Descartes' distilled answer to the question:
"how can I know, that I actually am."

We (think we) know about the core of the LDS church - the fundamental authoritarian structure - but only indirectly, revealed in outflow of how it does things.
How it makes decisions.
How it treats people.
How it uses money.
The rigidity and fear of change, of physical (and especially thought) freedom.
Of things seeming out-of-order.

(It's an indirect measure, like particle physics, but the best we can do, as none of us are in the apostleship)(I think)

So we didn't like the smell.
And so we (think we) got out of that. Escaped somehow.
And so here we are.

Thought experiment:

How can we know that we aren't still fundamentally trapped?

So, say, being involved in a not-LDS organization (of whatever kind):
How can one definitively, positively know that the structure, leadership philosophy -- isn't just the same exact thing, but with only a superficial whitewash? (Authoritarianism is, after all, attractive - our brains are evolutionarily wired to follow)

Is there a definitive test(s)?
A list of characteristics where such might be identified?
How can I know I haven't fooled myself?
"By their fruits . . ." so what are the fruits?

In other words:
That in truth, it's the same exact people, only wearing different uniforms?

It's a useful consideration.
After all, never again do we want to be trapped.

is it simpler to just not know? Uncomfortable?

Life is perhaps sufficiently challenging without testing things.

> After all, never again do we want to be trapped.

That strikes me as a questionable assumption. We are surrounded by evidence that many people actually do want to be trapped; they just would prefer a trap of a different color.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That strikes me as a questionable assumption.
===============================

It is, now that you mention it. Absolutely.

Boy, do I like this.
I like it a LOT.
But not sure why, yet

Perhaps because your proposition--people don't want to be trapped--is aspirational and a poor description of actual human history.

We'd like to believe humans are rational and truly libertarian but, as Nietzsche observed during one of the more peaceful and promising periods of European history, the vast majority of people are sheep constantly looking for a shepherd. As you implied, authoritarianism is "attractive." But Nietzsche went further; he said that a free society is inherently unstable because people without a dictator will run in search of one as soon as the weather grows inclement.

So what do you think? Have you ever seen free and purportedly educated people accept as truth the lies of a charlatan? Have you seen them turn their backs on science or act against their own political, economic, and moral interests because they are enthralled by a modern Pied Piper?

I have.

a defect in the basic design.
Am beginning to wonder if so.

In this case, TSCC is the predictable result.
Not an anomaly

Perhaps an adaptation for a different time. Our ancestors have been around as hominims for millions of years, and until 10,000 years ago virtually all of them lived in hunter-gatherer clans of dozens of individuals. At times those clans had to fight for resources, and anything that reinforced clan loyalty in times of conflict would improve outcomes. So we shouldn't be surprised to see the human taste for groupthink and authoritarianism: they make as much sense for humans as for other primates in the pre-modern context.

But things changed. The Agricultural Revolution, concentrations of wealth, and the emergence of more sophisticated political organizations created new possibilities, including capitalism, democracy, and constitutionalism. Some societies are capable of developing those institutions ambitiously. But when things go south--think Great Depression, the wars, the Great Recession--people get frightened, their ancient group instincts surge, and we get religious political movements and proto-dictators.

I think you implicitly made that argument in your initial post here, didn't you? I'm just saying that what you termed an innate dictatorial comfort remains a big problem when societies roil.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2020 05:05PM by Lot's Wife.

Translated into Bethese: The Lizard Brain Looms Large

I can appreciate the allure of Jessica Rabbit’s booby trap.

I think, therefore I am, I think.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think, therefore I am, I think.
===============================

Good one Dave of Atheist

But gotta kind of wonder, why did he actually stop there.
I mean, how did he know.

He would have probably been an ex-Mormon were he so raised.
Went through a lot of schooling and dumped it all as he couldn't be certain of the truth of anything he'd learned. (I think.)

Probably a very interesting, or very annoying, guy to be around

I picked it apart and made absolute sure the church was bogus before I nuked my church life from space. First principles matter. They are what make modern life possible. So no, I know the church is 100% genuine pure bullsh*t.

If Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be excommunicated from his own church. He wasn’t a conformist at all.

I’ve wondered whether Cartesian dualism is yet another mythology. Maybe we took a 400 year detour from Leibniz’s monads. If so, they will make a comeback. People get the mythology they deserve, although I don’t know what I did to deserve Mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2020 10:43PM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’ve wondered whether Cartesian dualism is yet
> another mythology.
===============================

This is Brilliant.
The eye seeing the eye

As is the idea JS would be excommunicated today


Have to roll in this a bit

I think, therefore I sum

--HAL 9000

:)

Gordon B. Stinky has his own variant of Descartes' proposition.

