Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/26/2002, 17:30:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
He's taking this from Boyd K. Packers famous talk, "candle of the Lord".the idea is that he knows the church is true like he knows what salt tastes like; however, conveniently, he can't explain either. So, if you supposidly read the BOM and pray about the church, you will come to "know" that it's true, like a light bulb coming on in your head, but you won't be able to articulate this knowledge. "But, this does not describe the taste of salt to a human that does not have the ability to taste." Of course, just like he can't describe the spirit of the lord, you have to experience it for yourself. Boyd probably didn't think to deeply about this line of reasoning. Just tell your friend that you know his church is false. Tell him that this knowledge is as clear and distinct as your knowledge of cayenne pepper but you're at a loss as how to communicate this knowledge. Tell him that all you can do is pray for his lost soul.
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 01:45:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Describe the taste of salt to a person who has not tasted salt." I appreciate your reply! Fortunatly, I've covered the ground that you astutely walk me across. The issue remains, however, that I must describe the taste of salt in a discernable way to a person who has not tasted salt. Can you not do it either? The debate we are having is quite complex and is a continuum of dialog rather than one shot deal 'I'm right/your'e wrong' structure. I wish it were that simple... Any real takers on describing salt???
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 01:15:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why MUST you do such a thing? If you succeed, will you then be able to demand your friend to articulate his testimony?Maybe, you're LDS yourself, thinking that you might prove a point by pretending to be a skeptic who is completely stumped by Packer's rather rediculous question? "Can you not do it either?" What would it mean to you if I couldn't? What would it mean if no one could? Maybe you could go into this complex continuum of dialogue a bit? "I wish it were that simple..." Why? What is at stake here? Are you feeling backed into a corner, like, if you can't answer this question then you must acknowledge your friends testimony?
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 01:34:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nice. I appreciate your inquiry. My friend is a mormon. I do not have a religion. My parents never officially gave me one. Understand, at 31, I have been approached hundreds of times to convert, but, I never bought the sales pitch like some most of you ex'ers... Regardless, me and my friend, lets call him John, have been debating for over two years. We have time to write rebutals sometimes ten pages long not only to doctrine, but to idiosyncrosies such as the semantic structure of the salt question in question. Yes, I am backed into a corner, and I'm hoping that I find in this forum someone with an answer. I could skate around it in the same manner you are, but, that only proves that the question cannot be answered. It can be done, and that is my intention here. Does this help you answer the quesiton?
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 01:51:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
"We have time to write rebutals sometimes ten pages long not only to doctrine, but to idiosyncrosies such as the semantic structure of the salt question in question."can you give us a brief summary of some of these arguements? "I could skate around it in the same manner you are." my reply was absolutely legitimate, see the link. Without more details, I'd see no point in trying to answer the question further. "Does this help you answer the quesiton?" No, I need more details. You are just restating yourself. "It can be done, and that is my intention here." How do you know it can be done, do you have the answer? What if it can't be done? What's at stake?
Related link: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/27/2002, 01:57:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
What if I say; IT CAN'T BE ANSWERED. Then what?I am serious. I think this question is among the millions we can't answer. Now please tell me what YOUR answer to my answer is!
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 02:04:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
"What if I say; IT CAN'T BE ANSWERED. Then what?"good question Bahman. What's at stake? If it can't be answered does it logically follow that a testimony is valid? That a testimony could be valid?
|
Posted by: Jrmh ®
10/28/2002, 06:59:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
When its clean It's white and if it is fresh you can smell it. Directly on the tongue, it's biting and puckery. In your eye or on a broken skin part it can sting fiercly. On french fries or popcorn it adds a billion percent of taste. On watermellon in the right amounts it makes the melon taste sweeter. I am salivating right now just thinking about a red ripe piece with just the right amount on it. J
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/28/2002, 09:36:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
I can't imagine! I should remember to try next time (next summer?)
