What can you say about the following claims?

[alitaptap]

Error 4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.
Who are you to tell others what to do, against Jesus of Nazareth who is God and gave us His Church to show us what to believe and to do?

Do you consider rebellion if a person insists that one should only confess to God directly?

 

[Abu]

alitaptap
Do you consider rebellion if a person insists that one should only confess to God directly?

As we’ve seen Jesus empowered His Apostles to forgive sins, and He established His Church on Peter the Rock to teach all that He commanded. So knowingly to rebel against His commands would be gravely sinful. Mortal sins are essentially matter for sacramental confession. It is good to confess venial sins, also.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Abu
Error 4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.
Who are you to tell others what to do, against Jesus of Nazareth who is God and gave us His Church to show us what to believe and to do?

It could be considered rebellion, or it could be the result of an improperly formed conscience.
A person who denies the efficacy of confession usually has other, larger, issues than simply not wishing to go to confession. Their argument often stems from a denial of temporal authority over them. So the issue is less about the necessity of “confession to a priest” and more about the Church’s right to tell them they must convess to a priest.

So - If there is rebellion, it is likely against the “authority” and not against the particular sacrament. The solution must stem from their being willing to read, and to properly form their conscience to the teachings of the Church, which are rooted firmly in the teachings of Christ and recorded in The Bible.

Peace
James

 

[Syntax]

There certainly appears to be one. However we can never know that reality. The reality a dog senses has far more olfactory detail than the reality we sense. The reality a hawk sees has far more optical detail than the reality we see.

Some species of animals have better access to certain aspects of what’s “out there.” But it *doesn’t *follow that there doesn’t exist an “out there” at all, or that we never have epistemic access to it.

What we actually sense is a series of electrical impulses entering our brains from our sense organs. Those electrical impulses are not, and cannot ever be, the actual reality “out there”.

Right. Electrical impulses of a rock are not the rock itself. But the electrical impulses can either be *veridical *or non-verdical–that is, they can either be correctly representing or incorrectly representing reality “out there.”

We can never get to the reality; the best we can do is to refine our inevitably imperfect models of that probable reality.

What do you think our models of reality are doing? They are helping us understand more features about that reality. But it doesn’t logically following that we “never get to reality.” Of course we do. We grow in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding about how things actually work and morally ought to work. This implies we are grasping what reality is like, assuming we strive to do that.

But the perception is not the reality so what actually gets to our brain is not reality but the imperfect perception.

Perceptions can be imperfect. But it doesn’t follow that none of our perceptions correctly represent reality. Nor does it mean there is no actual truth to the matter independent of my incorrect perceptions of it.

We mistake the model of reality that we build in our brain for the actual external reality. That is an error.

Maybe *you *always mistake your perceptions for reality, but I try not to. This is what’s called “striving to rid oneself of error.”

Our model is built on the basis of incomplete and imperfect sense data and so can never be completely accurate.

So? That doesn’t entail none of our models are accurate representations ***of ***reality.

It works well for many purposes, but it is still only an imperfect internal model and is not the actual external reality.

Did you ever stop and wonder why some of those models actually “work”?..…

That is a case where the internal model is badly out of step with the external reality. It is far more common for people to mistake their internal model for external reality.

Right. But that doesn’t entail there is not any truth to the matter about whether some of our models do correctly represent reality.

External reality may well exist, but we can never know it and we can never construct a completely accurate internal model of it

“Never”?? How do you know this? That’s a boldly presumtuous claim. Have you entertained all models of reality yet to “test” their veracity? I seriously doubt it.

Conclusion: There exist true facts of the matter about reality, but many times we can be mistaken.

Therefore, “(1) There exists no objective truth, and what’s true for you may not be true for me” is FALSE.

 

[rossum]

Some species of animals have better access to certain aspects of what’s “out there.” But it *doesn’t *follow that there doesn’t exist an “out there” at all, or that we never have epistemic access to it.

We cannot be absolutely certain that “out there” exists as we sense it, we could be a “brain in a jar”. We can take the existence of “out there” as a good working assumption, but I would not like to base any major philosophical constructs on it since the proposition is essentially unprovable. All we can sense is mediated via electrical impulses.

Right. Electrical impulses of a rock are not the rock itself. But the electrical impulses can either be *veridical *or non-verdical–that is, they can either be correctly representing or incorrectly representing reality “out there.”