ETA: It may work for other posters too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2020 03:17AM by Lot's Wife.

Where was he incomplete in maybe the two statements heh-heh, I Thought Therefore I Was An Idiot?

https://medium.com/@yonreal/is-descartes-the-greatest-liar-in-human-history-de7a688c07e6

Was the other one possibly, I Thought Therefore I Was A Perfect Idiot?

Remove all doubt by releasing a book. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/17/a-promised-land-by-barack-obama-review-memoir-of-a-president

I read your first link and it is utter nonsense; both as to the characterization of Descartes' argument and the logic of the author's supposed refutation. Descartes can and has been criticized for his philosophical views, but calling him an "idiot" is outrageous and absurd.

I challenge you to paraphrase the argument in your link, and try to support it, which hinges on a distinction between "being" and "existing." If you do that, I will be happen to take it apart for you.

Hint: Descartes' couplet does not depend upon the metaphysical nature on one's existence; i.e. whether one's existence is ultimately deemed to be a physical body and brain, or a dualistic mind. Even if you assume that "thought" is ultimately a function of the brain only, denying Cartesian dualism, self-reflecting upon such a thought implies the existence of a "thinker;" that is some metaphysical "I" that is doing the thinking, whatever the nature of that identify might be. Materialist arguments that attack Descartes' couplet must deny not just a dualistic mind, but subjective existence--whether in thought, dreams, hallucinations, or otherwise. After all having a dream also implies a dreamer.

So is all of this a dream? We are dreaming that we are real so the dreamer is real? I am, but not in the way I think I am. So I am a thought in the mind of God.

If so, there is only one mind, one existence, a universal oneness that we call God. All else is illusion, which implies that the game is completely rigged.

We've all had the thought . . . what if I come from some advanced set of beings from a place that is not earth and this life I think I am living, is just an advanced virtual reality game where you are living in your own movie. At some point it will end and you will need to find another one. So many to choose from, what do you want to be the next time? Gay again? A woman? Large breasts or small? A man? Tall or short? See what its like to be Mongolian this time? African? Egyptian perhaps during the epitome of their great civilization? This could go on for eternity--luckily.

And you sort of remember your last few virtual reality extravaganzas, like Shirley Maclaine. And you need these "trips" cuz you are eternal and boredom is too.

And do you rack up points for how you handle it all even if it is imaginary? How many points do you get for being kind? How many for seeing through religion. How many points for being a good person even after you realize the Bible is a joke. Do you have to repeat if you never figured it out? Grounds hog day because you didn't get enough point or got stuck in Mormonism?


All feels so real, but maybe . . . the black holes . . . are they the tunnels back to the real realities?

I think. Therefore I think I think. I think so.

I’d like to be a buff blue Avatar warrior, but with my luck I’d be a smurf.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...being involved in a not-LDS organization (of whatever kind):


I pretty much avoid organizations (of whatever kind).

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I pretty much avoid organizations (of whatever
> kind).
===============================

You may be the wisest

The Cartesian agnostic says, "Cogito, ergo sum -- cogito."

I think, therefore I am -- I think.

:D

It seems like you're basically asking how we can tell whether we're encountering something we've encountered before. That's a very basic, very primal human skill -- one that goes way back to before we had big brains that could think about their thinking and wonder about their own existence. It's how we survived.

"Oh, one of those animals almost killed me before. I'll avoid them in the future, along with other swift creatures with fangs and claws."

"Hmmm, you know, the last time I was with people who said things like this and acted this way, it turned out badly. I should probably remove myself from this situation."

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..."

So maybe the question is, "Am I observant enough, cautious enough, skeptical enough to get a sufficiently accurate picture of an organization before diving in?"

Introverita: Finding truth from within

Extroverita: Finding truth from without

No. Those are not real words--at least I can't find them in the dictionary. They are my own semantic creations that popped into my head after being bombarded the last couple of years by popular expressions such as, "My truth," "Your truth," "We have our own set of facts," "There is more to the picture," "Oh, that's fake news." and you probably know a few more.

I noticed two types of individuals. Those who face the facts whatever they may be because they are, well, facts. This is the extroverita. The truth may hurt but it can't always be what you want it to be. The extroverita rely on the senses. The sound of speeding car coming toward you tells you something useful. Food that is off warns you not to eat it. Seeing the bridge is out tells you to put the brakes on. And when it comes to beliefs they apply these same principles of information gathering by the senses and putting the parts together to make a whole that is whole lot greater than the sum of its parts.

