Nonsense about the senses

In my

last post

 I wrote about the philosophical error of subjectivism—the belief that we only have access to our own ideas and not to any objective reality. In this post I will address that error by arguing that our ideas can be objective.

The senses are faculties that we use to obtain information about the world. The eyes probably provide the most influential information about the world. The eyes are not a sensation. The eyes are an organ that we use to get sensations which lead to perceptions. According to the philosopher John Locke and subsequent philosophers, sensation and perception are both forms of ideas.

that-by-which

The grand mistake is to believe that ideas are that which we perceive. The truth is that ideas are that by which we perceive. The difference is one word “by”. What difference does this one word make? Think of the meaning of the sentence, “A brush is that which I am painting” and the sentence “A brush is that by which I am painting.” In the first sentence I am painting an image of the brush on the canvas. In the second sentence I am using the brush to do the painting. 

We are not aware of our ideas that are the result of our sensation and perception. We are only aware of the cause of our ideas. For example, when we use our eyes to look at bananas, we are not aware of the light that hits our retina. Nor are we aware of the physiochemical process by which our brains interpret that light. We are only aware of the cause of the perception— the bananas. We have direct access to the bananas which is the object of awareness.

In the picture below subjectivist philosophers would say that we do not have direct access to banana (A) we only have access to a "representation" of (A) expressed in figure (B). This is the major error.

perceiving-bananas

Let me review the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is that which is the same for everyone. Subjective is that which is different for everyone. Everyone with senses has direct awareness of objects in reality. This means that everyone has access to objective reality. We experience actual reality. We do not experience anything through the senses unless it actually exists in reality.

An error about ideas

The significance of philosophers should not be underestimated. Their ideas can permeate society for generations. It is very important to closely scrutinize the most influential ideas of philosophers. As Aristotle said, "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." Enlightenment philosophers such as Descartes and John Locke were very influential. Many of these philosophers made a very crucial error concerning the relationship between the ideas and the intellect. Here I will briefly explain this error and point out the consequences of the error.

The error: Many philosophers believe that a person is only conscious of his own ideas. We are not aware of anyone else's ideas. We can only infer the ideas that other people have based on what they say and do. When we think of an apple, we have an idea of the apple in our mind. This idea may be a percept, a memory, a sensation, or a concept. One only perceives his own ideas.

The consequences of this error: 1. Objectivity is destroyed. "Objective" refers to that which is the same for everyone. "Subjective" refers to that which is different from one individual to another.  If we are only aware of our own ideas then ideas are merely subjective since we have no way of knowing if ideas are the same for everyone.

2. It leads to skepticism. If one only perceive his own ideas, then when one looks at an apple he/she is only aware of the representation of the apple in their mind. He/she is not actually aware of the apple in reality. One can guess that his/her idea of the apple is a good representation of the real apple, but he/she has no way of knowing. Why? because we can only tell if a representation is accurate by comparing the representation to the original. Since we have no access to the original we have know way of knowing whether our senses our trustworthy. Therefore we cannot directly apprehend what reality is like.

In my next post, I will show why these ideas about ideas are wrong.

How We Know Reality: Perception

Humans have senses. We can sense light (via eyes), sound (via ears), pressure and temperature (via skin), chemical composition (via nose and tongue), balance and acceleration (via the vestibular labyrinthine system), and we can sense many other things via various organs in the body. All of these senses give us access to reality by creating sensations. These sensations are the result of physiological processes. As such they cannot be right or wrong. The senses simply do what they do regardless of how one might wish them to be.

Sensations lead to perception. Perception is an automatic process in mature adults. We cannot control it. When we dip a straight straw into our glass of water, we perceive the straw to be bent even though the straw is not bent in reality. This is not because our senses are wrong. This is due to the fact that water refracts light. If anything, this example show how good our eyes are at interpreting light traveling at different speeds through different mediums.

bent-straw

After we perceive something we make judgements. In the case of the straw in water we can use our reason to judge that straw really is not bent after all. Likewise through experience we can discern between optical illusions and reality. Unlike perception, judgements can be right or wrong. If we were to believe in magic after witnessing a performance by a magician, our judgement about what we perceived would be wrong.

Our access to reality starts with perceptions. As we gain experience, our judgements about what we perceive in reality will improve.

When did it all begin?

How did it all begin? There are only 2 ways to explain how existence began.

(1) There was nothing and then at some point nothing turned into something.

bigbang1

(2) Existence never began because it has always existed. 

bigbang2

Explanation (1) violates a basic axiom. It violates the law of identity. How? Nothing doesn't do anything. It is nothing! Explanation (1) assumes that nothing can turn into something. Therefore nothing can equal something. It means that "A" equals "not A". Therefore explanation (1) is unintelligible. We cannot make any sense of it. If it were somehow the case that something could come out of nothing, then knowledge and reason would be impossible. Why? because it would undermine the foundation of knowledge. The theory of the Big Bang (according to Stephen Hawkings) and the idea that God creating existence Ex Nihilo assume explanation (1).