They may partially represent that reality, but they can never fully represent it. Unless we have an independent source telling us what the electrical signals should be, as opposed to the ones we are actually receiving, we can never be sure how veridical the signals are.

What do you think our models of reality are doing? They are helping us understand more features about that reality. But it doesn’t logically following that we “never get to reality.” Of course we do. We grow in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding about how things actually work and morally ought to work. This implies we are grasping what reality is like, assuming we strive to do that.

My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly. Our models may well be accurate in parts. By their nature they will always be models, never the actual reality, and they will always be incomplete because there are aspects of reality that we do not sense. Our models may asymptotically approach reality but they will never be fully accurate.

Nor does it mean there is no actual truth to the matter independent of my incorrect perceptions of it.

How can you know that truth independent of your perceptions? Like reality, it may well exist but if you can never perceive it then it is not a great deal of use to you.

Maybe you always mistake your perceptions for reality, but I try not to. This is what’s called “striving to rid oneself of error.”

That is what Buddhists can call it as well. It is also called meditation.

That doesn’t entail none of our models are accurate representations ***of ***reality.

It does entail that all of our models are incomplete and imperfect since the sense data on which they are based is itself incomplete and imperfect. My model of Australia is imperfect because I have never been to Australia.

Did you ever stop and wonder why some of those models actually “work”?..…

I do not know the exact value of pi, and I will never know the exact value. However I do know it to sufficient accuracy to make a circle close enough to the size I want. 22/7 is not pi but it is accurate enough for many purposes. Similarly our internal models are approximate, but for most purposes they are accurate enough for our daily lives.

“Never”?? How do you know this? That’s a boldly presumtuous claim. Have you entertained all models of reality yet to “test” their veracity? I seriously doubt it.

GIGO. Our sense data is imperfect and so we can never build a correct model from it. What alternative source of information about reality do you propose we use? I do not have to test every possible value of pi to know that I will never have an accurate value.

Conclusion: There exist true facts of the matter about reality, but many times we can be mistaken.

We can also be mistaken about that statement you just made. We have no way to determine what is, and what is not, an absolute truth. Since none of our senses are absolute we have no means of checking any claim to absolute truth, so all such claims must be provisional and hence not absolute.

Absolute truth requires an absolute source of knowledge, and we have no such source.

Therefore, “(1) There exists no objective truth, and what’s true for you may not be true for me” is FALSE.

I disagree.

rossum

 

[twinc]

The source of the colour exists, regardless of what the two people might think. This means there is, in truth, an existent reality, independent of the two human witnesses.

even though they may see different colours they will cal it by the same name,one will see green but call it red,whilst another will see yellow and call it red,whilst one will see red and call it red etc - twinc

 

[Syntax]

We cannot be absolutely certain that “out there” exists as we sense it, we could be a “brain in a jar”. We can take the existence of “out there” as a good working assumption, but I would not like to base any major philosophical constructs on it since the proposition is essentially unprovable. All we can sense is mediated via electrical impulses.

I don’t sympathize with your “brain in a vat” skepticism at all, but I will address that later in another post. First, I will address your mistakes in the analysis of perception.

You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing everyone else of making. You are mistaking electrical impulses (the vehicle) of X for (the object) X itself. It is true that I do not have access to X independent of my own perceptions of X, but it doesn’t follow that the object of my perceptions are my perceptions themselves. The very object of my perceptions is X itself. You just make the assumption that X is not the object of my perceptions, but that my own perceptions are the objects of my perceptions. So this analysis is already faulty (or just flatly assumed without providing any reason for thinking this is even plausible to believe).

Unless we have an independent source telling us what the electrical signals should be, as opposed to the ones we are actually receiving, we can never be sure how veridical the signals are.

But we DO have independent sources telling us this. When my perceptions tell me that the stick looks bent in water, I know this isn’t true in spite of my electrical impulses because I can verify that it is not bent by withdrawing the stick from the water. Of course you will ask how I know that it is straight independent of my electrical impulses. But I will reply that I don’t need to know that it is straight independent of my electrical impulses since even if my electrical impulses are the only vehicle for knowing this, I can still know that it is straight by repeatedly verifying this belief. And if I had to choose which hypothesis is more likely

The stick is bent, or
The stick is straight.

I will say that the latter is more likely because it can be independently verified by other observers, and this latter hypothesis is more *consistent *with the rest of the regularities in my experience than the former hypothesis.