Then, the introverita--whose inner self decides what is true or not based on need and want; based on what their own ideal is and conveniently finding suspect that which does not aid their agenda. This need to have what they want is so strong that they will believe the unbelievable in order to maintain their "reality." Mormonism anyone? My mother knows all that is wrong with the Mormons church but her introverita self just says,"Heavenly Father works in mysterious ways." If "what is" doesn't suit you, why not fog it up? Call it fake. Put it in the gray area category thereby delaying a definitive decision. What adds up then, is a whole lot less than the sum of it's parts.

So. Why reject that which can be proven? Is it nature? Nurture? A combination of both? I don't see cavemen doing this. Would have made survival impossible. I think the rejection of fact comes directly from religion, the Bible. Certainly doesn't come from science.

Faith. The beginning of the end.


Thinking is no guarantee of anything. It's just what we do. One way, or . . . the other.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...
> Faith. The beginning of the end.
>
>
> Thinking is no guarantee of anything. It's just
> what we do. One way, or . . . the other.

Wow, more mormo-ism hang-on's maybe. We're mere humans with words, the expansive universe was badly represented by the LDS church and God was so tiny and small we could actually as Mormons become God. We were hitting our little pop gun onto the surface of the moon, when aimed at night never seeing where the cork landed.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So. Why reject that which can be proven? Is it
> nature? Nurture? A combination of both? I
> don't see cavemen doing this. Would have made
> survival impossible. I think the rejection of
> fact comes directly from religion, the Bible.
> Certainly doesn't come from science.

Or it might be that religion exists because humans seek validation for their introverita. "The invisible being said it's so."

I like your point.

But you gotta make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sings along

- Mama Cass

Descartes version of a simulated universe was a demon tormenting his soul with these delusions of reality. Cogito ergo sum doesn't disprove that possibility. It affirms that he can make some determinations within that or most other universes from which he can construct a framework of likely facts and actions based on those facts.

It isn't a way out of a trap but a way of beginning to define and comprehend what may be a trap or some other situation.

A main priority of all organizations, from benevolent to malevolent, is the continuation of the organization. If it doesn't continue it can't do the thing for which it was created. That can sometimes (often?) lead to policies and actions that are controlling, manipulative, exploitive, authoritarian or even cultish. So approach all organizations with caution, and if you become part of it, keep your eyes peeled for indicators. And don't drink the koolaid.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A main priority of all organizations, from
> benevolent to malevolent, is the continuation of
> the organization. If it doesn't continue it can't
> do the thing for which it was created. That can
> sometimes (often?) lead to policies and actions
> that are controlling, manipulative, exploitive,
> authoritarian or even cultish. So approach all
> organizations with caution, and if you become part
> of it, keep your eyes peeled for indicators. And
> don't drink the koolaid.

When a Mormon family person uses "DrinkTheKoolaid" in a sentence, any kind of a sentence during individual conversation, after Christmas dinner and gifts exchange is that possibly a sign?

Yes, but...

I am not WHAT I think I am.

My so-called thoughts are mostly a collection of automatic egocentric images and not reflective of my level of Being, anymore than the thoughts of "me" (the dream figure 'me') in a dream are in any way indicative of my waking reality.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but...
>
> I am not WHAT I think I am.
>
> My so-called thoughts are mostly a collection of
> automatic egocentric images and not reflective of
> my level of Being, anymore than the thoughts of
> "me" (the dream figure 'me') in a dream are in any
> way indicative of my waking reality.
================================

^^^^
This, this

There is a school, or kindergarten, of thought that the main purposes of the male brain are, in no particular order,

Getting ready to get laid

Getting laid

Getting ready again to get laid

Farting creatively

Choosing someone

Getting laid

Eating & drinking to excess

I am. Therefore, I think. I think. Therefore, I am. I was. I will be. I eye I. I WON'T!

"I won't have it" (Life With Father) [Mr. Day]

I'm getting outta' here.
Back into the dark.

♡ is ♡ +

and offhandedly related to the subject of study.
Suggest start with paragraph III:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-a-flat-earther-refused-to-concede-and-all-hell-broke-loose

[Flatly ignoring ye political snidititities, of interest is the social psycho-oh-my-golly-gee]
[yes, it are a made-up werds]

Related also to origins of TSCC, albeit obliquely.
Offered for your express Sunday amusement



I am upsetted, therefore I am :-D