from the brain itself that is unconscious and performing work, as Poincare thought.

The difficulty with this modern view is the following: We know that when the conscious self (and the brain) are working on a problem (say, mathematical as in Poincare's case) there is a correlation between mental effort and brain function. However, when the conscious self puts the problem aside, as Poincare did, the suggestion that the brain continues to work on it independently seems absurd. In other words, on this modern conception of the unconscious, the brain processing remains directed to the mathematical problem presumably running algorithms related to the problem, all outside of conscious awareness. This is farfetched because in such a scenario the correlation between brain and mind breaks down. It is not just the brain processing sensory information, now the brain is independently focused on a creative, cognitive problem. Moreover, there is no evidence from imaging techniques that when the conscious self is idle, the brain continues a rigorous computational process aimed at solving mathematical (or other) problems.
_____________________________________________

"I'd bet real money Poincare had flashes of inspiration that didn't work out -- that couldn't be verified. And so were abandoned. In Alma's method, that's not even possible -- your "inspiration" is truth, no need to check on it, verify it with facts, or abandon it if it turns out to be wrong."

COMMENT: Poincare, I think, would distinguish between a mere idea that didn't work out, and a "flash of inspiration." The latter involves psychological certainty, when the former does not. Moreover, the former implies merely testing an uncertain idea, when the latter implies *confirmation* of a solution already given.

The important point of all of this, in my opinion, is that inspiration is, at least in principle, a communication of information, and not just the popping up of an idea. That is its psychological effect. Even if confirmation is appropriate, and necessary, the very word "confirmation" suggests that the information is already there; i.e. has already in some sense been "received." If it turns out to be false, then arguably it was an illusion. But that does not diminish cases where inspiration produces real results, either in scientific or mathematical discovery, or the creative arts.

Henry Bemus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is assumed in modern science...

Science makes no assumptions.
And it's not "materialistic." As you well know. :)

But it is dogmatic. There’s an emotional basis to scientific bias, which I think is why we are in a Newtonian world rather than a GR world with regards to our understanding of consciousness. The mystics use GR language and the Newtonians say “WTF?”

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it is dogmatic.

It's not. Really.

Some of the *people* who do science for a living are...but science isn't.

> There’s an emotional basis
> to scientific bias, which I think is why we are in
> a Newtonian world rather than a GR world with
> regards to our understanding of consciousness. The
> mystics use GR language and the Newtonians say
> “WTF?”

Sure, there's an emotional basis to scientific bias. But scientific bias isn't part of the scientific method, it's a failing of human beings.

I'm not aware there are any "Newtonians" still around...do you know some? I don't.

As for the "WTF?" responses...the mystics offer up claims without evidence -- untestable, unverifiable, non-repeatable, full of speculation and made-up stuff claimed to be "real." Which nobody can test or verify, and which all too often (when people try to test them using the scientific method) wind up being largely fraud and dishonesty. That's where the "WTF?" comes from, Newtonian or not.

Hence my point (which I've made to Henry numerous times) that science isn't "materialistic." It has no such basis. The basis is simply testable, verifiable, repeatable. Not material. Now, it just so happens that the only things we've found that get over the testable, verifiable, repeatable bars ARE "material." From which one might conclude wrongly that science is "material." Or from which one might conclude that the "immaterial" claims have no merit. At least, none made so far. As for science, if something immaterial were testable, verifiable, repeatable, it'd be perfectly accepted in science. There's no requirement of material-ness in science.

“testable, verifiable, repeatable”

But that’s exactly the problem. Science limiting itself to the repeatable locks it out of a universe of possibilities. For example, any phenomenon dependent on faith gives a null result if a null result is desired. Science saying “gee, that’s too hard” or “we just won’t look at that” is a cop out. This comes full circle to Joseph Smith. He needed to be a lying con man to create a strong enough belief system to utilize belief as a metaphysical technology for accessing the transcendent. That’s the other side of Physics, the kind outside “accepted Physics”. So basically, science is letting the Mormons win. I’m not sure I like that.

The status quo might be working, but I think it’s overlooking the key to what science is missing. Science is specifically designed to not give life meaning. But it could, in a rich kind of way, if it explored the other side.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that’s exactly the problem. Science limiting
> itself to the repeatable locks it out of a
> universe of possibilities. For example, any
> phenomenon dependent on faith gives a null result
> if a null result is desired.

The trouble is, it also gives a null result if a null result ISN'T desired. Oops.

> Science saying
> “gee, that’s too hard” or “we just won’t
> look at that” is a cop out.

Science is a procedure, a method. It doesn't say anything.
As far as scientists -- some may say "we just won't look at that," but it's not a cop-out. It's recognizing there's no foundation for the claims involved, and that they're not testable/falsifiable, so there's no point trying to test them.

Finally, you'd have a really hard time finding a scientist who says "gee, that's too hard." Rarely if ever happens. They love hard. They just don't love ridiculous.

> This comes full
> circle to Joseph Smith. He needed to be a lying
> con man to create a strong enough belief system to
> utilize belief as a metaphysical technology for
> accessing the transcendent.

I haven't got a clue what that means. Metaphysics isn't any kind of "technology," and "transcendent" is so vaguely defined as to be worthless as a word. Smith was a con-man. He conned people, took their money, and slept with their wives and daughters. There's nothing metaphysical about that.

> That’s the other
> side of Physics, the kind outside “accepted
> Physics”. So basically, science is letting the
> Mormons win. I’m not sure I like that.

There's ample scientifically-verified evidence to show many mormon claims false. The problem isn't letting the mormons "win," it's that believing mormons won't look at the evidence. Not a lot science or scientists can do about that.

