Click here to read my ongoing interview with Tal Bachman.

[NorthboundZax]

Besides Runtu, there can be all sorts of definitions of the word "consciousness". It can mean, for example, "unconsciousness", or "semi-consciousness", or "tapir", or even being dead. You see, the thorough cessation of all brain function following death, does not necessarily mean that that brain is not still "functioning". It all depends on what we mean by "functioning". And I think I'm as entitled to MY definitions of "functioning", and "brain", and "death", and "consciousness", as you are. So by my definition of "translated", it is perfectly accurate to say that Joseph Smith "translated" the Breathing Permit of Hor, even though his translation has not the slightest affinity with the source text.

Now, the Runtu ship does down! "I just sunk your battleship!"

Feeling better than ever,

Tal

[_Runtu]

Besides Runtu, there can be all sorts of definitions to the word "consciousness". It can mean, for example, "unconsciousness", or "semi-consciousness", or "tapir", or even being dead. You see, the thorough cessation of all brain function following death, does not necessarily mean that that brain is not still "functioning". It all depends on what we mean by "functioning". And I think I'm as entitled to MY definitions of "functioning", and "brain", and "death", and "consciousness", as you are. So by my definition of "translated", it is perfectly accurate to say that Joseph Smith "translated" the Breathing Permit of Hor, even though his translation has not the slightest affinity with the source text.

Now, the Runtu ship does down! "I just sunk your battleship!"

Feeling better than ever,

Tal

I wrote a paper eerily similar to this in grad school using DeManian deconstruction to show that a passage in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein actually had no meaning. Once meaning is excised, you don't need to defend anything anymore.

[_Tal Bachman]

I would go along with that, Runtu, except that everything depends on what we (doing the finger quotes) "mean" by the word "meaning".

[_grayskull]

I don't believe it's an entirely settled issue that our "consciousness" can be said to be indubitable. But I wonder if Wade knows that saying that something is axiomatic as Tal did and saying that something is circular is the same thing. I wonder if he knows that just because a system (say Talism) is built on axioms, doesn't mean its derived statement are tautologies. Logic would be a waste of time if this were true.

[_moksha]

I apologize for the rudeness of butting in, but does not knowing whether one is conscious or not improve one's religiosity? My first guess was that it does not, but on further analysis, it potentially could open up a whole new world of possibilities that perhaps Wade is alluding to in his questioning.

Sorry for the buttinski, Wade and Tal.

[_Tal Bachman]

Grayskull, you wrote: "I don't believe it's an entirely settled issue that our "consciousness" can be said to be indubitable."

What would be the argument for the dubitability of one's own consciousness? Believing that the existence of one's own consciousness is dubitable, is as revealing an act as is informing another person that you're a solipsist. Neither act is even possible if the belief in question is true, nor would you have even attempted them if deep down, you yourself believed them to be true.

[_Tal Bachman]

To everyone -

First of all, what I mean by "axiom" is this:

ax·i·om (ăk'sē-əm)
n.
1. A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as,``The whole is greater than a part;'' ``A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.'"

I think that the existence of consciousness fits the description of a "self-evident truth", for without consciousness, we wouldn't even be capable of doubting we were conscious. To those who still manage to imagine some way to doubt we are conscious, while necessarily at the same time recognizing that it is only through being conscious that they are able to do just that, I suppose I can only suggest that, however flawed you might find this, this is the best we can do. Nothing can be more indubitable than one's own consciousness.

Folks who drink the particular type of lethal intellectual (I use the term grudgingly) poison Wade has, always end up revealing they do so for one reason, and one reason only: to try to keep believing in an ideology which, on its own terms, has become very difficult for them to keep believing in.

But even this might be putting it too weakly. What it might be even more about, is trying to remain in a particular state of mind. As long as that can be achieved, we can avoid the horrible psychic and emotional pain of having to acknowledge we have been fools; that we have believed in something there is no good reason to believe in at all; that we have wasted much of our lives devoting ourselves to a fraudulent worldview; that we have just committed social suicide; that all our dreams for the future had no more basis than suicide bomber dreams of having 72 virgins in heaven; etc. In that state of mind, there is immunity from all that pain and confusion. There is a safety there. Or at least, there appears to be.