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/27/2002, 02:04:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
"the idea is that he knows the church is true like he knows what salt tastes like;"This line of reasoning is new to me and sounds interesting. But I can't see the relationship between the two. How does the argument go? Would you please elaborate on this? (Only this point.) Thanks.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 02:39:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
The idea roughly is that you can't encode all of your experience into language. You can't explain very basic things that in reality constitute knowledge. You know what salt tastes like, you know what the color "blue" is, but outside a signifier that points to a shared experience, you likely can't describe these things in a way that will transfer the knoweldge in your head to someone who either hasn't had the sensory input or has damaged receptors (say blind). The line of reasoning is pretty simple. Reasoning through language can't communicate all knowledge to all people. Salt is one example (and even if one could prove that the taste of salt can be codified, the argument doesn't fall, just needs a stronger example). The first point is, that if we can agree on one example of real personal knowledge that cant be codified in language, then there COULD be other examples. And what constraints are there for saying that any proposed personal experience DOESN'T constitute knowledge? So for packer, his experience with salt is like his experience with the holy spirit and therefore, truthfulness of the church. So for packer, if you havn't experienced the taste of salt, or felt the presence of the spirit, then the language at his disposal to communicate the concepts will always fail. Further, his knowledge of the spirit doesn't have to be proven through language anymore then his knowledge of salt. This idea is not knew to the board. Think of Mikwut's arguments. Mikwut's main contention seemed to be that historically, people have believed in God, and that this belief was justified as a primary sensory experience analogous to taste or touch--more technically would be to say epistemically primary. Probably, the most formal presentation of packer's idea would be found in the writings of Alvin Plantinga.
Modified by Fer-de-lance at Sun, Oct 27, 2002, 02:45:36
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/27/2002, 04:15:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks. If you have the time, I’d like to continue with this. The essence of the argument is:“if you haven't experienced the taste of salt, or felt the presence of the spirit, then the language at his disposal to communicate the concepts will always fail.” I have no problem with this. I’ve always assumed that “personal experiences” could be convincing to the person but not necessarily to others. Now, when “you” say: “Further, his knowledge of the spirit doesn't have to be proven through language anymore then his knowledge of salt.” I see problems! Does that mean that knowledge of the spirit should be accepted by others just because he experienced it? I presume the answer is no. But then what?
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 04:37:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Keep in mind, I'm trying to represent an argument that I don't agree with.I don't think Boyd would demand everyone to immediatly bow to his personal experience, but expect us to remain open to the possibility, and put forth the faith required that we may taste of the salt ourselves. He also probably doesn't think outside critiques are relevent to his beliefs that are supposidly deeply internalized (which is the point of turning his arguments against him, to show that he WOULD objectively critique the supposed internal knowledge of those who disagree with him). He probably doesn't leave the possibility open that he is misinterpreting his own experiences.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/27/2002, 06:09:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
I KNEW you were playing devil's advocate.Now then, the fact that people may come to certains beliefs because of "personal experiences" is nothing new. And no one in his right mind should or could expect that other people should believe what he believes. These are all elemetary. What was new to me in this thread was the introduction of the "SALT" argument!! Am I correct to state that it really doesn't add any strength to the issue? If so, we can close the case and thank you. BTW, a very prominent example is UFO sightings. I wonder what Boyd would say to those who claim they have been in contact with UFO's.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/28/2002, 08:17:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
I don't believe Packer added any strength to the claims of the church. It's at best, a faith promoting object lesson for those who already believe. Why anyone would spend two years trying to answer this question is beyond me.
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
10/27/2002, 02:36:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear sammysosa:How do you know what I taste as salty is the same that you taste as salty? TV (IMO, give up the quest. Science cannot explain qualia yet.)
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 04:24:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ok, ya'll clearly cannot do it and, for some reason, at my expense and time, insist that I engage in a debate to make the question go away. I am not in a debate with you, I asked you for help: the question is posed, and can be answered with out my personal background. Yes, ya'll can push my quick responses all over the internet, but the dang question remains! Can you not simply admit, "no, I cannot answer it" and move onto a more "meaningful" post? This sucks because I came to this board looking for help, not to engage in phil 101 dabates that I've already had 12 years ago. Look, forget me and my b.s., and focus on the one dimensional answer required of the question. You don't have to explain to me that the question is a koan, I know this already. But, it can be answered directly; just not by you apparantly, and you should please PLEASE state or skip this. Thus, in 'Can you describe the taste of salt?' I am asking you to answer the question straight mannered, 1) "Salt taste's like ___ and ___ and ___." 2) Skip the dang post. Or, 3) "I cannot answer the question because of semantics/logical imposibility/epistemology/Reductio ad Absurdum/veridical/falsidical paradox," or whatever un-original structure you choose. I really do not care to engage you in these realms, intriguing as it may be for you- see original post when I instructed ya'll to "spare the (phil) lesson." PRETTY PLEASE, what is the answer as I've repeatedly and reasonably requested to the question 'Can you describe the taste of salt?' ?
|
Posted by: rdl ®
10/27/2002, 04:47:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
...the taste of salt?"No.