What's outside of "accepted physics" isn't accepted because evidence for what's claimed is lacking. It's not some conspiracy, it's not a failure of science -- it's a failure of the stuff outside of physics that's claimed but can't be shown to be real.

> The status quo might be working, but I think
> it’s overlooking the key to what science is
> missing. Science is specifically designed to not
> give life meaning. But it could, in a rich kind of
> way, if it explored the other side.

The scientific method is "specifically designed" for one thing and one thing only: to be a reliable way of finding out facts. Not designed for or against anything else.

Lots of people find their "meaning" (which is entirely subjective anyway) by using science to find out facts about our universe. Which pretty much negates your point.

As for some "other side" -- until there's some testable evidence such a "side" exists, science can't do anything with it. Science is a reliable method for finding out facts. To toss its reliable methods and engage in the kind of making things up, rank speculation without factual basis, and wishful thinking that makes up the "other side" would make science no longer science. It would be something else -- what to call it I don't know, but it wouldn't be science.

Leave the rank speculation and the making up things to the "mystics." And let science be, doing what it does do very, very well: be a reliable method for finding out facts. If facts don't provide you with some kind of "meaning," that's fine -- go look elsewhere. But leave science alone. It's really, really good at finding out facts.

Your entire argument is evangelical. You’re a science evangelist. That’s good. How could we go on in this tragic world without willful blindness? I’ve been much too hard on Mormons and their willful blindness. Doing away with such things isn’t necessarily a good thing. My blinders falling off was incredibly disruptive.

But scientists are also like Mormons in that when the evidence becomes too much to ignore, they stop ignoring it. So there’s that. Old ideas will die and science will get to where it’s supposed to go. The kids will save it.

And maybe the Mormon church will get to where its supposed to go, rather than hell. But I agree that science is a better horse to bet on.

You’re not saying anything my Physics professors didn’t say. I didn’t sleep through class. As clerics go, they could have used better robes, but button down shirts are more popular these days.

As for the Sam Harris fan club and it’s reviling of “revealed truth”, what are we to make of their acceptance of scientific revealed truths such as those pointed out by Henry? A double standard is not scientific. God puts on the blinders and God takes them off. So much drama for nothing, but this is what I signed up for, it was good.

If the basic propositions of science were wrong, would you want to know?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2018 11:44AM by babyloncansuckit.

"However, when the conscious self puts the problem aside, as Poincare did, the suggestion that the brain continues to work on it independently seems absurd."

It may seem absurd to you but in my opinion I'm of a mind that we have two brains. Heavy lifting is often (if not always) done in the unconscious and presented to the prefrontal executive/perceptual processing for execution on the unconsciously produced proposals.


I believe we fool ourselves into thinking we are a coherent consciousness when we are really a conglomerate of dancing processes.

"It may seem absurd to you but in my opinion I'm of a mind that we have two brains. Heavy lifting is often (if not always) done in the unconscious and presented to the prefrontal executive/perceptual processing for execution on the unconsciously produced proposals."

COMMENT: The idea of "two brains" suggests two physical systems. So, where is this second brain? And, what does it mean that "heavy lifting is often (if not always) done in the unconscious." What and where is that? And what algorithmic processes are going on there, on what computational architecture? (i.e. what is the nature of the computational mechanism that is executing these processes?)

Basically, what you are suggesting is that there is a magical entity called the unconscious mind that does all this wonderful processing ("heavy lifting"), which is then "presented" to the brain; hopefully at some point manifesting itself in consciousness as inspiration.

The only way you can make this type of argument is if you acknowledge an entity, i.e. a soul, that is separate from, and independent of, the brain, and which accounts for this unconscious processing. There are lots of problems with such an idea, only some of which I have noted above.

Notwithstanding such problems, I am not opposed to this kind of idea. In fact, in my opinion, the very existence of inspiration and creativity, as described above, suggests it, because the physical brain alone cannot account for it, in my view.

__________________________________________


"I believe we fool ourselves into thinking we are a coherent consciousness when we are really a conglomerate of dancing processes."

COMMENT: WHAT?! When we carry on in our daily lives constantly formulating beliefs and making decisions through cognitive reasoning processes, and acting accordingly (with a high degree of success), we are fooling ourselves? Where is the slightest evidence for the conclusion that we are nothing more than a "conglomerate of dancing processes?" Something has to put all of these processes together into a conscious, functional, human being.

I suggest we fool ourselves when in the face of scientific ignorance, we abandon common sense and adopt the absurd; often encouraged by a scientific materialist assumption. (The assumption that all explanations of reality must be grounded in known physical processes.)

I have to acknowledge a soul? Please.

"Basically, theorists and experimentalists have developed a concept about what kind of algorithm a given brain area uses for a given task, say, in recognizing a face or making a decision."
https://pni.princeton.edu/centers/mcdonnell-center-systems-neuroscience/introduction-systems-neuroscience


Face recognition is a task produced by a brain system within the greater context of other systems for other things.


I'm not going to argue unconsciousness with you if you don't believe it. If you think you are conscious of all your thinking you are The Brain and I'm Pinky.

I think you’re touching on the phenomenology of belief. These guys believed strongly in what they were doing and something transcendent happened. For me, this explains how Mormonism, the car without an engine, keeps on going. Faith is the engine. It took a con man to jinn up faith from thin air, and that jump-started the process. Joe took his secret to the grave, so church leaders have been clueless about how their process works for 180 years. That’s why the cult. If they knew, they wouldn’t have let the narrative stagnate and decay. It’s all about believability. That’s where the magic is.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That’s where the magic is.

No many "Eureka" moments in Mormon history recent or otherwise since Smith.

Peter Pan syndrome has its costs. Eureka moments require living in the adult world. Putting the brain on autopilot is a necessity in Mormonism.