Our models may well be accurate in parts.They may partially represent that reality, but they can never fully represent it.

If our models are accurate in parts but not others, then how do you know that they are accurate in some parts but not others? The notions of “accuracy” and “inaccuracy” presuppose you know what is, in fact, the case. But if we can’t know what is, in fact, the case–which is what you are proposing–then we can’t say our models or more or less accurate. So you are presupposing this very knowledge of the world you are trying to undermine. And your argument collapses.

Our models may asymptotically approach reality but they will never be fully accurate.

Again, you either know this, or you don’t. If you do know this, then knowledge is possible. If you don’t know this, then knowledge is impossible and you should be a complete skeptic about everything.

How can you know that truth independent of your perceptions? Like reality, it may well exist but if you can never perceive it then it is not a great deal of use to you.

Again, you assume the object of perception is not the object but the perception itself. This is a really poor assumption.

It’s also logically inconsistent for you to even be claiming you know this assumption is true, since you claim not to know anything. So why are you making this assumption? You are arguing in circles.

It does entail that all of our models are incomplete and imperfect since the sense data on which they are based is itself incomplete and imperfect. My model of Australia is imperfect because I have never been to Australia.

But how do you know your sense data are incomplete an imperfect if you did not already know that they were inaccurate depictions of a real world to which you are implicitly assuming you have access independent of your own inaccurate pereceptions??? Again, you are presupposing this very objective knowledge you are trying to undermine!

I do not know the exact value of pi, and I will never know the exact value. However I do know it to sufficient accuracy to make a circle close enough to the size I want. 22/7 is not pi but it is accurate enough for many purposes. Similarly our internal models are approximate, but for most purposes they are accurate enough for our daily lives.

Ibid, above.

Absolute truth requires an absolute source of knowledge, and we have no such source.

But how do you know there is not an absolute source of knowledge, if you only have immediate acquaintance with what you think is true? And since you don’t actually possess any objective knowledge of things, you therefore don’t even know this is true.

 

[rossum]

You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing everyone else of making. You are mistaking electrical impulses (the vehicle) of X for (the object) X itself. It is true that I do not have access to X independent of my own perceptions of X, but it doesn’t follow that the object of my perceptions are my perceptions themselves.

That is the point of my “brain in a jar”. How can I be absolutely certain that perceptions represent something real? It is a reasonable working assumption, but it is not absolutely certain.

But we DO have independent sources telling us this. When my perceptions tell me that the stick looks bent in water, I know this isn’t true in spite of my electrical impulses because I can verify that it is not bent by withdrawing the stick from the water.

Why is stick-in-air more real than stick-in-water? If you want to spear a fish in water then you do not aim at the fish but you have to aim below it to allow for the bending of the spear.

I will say that the latter is more likely because it can be independently verified by other observers, and this latter hypothesis is more *consistent *with the rest of the regularities in my experience than the former hypothesis.

We can indeed check our models by internal consistency and by comparison with our models of other people’s models (we can never experience their models directly). That is one of the ways we get our models to a closer approximation of reality.

If our models are accurate in parts but not others, then how do you know that they are accurate in some parts but not others?

By internal consistency and by comparison with our models other people’s models. It is true that most, but not all, dogs have four legs. This is not an absolute knowledge but a working assumption. As you may have noticed I am not convinced by absolutes.

If you don’t know this, then knowledge is impossible and you should be a complete skeptic about everything.

I am happy with provisional acceptance, in much the same way as all scientific theories are provisional. I am indeed extremely sceptical about claims to absolute knowledge.

Again, you assume the object of perception is not the object but the perception itself.

I must have expressed myself poorly, my apologies. My point was that the perception of a ‘truth’ is not that truth itself, merely a perception of it. It is impossible to access the truth directly. Hence we can never have a perfect knowledge of that truth due to the imperfect nature of our perceptions.

It’s also logically inconsistent for you to even be claiming you know this assumption is true, since you claim not to know anything. So why are you making this assumption?

I merely claim to have a working, contingent approximate model of reality that is conventionally true. That model gives me some useful hints as to how to act. It does not supply me with any absolutes. It does not supply me with any direct access to whatever reality may be out there. My model is contingent, changing and imperfect. How can it be otherwise?

But how do you know your sense data are incomplete an imperfect

Because I make mistakes. Do not think that any of the claims I make are absolute, or indeed that they are claims about any proposed reality. All my claims refer to my internal model, because that is all I have to work with.