Can you? ...and who cares? What's your point please? rdl
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 05:21:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks for the reply- Seriously, I appreciate it. "Can you?" Um, no, I can't, thus my post. (Have you even read my original post?) "Who cares?" I care, obviously. "What's your point please?" My point? Um, I'm not making a point; I've ASKED A QUESTION and you've answered it. I did not make or intend to make a point. I just want the yes or no answer, man. Thanks rdl
|
Posted by: rdl ®
10/27/2002, 05:25:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Who cares?" I care, obviously.Why?
Why do you care? rdl ps: yes, I read your original post...I read all the posts ;-)
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 05:32:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why do you care why I care? Circle circle circle...I told my friend that I could describe it.
|
Posted by: rdl ®
10/27/2002, 05:43:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I told my friend that I could describe it....told a little fib then, didn't you? Why do you care why I care? Circle circle circle... ahhh, but I don't care why you care. I would just like to know what the point of the question "How do you describe (or, can you describe) the taste of salt" is.
...thought maybe I could pry it out of you by asking why you would care.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 05:26:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Um, no, I can't, thus my post. (Have you even read my original post?)" your original post: "I claim that I can; um, but I am having a hard time..." rdl's question is a good one. You havn't been clear.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 04:59:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
"If your question is, "Can you describe the taste of salt?", I think Vines just clearly said, "no".
Your question, "Can you describe the taste of salt?" is not answered by your suggestion, "1) Salt taste's like ___ and ___ and ___." An answer in this form would be to the question, "what does salt taste like?" Further, if you CAN describe the taste of salt, you will be relying on the familiarity of other tastes that are perhaps more basic. So at worst, coming from your angle, the salt analogy should be discarded for the more-basic-substance analogy. To focus specifically on salt demonstrates that both you and your friend are entirely missing the point of BKP's anecdote.
Modified by Fer-de-lance at Sun, Oct 27, 2002, 05:08:11
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
10/28/2002, 09:13:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think I answered your question clearly. Qualia cannot be explained by science. Is that not clear enough for you?TV
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
10/28/2002, 12:18:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dictionary of Philosophy:qualia - The 'what it's like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc Plural for quale. "Quale" is a technical term introduced by C.I. Lewis (1929). A quale is an introspectible and seemingly monadic property of a sense-datum. For example, the qualia of a visual sense-datum of a rose would include the experienced red-ness, and the qualia of an olfactory sense-datum of a rose would include the sweet-ness of the scent. Chris Eliasmith & P. Mandik
References [Qualia Biblio] Dennett, D.C. 1988. Quining qualia. In (A. Marcel & E. Bisiach, eds) Consciousness in Contemporary Science. Oxford University Press. [bookstore] Kitcher, P.S. 1979. "Phenomenal qualities." American Philosophical Quarterly 16:123-9. Horgan, T. 1987. "Supervenient qualia." Philosophical Review 96:491-520. Lewis, D. 1995. "Should a materialist believe in qualia?" Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:140-44. Lewis, C.I. (1929) Mind and the world order. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. [bookstore]
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
10/29/2002, 01:17:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks. Actually I did find "quale" in my (humble) dictionary.
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 05:29:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Nice. Thanks for the wonderful reply, Now I know who to go to for help...
|
Posted by: james ®
10/27/2002, 06:11:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think I have heard this sort of thing before. It sounds like he is saying, "I just know its true, reguardless of information that would make it untrue." This statement doesn't prove, test or demonstrate anything. The actual basis of Mormonism comes down to something intuitive which cannot be examined or demonstrated. Nor can it be made false to the mormon with a 'testimony'.
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
10/27/2002, 10:53:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
But only if taken in excess. Of course there are other tastes that are puckery too. Did you need it to be uniquely descriptive?Other descriptive terms: - briny
- saline
- brackish
- savory
- zesty
- piquant
- Lot's wife-ish
- tasting like any of numerous compounds that result from replacement of part or all of the acid hydrogen of an acid by a metal or a group acting like a metal
- having the flavor of a dubious analogy I could go on... Oh, and when you come up with the description to back up your braggadocio, do share it with us. We are all tongues.
Modified by Alf Omega at Sun, Oct 27, 2002, 10:55:31
|
Posted by: sammysosa ®
10/27/2002, 12:32:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
You are a genius! Unlike most posturing forum members, you can read, follow directions AND type a comprehensive response! AMAZING! YOU CLEARLY WIN A MEEEELLLYYONN DOLLARS!!!!Thanks for the reply! I cannot believe it! I am estatic with your answer!!!! Thank you sooooo much!!! You really did it!
|
|
