If so, then the ice cream experience is not transferable either...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Printable View
If so, then the ice cream experience is not transferable either...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The same could be said about communism. The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Now I don't know if a coherence model is the best way to understand mystical thought.
If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.
Reliability and necessity are not the same thing. When someone says X is reliable it means that it is generally the case that the conditions will apply. This does not preclude error nor is it meant to. But, if experience demonstrates some standard ("reliability" seems to suggest a history and thereby multiple exposure) it is not "absurd" to rely on that condition to be the case. If someone has ice cream and knows its cold and says so to their friend. It doesn't require scientific investigature or intersubjective reinforcement to guarantee the ice cream was in fact cold.
Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Certainly. The systemic problems with dialectical materialism stem from a deterministic stance that did not turn out to be correct. History flowed differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I thought you were the Emperor of China? Hmmm...Quote:
The fact is that the coherence theory of truth contradicts the common language understanding of truth and it can be used to defend obviously absurd position. I think I could show a coherent system in which I´m the emperor of china.
There are a number of coherence schema and arguing one cannot divorce himself from his own set of beliefs is not an absurd position. Further, if mystical experience involves some kind of entailment with the Absolute: then a coherence paradigm is not an absurd conclusion.
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.Quote:
If the focus is to understand a system, I am willing to accept coherence. But understanding is not justification.
Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.Quote:
Your counter-examples do not apply well because they are trivial and part of every day life. The experience that ice cream is cold fits into the common understanding of the world. It´s nothing special. What needs to be explained are extraordinary experiences. If suddenly all ice cream tastes bitter, you need to investigate whether something´s wrong with the ice cream or your senses.
I guess asking you for advice on ice cream is a waste of time.... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Believes do not make truth and truth is always concrete. A coherence paradigma cannot even be a conclusion because - obviously - no paradigma can be proved. You assume a paradigma in order to reach a conclusion. But whatever the conclusion, the coherence paradigma is a bad one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?
Understanding is not justification, but I have found that it is generally better to understand before placing judgment.
I didn´t judge mystical appeals. Again: I´m discussing reliability here.
Referencing the "trivial" or mundane as a basis for understanding more extraordinary fare seems exactly the stance one should take given both are considered to fall under the label: experience. If Ice cream shifted to tasting bitter then one would expect the subject to wonder why. But a shift in the object of experience is not what we have been considering. A Burmese refugee given ice cream for the first time who notes its cold doesn't have to wonder what's wrong with the ice cream or his senses. He accepts the experience for what it is. One would think that the more ice cream he had the more confident he would be in discussing flavors as well as the base sensation. Whether other Burmese refugees are so lucky to get ice cream does not change the subject's experience.
It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.
It's funny that Pindar uses words the way he does to express ideas that so irrelevent to anything talked about. It always gives me a laugh. Keep up the good work Pindar!
It works pretty well though, it gives him a name in the hall of fame..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
He might get elected mayor next year..... ~:cheers:
"Sensations void of concepts are blind" - KantQuote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Believing the subject impacts experience while not being the source of that experience is not a bad paradigm given the amount of theoretical and scientific work that makes appeal to it. There has being no reverse of Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.Quote:
I'm sure you are aware that all the standard epistemic models have major issues. Neither correspondence or pragmatic models are free from serious critique.
I guess that´s the reason why logicians tried to find a better model for the last 50 years. Are you familiar with the Kripke-Feferman Model?
An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.Quote:
It still doesn´t apply. Even for the Burmese, experiencing ice cream wouldn´t be extraordinary. It is normal to apply the easiest explanation to any new fact. In case of cold ice cream, that is that the ice cream is cold. This explanation does not require any new concepts and can without any problem be implemented into a standard view on things.
Anyway, the Burmese could not claim to have reliable information about ice cream after just tasting it. The practitioners of occult magic have centuries of information over the working of it. None of that is reliable.
As far as the reliability of magic goes: I guess that depends on whether you're the Witch of Endor or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Back to the shallow end of the pool. Those who can barely spell Nietzsche don't meet the minimum height requirement.
Those who don't know what they don't know are a hazard to themselves and others.
So a possible re-run of an experience would make it more reliable ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
For some reason this thread made me think of this quote:
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
~;)
I can spell Nietzsche fine, and it's not even an english word! See what I mean? You just did what I described right here. What does someone else's spelling have to do with you using complicated words to describe things that have no relevence to the main point? Even if I was as stupid as you thought my ability to spell would have no relation to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Also you can't mask a clear insult to my intellect with some clever words.
What hazard? Oh man, you are so much funnier then you people here realize! ~D
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
It may. Something repeatable or experienced by others would seem to add more as a opposed to less credence to an experience. Experience is not transferable, as I noted earlier with the ice cream example, but that doesn't mean others couldn't have their own similar experience which one may be able to make comparisons with.
You missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
So a soap opera aired in enough re-runs would have a larger reliability than a flash news program aired once ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
One might be more confident about the details as well as the actual experience of a soap opera they saw over and over as opposed to something only seen once.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
As with historical manuscripts or even plain old everyday advice, the wheat has to be sorted from the chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Many magickal techniques are perfectly reliable at achieving their purpose if implemented correctly. Quite often, though, the casual armchair dabbler has an incorrect assumption about what that purpose is.