But how do you know there is not an absolute source of knowledge, if you only have immediate acquaintance with what you think is true? And since you don’t actually possess any objective knowledge of things, you therefore don’t even know this is true.

Show me such a source. It is of no use to me if I have no access to it.

rossum

 

[Langdell]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

False.

2. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.

False.

3. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.

False.

4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.

Depends on what this means. If it means that God has the power to forgive someone even if that person does not confess to a priest, then I’d say true. But if it means that going to confession is up to the individual, then it’s false.

5. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

Dissent is not inherently good or bad. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad. (I don’t really get the connection between dissent and having an open mind.)

:twocents:

.

 

[Syntax]

That is the point of my “brain in a jar”. How can I be absolutely certain that perceptions represent something real? It is a reasonable working assumption, but it is not absolutely certain.

I am deliberately avoiding entertaining this hypothesis because it opens up a can of worms to much too handle at the moment concerning issues of epistemic justification, logical probabilities, and semantics. But suffice it to say for now, I firmly believe that it is more likely we are *not *brains in a vat than that we are. It comes down to logical probabilities.

Why is stick-in-air more real than stick-in-water? If you want to spear a fish in water then you do not aim at the fish but you have to aim below it to allow for the bending of the spear.

Cute example. But the stick is not more real in air than in water. Who said that?

It’s only that the proposition that “the stick is bent” is false given how the world actually is independent of my one time illusive perception of it seeming bent.

We can indeed check our models by internal consistency and by comparison with our models of other people’s models (we can never experience their models directly). That is one of the ways we get our models to a closer approximation of reality.

Consistency between models doesn’t guarantee truth, though this consistency might be an indication of truth. Only the world actually guarantees our models are correct representations.

By internal consistency and by comparison with our models other people’s models. It is true that most, but not all, dogs have four legs. This is not an absolute knowledge but a working assumption. As you may have noticed I am not convinced by absolutes.

huh? Well, then “all dogs have four legs is false.” So what? It’s not necessarily an assumption. If we observe all dogs having four legs, and we are also pretty certain that we have sampled all actual dogs, then it is very likely true that all dogs have four legs.

I am happy with provisional acceptance, in much the same way as all scientific theories are provisional. I am indeed extremely sceptical about claims to absolute knowledge.

If you claimed you had knowledge about all things, you would be in a straight jacket.
No one claims this. Christ (God) didn’t even claim it because at the time he was constrained by the limitations of his body.

I must have expressed myself poorly, my apologies. My point was that the perception of a ‘truth’ is not that truth itself, merely a perception of it. It is impossible to access the truth directly.

What do you mean by “truth.” “Truth” is a property of propositions which correctly say things about the world.

Still, you are making the same structural mistake. We don’t perceive our actual perceptions when we perceive the world. We just perceive the world. We only perceive our perceptions when we self-reflect on those perceptions. In the first case, our “gaze” is directed toward the world. In the second case, our “gaze” is directed at our own perceptions *of *that world.

Hence we can never have a perfect knowledge of that truth due to the imperfect nature of our perceptions.

Sure. But it’s still knowledge, no matter how imperfect. Knowledge doesn’t have to “infallible” to be knowledge. Some propositions we believe will be true, some will be false.

I merely claim to have a working, contingent approximate model of reality that is conventionally true.

Nothing is “conventionally true” only “conventionally accepted.” And models are ***sets **of propositions, some of which can be true, some of which can be false. And even if a model conventionally accepted as *“true” fails to represent reality at all, then all the propositions within that model are false, even if everyone thinks they are true. So propositions about the world are either true or false of that world regardless of what people believe.

That model gives me some useful hints as to how to act

Of course.

It does not supply me with any absolutes

What do you mean by “absolutes”? “Absolute complete infallible truth”? Of course not.

It does not supply me with any direct access to whatever reality may be out there.

This is false. My proposition “the stick is straight” is true if and only if the stick is, in fact, straight. And lo and behold, the stick is, in fact, straight.

My model is contingent, changing and imperfect. How can it be otherwise?

Models get changed and revised, sure–precisely because we think certain aspects of them are false since the world has shown us that these parts are, in fact, not representative of the actual world. So not every part of a model gets discarded, but is rather maintained while new information supplements the old things we used to believe.