It's amazing - to simply acknowledge that once, a young, desperate man did not tell the truth, immediately triggers all I mentioned above, plus the loss of our identity. How does a BIC person make sense of who he or she is all of a sudden, without reference to "his place in the cosmos", as described by an ideology which has become tantamount to all reality for the believer?

Too many ideologues (the Randians are one exception) begin by assaulting the very concepts of "fact" and "knowledge", in an effort (paradoxically) to keep on believing in an ideology which inevitably asserts that it's a "fact" that it is the one true explanation for the world, which all who aren't mentally handicapped or evil can "know". Who can be surprised when so many crazy contradictions then ensue in the apologetic attempts?

We are left with the spectacle of grown men asserting on the one hand that something is true (say, Mormonism, or Marxism, or Scientology), while at the same time casting doubt on the human ability to know if anything is true. In short, we are left with guys like Wade. Look at him - he won't even acknowledge that he knows he's conscious!

[_grayskull]

"What would be the argument for the dubitability of one's own consciousness?"

A lot rests on what you mean by consciousness. Various arguments in that vein would either attack the "one's own" (the idea of a continuous self) or "consciousness" (which could mean a number of different things) or both. Hume's response to Descartes would be the first serious objection. There are a number of analytic philosophers in sort of a gray area, depending on exactly what it is you mean. The most popular contemporary philosopher would be Dan Dennett.

[_wenglund]

Wow, you really got me, Wade. I guess this means that not only are we both totally unconscious right now, or at least, that neither of us knows if we are conscious or not (despite us being conscious enough to even ponder that question), but that there is some alternative means whereby we could even judge that syllogisms are fallacious, or that we are unconscious right now, other than both being conscious right now.

The Bachman ship goes down in flames! Tal

Actually, I didn't "get you". If anyone did, it is you who "got" yourself. ;-)

The point of this excersise--I mean interview, by way of understanding you better, is to illustrate that all HUMAN knowledge (including scientific) is ultimately based on certain "unkowns" and "unprovables", and as such, one cannot "know" anything with absolutely certainty (paradoxically, one cannot even "know" if this principle is absolutely "true").

Should we then throw our hands up in the air and resign ourselves to not "knowing" anything?

That depends on the flexibility and adaptibility of one's thinking.

If one is fundamentalistic in their thinking, and they thus hold RIGIDLY to a NARROW interpretation of the word "know" (i.e. viewing it only as meaning "absolute knowledge"--not to be confused with sure and certain knowledge), and they thus impose that meaning whereever the read that term (or at least selectively with certain religious material), then they may break when bent by that realization. They may even resort to mocking others who don't break when bent by the realization, and think they don't know what they are talking about (when, in truth, it may be the other way around).

However, those with a more flexible, informed, broad, and mature way of thinking, when they come to that realization may rightly ask: "so what?"--wisely observing that prior to this philosophical realization they were able to manage their lives just fine and had grown in knowlegde and understanding about the world nevertheless. The only thing that had changed is their understanding of the limits of "knowledge". This they reasonably and pragmatically resolved by becoming comfortable with the "unkown" and the "unprovable", and by accepting certain things on faith (i.e. axiomatically), and contenting themselves with learning and growing in "knowledge" and "truth" through increase in certainty. In other words, "knowledge" and "knowing" and "truth" and "reality" for them, no longer was or is a matter of absolutes, but a matter of increased confidence and certitude--sometimes even to the point where they may reasonably and relatively consider it as "sure" and "certain" knowledge. And it would be perfectly rational for them to interpret the words "know" and "knowldedge" and "sure and certain knowledge" accordingly, and without contradicting themselves. This they may well do with their spiritual as well as their secular epistemologies.

Does that help?

If not, I can certainly continue interviewing you by asking if there is anything else that you would say you "know" and/or think is "true"?

Or, I could pose some hypotheticals like: do you think it possible (even if extremely remotely) that you aren't conscious? If you aren't conscious, would you want to know? How would you determine if you weren't conscious? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Actually, I didn't "get you". If anyone did, it is you who "got" yourself. ;-)

---Right - I can tell I'm hemmorhaging...I can't believe how horribly I've embarrassed myself in front of the whole world, claiming to know I'm conscious! Thanks for showing me the light, bro.