So we are actually talking about learning here. Repeated experience will create a sense of "truth". The experience doesn't really have anything to do with reality and will become something by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
With modern technology you can experience things which in older times was impossible. This would mean that you can make re-run on experiences made by others and then share them over a modern media.
The repeated experiences will become the way of life and create a new set of knowledge among the individuals that experience it.
I think that we here have caught the religions. You are served repeated experiences until you accept them as truth and a part of your reality. This enables the "leadership" use the experience process to form the individuals it need most.
In the end, experiences are transferred and are actually becoming the accepted truth. So I must say that we actually can transfer experiences and have done so for thousands of years through the use of religions......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
The question is focused on reliable information, or more specifically reliable information about a metaphysical object: God. Experience is often taken as a standard for reliability. I have been using that same standard and applying it to God as understood through the general mystical tradition. Reliability is not necessity nor is it truth. Rather it is a standard by which and through which judgments can be made about some X. Mystical experience therefore would be a vehicle for the subject to make judgments about the Absolute.
Now Saturnus and I have been focused on epistemic models, particularly concerning coherence theories. Saturnus rejects them as deeply flawed, seeing such as assumptive schema that can only feed on themselves. I have been arguing that the entailment of a coherence model may be the appropriate way to understand mystical experience. If that is right, it would mean such experience would contain a level of surety normally denied experience claims as the subject/object distinction would be crossed in many ways.
That´s out of the question, but it affects only the experience, not the truth. The truth is out there and any serious theory of truth has to reflect that. If our convictions are not congruent to the truth out there they are false. Coherent or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Perhaps you should have used the present progressive instead of the past tense when referring to the search for a better model. Whether one notes Kripke or Tarski or anybody else, my point stands: there is no definitive account. Each model suffers from serious critique. This applies to both deflationary and stronger truth models.
I don´t deny that, but some models do better than others. The truth predicate of a model should at least try to resamble the common sense understanding of the term. The coherence model doesn´t do that.
An experience is an experience whether it be mundane or no. The same dynamic applies. This is so whether one tries ice cream, discovers elephants, flies to the moon or tastes salt for the first time.. The reliability of the experience may rest on exposure (i.e. repeatability) but the ability to relate the experience to others effectively remains a separate matter. Further, the potency/value of the experience does not dissipate because some other doesn't believe in ice cream.
An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliablity, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliablity would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.
Oh, and don´t feed the troll.
But isn't everything that we document based on experience ? The written word, test results and knowledge taught through life are nothing absolute. With this point of view, nothing is certain and nothing is really true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Saturnus is only defending scientifical views and rejects any assumptions based on experience.....
So you guys are still at it. Any reliable information about God yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
:coffeenews:
He was banned from the Org for saying everyone was going to Hell.
Man He knows how to start a flame war.
:angel: :devil:
So he was the guy who got banned for using multiple accounts? Go TosaInu!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
~:cheers:
Yeah 3 of them.
We figured one was a ghost account and nailed a second to him while the third threatened to turn us into salt and send us to hell with a case of lime and tequila.
So God fits the profile of a high-school dropout with a credit card, no job, no GF and absentee parents. I knew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well describes Jesus after he ditched his job as a Carpenter... :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Did he have a credit card?
A Girlfriend?
He didn't have much of a role model, that is for sure. :balloon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Something being "out of the question" means that thing is an impossibility. Judging from the full sentence I think you meant the opposite. If I'm right here then I think we can agree on a epistemic model. Admitting the subject informs experience easily lends itself to an entailment paradigm which I am putting forward as the standard mystical model. Further, I thought we were working with an empirical approach so the "truth" if it applies to something beyond experience (i.e. the nouminal) can be bracketed.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Contesting an experience, as you've described it, occurs from an outside element. Such cannot and does not add or distract from the experience proper which remains subject dependant. For example: if Moses comes down off the Mountain and says he has conversed with the Lord. This may appear an extraordinary claim and people may draw a variety of conclusions: 'Moses is the Lord's prophet' or 'Moses is a loon' are two possible choices. Regardless the conclusion people draw, those sentiments do not change the truth value of Moses' claim. The same applies with the ice cream example. Other refugees may or may not have ever tasted ice cream, but our subject's statement that the ice cream was cold stands as an independent claim. Experiences considered mundane are usually thought so because so many have a similar touch stone. Whether ice cream was truly a first for our refugee and his fellows may determine whether it falls into the mundane or extraordinary slot, but it will not determine the truth value of the statement or its reliability. The reliability may be based on the subject's memory and access to more ice cream. Recall that reliability is necessarily tied to the perceptions of the subject and therfore can be constrained by the same.Quote:
An experience is an experience but reliability is different whether it is mundane or not. A mundane experience is uncontested, extraordinary ones never are. Cold and bitter are both experiences but if you claim that ice cream is cold, anyone will believe you instantly. On the other hand, that ice cream tastes bitter, will be met with suspicion. Thus, there must be a difference in reliability, otherwise you would have to call that irrational.
If reliability would only need experience, magic would be reliable for anyone, not just the Witch of Endor.
You are quite right. :bow:Quote:
Oh, and don´t feed the troll.