Because I make mistakes. Do not think that any of the claims I make are absolute,

What do you mean by “absolute”? You can certainly make claims that are true or false. Or do you think you lack this capacity altogether?

or indeed that they are claims about any proposed reality.

huh? So when I say “the stick is straight” I am not making a claim about this stick here that I am holding in my hand? That’s absurd. Of course I am making a claim about the world, namely, that the stick is straight. And this can be true or false.

 

[Syntax]

All my claims refer to my internal model, because that is all I have to work with.

No. When I say “the stick is straight” I am not referring to my model, but rather using my model to make reference to the actual stick. And my statement about that stick is either true or false depending on whether the stick is straight or broken.

Show me such a source. It is of no use to me if I have no access to it.

I can’t show you. But I assure there is a source. But I don’t expect you to believe it, because you clearly lack that experience. I will have just as much a difficult time describing what the color red looks like to a blind man. He must have a first-hand experience of it to know what it is.

 

[rossum]

These posts are getting too long for the software so I will summarise my position and comment on a few of your points. Feel free to reintroduce something if you feel I have left out something important.

There probably is a real world out there, however the remote possibility of a brain in a jar scenario means that I can never be completely sure. It is a good working assumption that such a real world does exist out there and that it is reasonably consistent from person to person and over time.

That being said, all I can access of that real world is through my senses. Some, but not all, wavelengths of light are converted into electrical impulses in my eyes and are fed into my brain via my optic nerves. My brain uses those impulses to build a model of the external world. It is an error to mistake our internal model for the external reality. The two are not the same.

Given such a situation, where our senses give us an incomplete picture of the world, we need to be aware that our models will contain errors. We need to be aware that our models need updating and changing both to reflect a changing world and to correct existing errors. We need to be aware that our model of the real world is not the real world.

In this situation I am very sceptical of claims to absolute knowledge. What source of absolute knowledge do we have? There are many claimed sources, some books, some gurus, etc. How do we know, absolutely, which of these claimed sources are correct and which are not?

But suffice it to say for now, I firmly believe that it is more likely we are not brains in a vat than that we are. It comes down to logical probabilities.

I agree, but we can never be absolutely certain. ( Yes I have seen ‘The Matrix’ )

Consistency between models doesn’t guarantee truth, though this consistency might be an indication of truth. Only the world actually guarantees our models are correct representations.

Agreed. Consistency is necessary but not sufficient. Since we cannot directly access the world, i.e. not through our senses, then we can never access that guarantee to check.

What do you mean by “truth.” “Truth” is a property of propositions which correctly say things about the world.

“Truth” is a property of those parts of my internal model which give the expected results when put into practice. Remember that I cannot know things about the world, all I can know about is my model of the world.

Still, you are making the same structural mistake. We don’t perceive our actual perceptions when we perceive the world. We just perceive the world.

I disagree. All that we perceive is electrical impulses incoming along sensory nerves. We do not perceive the world directly. It is common to mistake those electrical impulses for a direct perception of the world.

We only perceive our perceptions when we self-reflect on those perceptions.

Which is part of the work of Buddhist meditation. It helps us to realise that what we think of as “the world” is actually just our own internal model of the world. Analysis of perception is part of that.

This is false. My proposition “the stick is straight” is true if and only if the stick is, in fact, straight. And lo and behold, the stick is, in fact, straight.

Your model of the stick may be straight, my model may differ. You can aim as if the spear is straight, I will aim as if the spear is bent. Who will catch the fish?

What do you mean by “absolute”? You can certainly make claims that are true or false. Or do you think you lack this capacity altogether?

I take “absolute” as referring to the world ‘out there’ rather than to our own internal models.

I can’t show you. But I assure there is a source. But I don’t expect you to believe it, because you clearly lack that experience. I will have just as much a difficult time describing what the color red looks like to a blind man. He must have a first-hand experience of it to know what it is.

People long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

• Source: Zen is Boring!

rossum

 

[Syntax]

Agreed. Consistency is necessary but not sufficient. Since we cannot directly access the world, i.e. not through our senses, then we can never access that guarantee to check.

You are not understanding. Let me repeat:

“Models get changed and revised precisely because certain aspects of them are false, since **the world has shown us **that these parts are, in fact, not representative of the actual world.”

This shows there is something regular an uniform about the outside world that we can rely on, even if we make mistakes. So we definitely know the following two ideas are true.

(1) There exist repeated patterns and regularities in the outside world.
(2) We are constantly testing our hypotheses and models against the tribunal of experience which tell us that some parts of our models are true, and other parts are false. Therefore, there is a truth to the matter about how things actually are.