You wrote: "One cannot 'know' anything with absolutely certainty (paradoxically, one cannot even 'know' if this principle is absolutely 'true').

---Really?

You asked me quite a few questions during my interview with you. Let me ask you a couple here then:

1.) True of false - the earth is shaped like a square block, twenty miles by twenty miles by twenty miles, but with a 10,000 foot protruding triangular appendage emerging from just below equatorial Guinea.

2.) True or false - two plus two equals seven.

Since you seem sensitive to "anti-Mormon traps" or whatever, let me explain how my questions work.

If you choose "false" for either question, you show everyone that you in fact do believe you can know something with certainty, contrary to what you have said in your post. This would reveal that you are in a very confused state.

If, however, you choose "true" for either of these questions, you reveal that you are indistinguishable from any common madman, and so ought to considered one. If you begin qualifying by saying "it depends on what we mean by 'mile' and 'square' and 'earth' and 'foot', you also reveal yourself to be very much confused, or just plain nuts. And if you ignore the question altogether (I'm betting on this last option), you reveal that you indeed have enough of your wits about you to recognize that you are sunk if you dare give any answer (whew - you're not nuts!) - but of course, that awareness (evidenced by your refusal to answer) also just confirms that your statements on the impossibility of knowledge (or "absolute knowledge" if you'd like) are wrong, and that even you at some level know that.

Two simple questions, that any normal person would have no trouble answering. But will you answer? I doubt it. I look forward to more "lashing out" and "why are you willingly misunderstanding me?" and "let me teach you something"-style distraction maneuvers.

You wrote: If one is fundamentalistic in their thinking, and they thus hold RIGIDLY to a NARROW interpretation of the word "know" (i.e. viewing it only as meaning "absolute knowledge"--not to be confused with sure and certain knowledge), and they thus impose that meaning whereever the read that term (or at least selectively with certain religious material), then they may break when bent by that realization. They may even resort to mocking others who don't break when bent by the realization, and think they don't know what they are talking about (when, in truth, it may be the other way around).

---You see, Wade, there's a reason why you're not allowed to say things like this as a Mormon without sounding totally ridiculous, and that is, that I produced numerous quotes, not one of which you acnkowledged or reckoned with, in the other thread, all of which make very clear that you are, to borrow a phrase, "out of harmony with the brethren". That obviously doesn't matter to you, and I can't fault you there, since the truth is that the likes of vain dimwits like Monson, or the cynical Hinckley, have NO more right to claim or exercise authority over your soul, your mind, your conscience, your actions, your opinions, than any other man on earth. They certainly have no more right to do so than you do. So I congratulate you, in other words, for in effect telling the Maxwells and Joseph Smiths of the world to shove it. I think the only thing left is the (admittedly very painful) step of acknowledging what that really means, and can only mean. But not everyone wishes to, or can, do that, and I accept that.

Or, I could pose some hypotheticals like: do you think it possible (even if extremely remotely) that you aren't conscious? If you aren't conscious, would you want to know? How would you determine if you weren't conscious? ;-)

---No, I do not think it is possible that I do not possess consciousness. You ask if I'd want to know if I wasn't conscious, but your question presupposes the possibility of fairly high-level or abstract cognition in the complete absence of consciousness. And of all the shockingly absurd ideas ever held on this planet by anyone, I have yet to hear of anyone who believed that. You may be the very first, Wade. Congratulations! I look forward to hearing your explanation of how the absence of consciousness is capable of facilitating high-level cognition.

You're stuck, Wade. I went through this myself.

Let me re-phrase that. There are really two issues here. As a believing Mormon, you cannot but champion a theory of knowledge which posits the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge" (see all the quotes I listed in the other thread). To not do so, as Maxwell makes clear and as Beastie pointed out on the other thread, means you don't believe in something fundamental to Mormonism. That equals apostacy.

However, as just a guy, you can hold whatever theory of knowledge you want, but I think (as a fellow guy) that any theory of knowledge which does not allow for the actual posession of knowledge (like Popperian epistemology, which nevertheless I find much to admire in) will lead inexorably to just the kind of nonsense we see in the writings of post-modernists and "truth relativists", and indeed, defenders of Mormonism who struck out on the apologetic journey by first rejecting Mormonism's most fundamental epistemic premise.

Back to those simple questions....

True or false?