For both of these reasons we know that there is a fact of the matter about how things exist in themselves, even though our knowledge may be limited. But this doesn’t license you to believe in wholescale skepticism! You are being totally irrational if think this, and this belief is completely inconsistent with how I know you actually behave in your own day to day affairs by correcting and modifying your own beliefs all the time. So I don’t sympathize with your stubborn skepticism at all.

“Truth” is a property of those parts of my internal model which give the expected results when put into practice.

Yes! And why do we get the results that we do?? Because reality is a certain way. We don’t get to think just anything we want about reality such as in the existence of flying telephones, or in the existence of pink elephants, or get to believe that John Kerry is the President of the United States. All of these beliefs are false.

Hmmmm…so could it be that there is something about nature telling us that at least parts of these models are correct? Do you just deny this? If you do, then you’re just being stubborn.

Remember that I cannot know things about the world, all I can know about is my model of the world.

This is your unwarranted assumption that has no basis in your own day to day affairs, and you know it. Again, we are always correcting and modifying our beliefs and assumptions with respect to the outside world because the world is the way it is independent of our models of it.

I disagree. All that we perceive is electrical impulses incoming along sensory nerves.

So you actually “see” those electrical impulses just like a scientist does when he observes your brain under a PET scan? Lol! No you don’t. These electrical impulses are the vehicles sending information caused by objects in the outside world. You don’t “perceive your electrical impulses,” you perceive the objects causing those electrical impulses. You are making that classic mistake philosophers like Berkeley made by confusing the vehichle with the object or destination of that vehicle. Take an example:

When you are chopping wood with an axe, you are using the axe (the tool) to chop the wood (the object of the chopping). You are not “chopping the axe” with the axe itself. This is absurd. By the same token when you are perceiving X you are using the perception (the tool) to perceive X (the object of that perception). You are not “perceiving the perception” by means of the perception itself. This is just ludicrous

We do not perceive the world directly.

Right. We perceive the world indirectly, by means of our models that mediate between ourselves and the world. But you seem to think that the object of our perceptions are the perceptions themselves. But this is completely false: The axe doesn’t chop the axe; the axe chops the wood. The knife doesn’t cut the knife; the knife cuts the apple. The perception doesn’t perceive the perception, the perception perceives the object of that perception.

Your own model of perception makes a grevious error simply because NO ONE can perceive his own perceptions–it would be like the “I” trying to perceive itself–which is impossible. You have to be a scientist who stands outside your own brain to be able to see your actual electrical impulses. But you yourself can’t see them. Instead, you use them to perceive objects, just as you use an axe to chop wood.

It is common to mistake those electrical impulses for a direct perception of the world.

No one is doing this but you, since you think the objects of our perceptions are these perceptions themselves.

Your model of the stick may be straight, my model may differ. You can aim as if the spear is straight, I will aim as if the spear is bent. Who will catch the fish?

Of course! We have different kinds (or models) of perceptions of the exact same object. One perception is veridical, the other is not. Therefore, the spear is not the perception. What’s the problem?

People long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed.

Just so you know, all of us religious folk on here have had plenty of these kinds of experiences. So you have no need to share them unless asked.

 

[rossum]

“Models get changed and revised precisely because certain aspects of them are false, since **the world has shown us **that these parts are, in fact, not representative of the actual world.”

This shows there is something regular an uniform about the outside world that we can rely on, even if we make mistakes. So we definitely know the following two ideas are true.

(1) There exist repeated patterns and regularities in the outside world.
(2) We are constantly testing our hypotheses and models against the tribunal of experience which tell us that some parts of our models are true, and other parts are false. Therefore, there is a truth to the matter about how things actually are.

My apologies for sloppy phrasing. I use my model to generate a series of electrical impulses along my motor nerves. I also use my internal model to predict a resulting series of incoming electrical impulses along my sensory nerves. I compare the predicted incoming impulses with the actual incoming impulses and adjust my model accordingly.

I agree that the external world appears to consistent and regular on this basis, but that is not certain – it is a working hypothesis.

I know you actually behave in your own day to day affairs by correcting and modifying your own beliefs all the time.

Yes. The world is constantly changing; change is one of the Three Marks in Buddhism. Not to change my model to reflect a changing world would be stupid. One of my local chemist shops closed recently. Now I do not go there but go to the new branch they opened instead. Should I still go to where the old branch used to be?

Hmmmm…so could it be that there is something about nature telling us that at least parts of these models are correct?

Parts of my model do indeed predict the correct resulting incoming sensations. Parts do not.

So you actually “see” those electrical impulses just like a scientist does when he observes your brain under a PET scan?

Of course not. I know that there is a chain of elements between what I am looking at and the registration of that object in my consciousness. I cannot directly sense that object, all I can do is to sense it indirectly and integrate it into my model as “dog” or whatever.

Right. We perceive the world indirectly, by means of our models that mediate between ourselves and the world. But you seem to think that the object of our perceptions are the perceptions themselves.

No, the objects of our perceptions are mediated through our models. For example, when I was very young I was badly frightened by a large dog. Ever since then my model of “dog” has an element of fear in it which is not present in other people’s models. I am aware of this and make allowances for it, but nevertheless it is there. Our perceptions are often overlaid by such stray elements in our models.

The perception doesn’t perceive the perception, the perception perceives the object of that perception.

The perception can only percieve the object through the model. Incoming data is analysed on the basis of the model and fitted into the slots in the model. Your “dog” slot differs from my “dog” slot. The model acts as a distorting filter.

Just so you know, all of us religious folk on here have had plenty of these kinds of experiences. So you have no need to share them unless asked.

That was not my own experience, I gave the source at the end of the quote. The point of it was that those big flashy experiences are illusion, not enlightenment. Eating the tangerine was enlightenment.

rossum

 

[Syntax]

My apologies for sloppy phrasing. I use my model to generate a series of electrical impulses along my motor nerves. I also use my internal model to predict a resulting series of incoming electrical impulses along my sensory nerves. I compare the predicted incoming impulses with the actual incoming impulses and adjust my model accordingly.

But why do you reject some, and not other parts, of the model? On what ground, and for what reason, do you decide to reject some parts but not others? Why are you “revising” to begin with?

I agree that the external world appears to consistent and regular on this basis, but that is not certain – it is a working hypothesis.

So what? “Certainty” is not the problem here. You think truth is entirely subjective. Those are two very different topics. “Subjective” means there is no objective truth of the matter about *anything *that we believe.

Yes. The world is constantly changing; change is one of the Three Marks in Buddhism. Not to change my model to reflect a changing world would be stupid. One of my local chemist shops closed recently. Now I do not go there but go to the new branch they opened instead. Should I still go to where the old branch used to be?

That’s right, you shouldn’t go where the shop used to be. So the truth is that,

“Shop X is now located at Y rather than Z.”

And you can verify this truth by going to the place where you now think it is located. So your belief is true if, in fact, the shop is located where you believe that it is.

Of course not. I know that there is a chain of elements between what I am looking at and the registration of that object in my consciousness. I cannot directly sense that object, all I can do is to sense it indirectly and integrate it into my model as “dog” or whatever.

No, the objects of our perceptions are mediated through our models.

How is this any different than what I just said here?

“We perceive the world indirectly by means of our models that mediate between ourselves and the world.”

I never said we “directly perceive” objects. I said we *indirectly *perceive objects through our models. But I never said, which is what YOU are saying, that “we directly perceive our models.” This is false. We don’t perceive our models. They are vehicles of perception, not objects of perception.

You are still not making any sense because you refuse to make the critical distinction between the* act *of perception and the *object *of perception. In case you are confused, just because you **mediately **perceive the “object” does not always mean your perception (or model) of that object is correct. Why is this difficult to understand?

So here are some questions you need to answer:

What is the *object *of my chopping wood with an axe? Is the object the axe by which I chop the wood so that I am chopping the axe with my axe; or is the object the **wood itself **that I am chopping?

What is the object of your fear? Is it the dog that you fear, or is it the **act **of your fearing the dog?

When I undertake the act of building a house, is the object of my building the house itself; or is the object of my building the **act **of building the house?

What is the object of your perception? Is it the object itself that is perceived; or is the object the perception itself?

For example, when I was very young I was badly frightened by a large dog. Ever since then my model of “dog” has an element of fear in it which is not present in other people’s models. I am aware of this and make allowances for it, but nevertheless it is there. Our perceptions are often overlaid by such stray elements in our models.

So? The dog still truly existed even though there was nothing to fear about the dog. Your model has defects, the dog doesn’t have defects.

The perception can only percieve the object through the model. Incoming data is analysed on the basis of the model and fitted into the slots in the model. Your “dog” slot differs from my “dog” slot. The model acts as a distorting filter.

Exactly. This is what I am saying. But what’s your point?

That was not my own experience, I gave the source at the end of the quote. The point of it was that those big flashy experiences are illusion, not enlightenment. Eating the tangerine was enlightenment.

No one disagrees here. Either way, it is still a transcendental experience of the “ordinary” that all poets, mystics, and even some philosophers will have. Your Buddha himself would agree.

 

[AJTheMan]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

Correct. Some truths have more evidence behind them, however. Choose carefully what you consider the ‘truth.’

1. Christianity is no better than any other faith.

Ah, there can be many merits attributed to many religions. Most religions have brought some good and some bad. Christianity is no different in this case.

All religions lead to God.

I disagree. There are many eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Taoism) where the focus is not on theism.

1. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.

Absolutely. I’ve known pastors who preach every Sunday and Wednesday, every week of every year. I’ve also known self-professed Christians who haven’t attended church in years. You know what I find? Some of these pastors live more immorally than the stay at home Christians ever would. Jesus would approve of a moral, faithful stay at home Christian much more than he would of a Pastor with no moral compass whatsoever.

1. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

In certain situations, dissent is needed. Our country was founded on dissent. On the other hand, if Taliban leaders had it their way, they would found their country on dissent from freedom and democracy. Some dissent is bad, some dissent is good.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Rossum: I have two simple questions for you. The situation is this: You are walking in a park, You see a young girl being attacked by several men. She is screaming for help. You have a cell phone and can easily call 911 with no threat of harm to you. 1. Do you know it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl in this situation? Do you know it is absolutely, morally wrong and evil for you to say effectively, “I see no reason to call 911 for her”? If your direct answer to these two questions is “no”;then add the fact to this hypothetical event, that the young girl is your daughter. Does that change your answers? Is your position that you do not know that it would be absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil for someone to kill billions of people because they wanted to?

 

[Karmartia]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.
2. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.
3. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.
4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.
5. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

1. I don’t think it necessarily follows that diversity in our understanding of truth is the result of a lack of truth. Absolute truth can exist even if we can’t discern it. Ultimately, everything we believe is a matter of faith.
2. Like other’s have said, I’m not sure any religion leads to God. Realization of the existence of God is personal and difficult to share, except with others who have had a similiar realization. Religion is the offshoot of that dynamic.
3. What is a “good person”?
4. Of course you can go straight to God, and if that works for you, great. Some of us find it cathartic to formally confess our shortcomings, because we have a real desire to change our behavior to become more like the one we adore. We’re called Catholics.
5. Dissent is great when it is actually a positive thing, and not simply dissent for dissent’s sake. If you are truly certain that an existing belief is wrong you ought be willing to go to the mattresses for it.

 

[Abu]

Karmartia
I’m not sure any religion leads to God… Dissent is great when it is actually a positive thing,

The faithful Catholic is very sure that Christ’s Church established by God’s Son leads the way to salvation, in the fullness of truth.

Dissent is public opposition to the Magisterium of Christ’s Church, to Her dogma or doctrine. As we have a moral obligation to accept Christ’s truths, which we have freely accepted, there is, and can be, no justification for such dissent.

 

[rossum]

But why do you reject some, and not other parts, of the model? On what ground, and for what reason, do you decide to reject some parts but not others? Why are you “revising” to begin with?

If my model predicts (name removed by moderator)uts incorrectly then it is in need of revision. I change those parts that give rise to the incorrect prediction.

That’s right, you shouldn’t go where the shop used to be. So the truth is that,

“Shop X is now located at Y rather than Z.”

And you can verify this truth by going to the place where you now think it is located. So your belief is true if, in fact, the shop is located where you believe that it is.

I see it slightly differently. I say:

“The model with the shop located at Y predicts better than the model with the shop located at X.”

The overall effect is indeed the same.

What is the object of your fear? Is it the dog that you fear, or is it the **act **of your fearing the dog?

In Buddhist analysis my fear is part of the samskara aggregate. In effect it is my memory of my fear of that past dog overlaid onto the sensation of the current dog. It is not part of the current dog.

Your model has defects, the dog doesn’t have defects.

The dog may well have defects of its own, a faulty kidney maybe. It does not have the defect that the samskara element of my model overlays onto it.

Your Buddha himself would agree.

I don’t know, I have never met him.

rossum