I believe in explanation (2) because it does not violate the basic axioms. If the Big Bang theory is correct, it must be the case that the Big Bang is only the beginning of the universe in its current organization. The basic constituents of reality must have always existed.

Therefore the question "When did it all begin?" is a meaningless question because there is no "beginning of it all" to refer to.

Do you have a philosophy?

Do you have a philosophy? Having a philosophy is different from studying philosophy. Having a philosophy means that you adhere to certain principles and integrate these principles with all other ideas. Those without a philosophy are at greater risk of being "tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine."

A philosophy system is like a building. Each must be built upon a foundation. The foundation always comes before the walls, windows, and ceilings. A building without a foundation will collapse. The height of a building is dependent on the strength of its foundation. Sometimes we notice the facade of the building before we think about the foundation. This is true in philosophy. For example, we often notice political ideas without recognizing the assumptions behind those ideas. 

The foundation of any philosophical system rests on Metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics is the study of what reality is like. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Neither can stand alone. Each co-implicates the other. These are the foundational branches of philosophy because all other ideas are dependent on them.

The central branch of philosophy is ethics. It is the study of how one should act. One cannot have an ethics without understanding reality and the consequences it brings. Hence, metaphysics and epistemology are necessary for a developed ethics.

Philosophical systems lead to implications in politics and aesthetics. Politics is how one applies an ethics in the context of society. One can practice ethics if he is alone on an island, but he cannot practice politics without other people. Aesthetics is the study of the arts—music, literature, and fine art. It asks questions such as "What is art?, "Is there an objectively good or bad art? and if so, "What is good art?

This understanding of how different branches of philosophy fit into a coherent whole is an aid to properly integrating our ideas.

A Foundation for Knowledge

All knowledge rests on the following 3 axioms. All principled thinking depends on these axioms.

Axiom 1: Existence exists or in other words reality is real. Existence is independent of consciousness. This is a self-evident axiom because a conscious person can only reject existence after first presuming his own existence. Existence is the widest of all concepts. It includes all that is known and unknown. I am going to call things that exist in reality “existents.”

Axiom 2: Consciousness exists. Consciousness is the awareness of existents.

Axiom 3: The law of identity. The first two axioms imply the law of identity. Consciousness can identify existents. The identity of an existent is its identity. If we substitute the word identity for the symbol “A” we know that ‘A’ = ‘A’. This means that ‘A’ cannot equal ‘not A’

The law of identity implies the law of causality. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. The law of causality is the foundation for our understanding of natural laws. It in turn implies position symmetry and time symmetry. Position symmetry means that existents have the same identity no matter where they are in reality. Time symmetry means that existents have the same identity regardless of when they are in reality.

The law of identity also implies the law of non-contradiction. This is another axiom. It shows that contradictions cannot exist in reality. The law of non-contradition is the foundation of logic. Logic provides the foundation for mathematics. Logic is the key to understanding the universe. Reality sans logic would be unintelligible. By rejecting the axioms one necessarily destroys their ability to think.

These axioms are the foundation of knowledge. The systematic application of the axioms validates scientific inquiry. No consciousness in the universe can change these axioms—not even God. Causality, Logic, and Mathematics are necessarily the same in every time and in every place.

Axioms

An idea can be a premise or a conclusion. A premise is an idea that supports a conclusion. A conclusion is an idea that is derived from premises. To validate a conclusion we must identify and validate the premises. How do we validate a premise? By identifying the premises that support that premise. Here we can see a potential problem. Either (1) each premise will have its own premise going down a chain of premises forever, or (2) eventually we will find a stopping point. That stopping point would be an irreducible premise that can stand alone. If option (1) is true, then knowledge would not be possible. If option (2) is true then knowledge is possible only if we find irreducible premises that can stand alone. I believe that knowledge is possible because irreducible premises do exist. I am going to call these premises "Axioms". An axiom is a foundational premise that is self evident. An axiom is self evident if when one attempts to reject it, must assume it first. An example of a self-evident axiom is the idea that "existence exists". This is self-evident because if a person tries to reject it, he/she must first presume his/her own existence.

Axioms cannot be proven. The concept of proof is not irreducible. "Proof" relies on axioms. For example, the concept of "proof" first assumes that existence exists and that it exists independent of consciousness. The concept of proof is meaningless without the concept of reality/existence. Even though Axioms cannot be proven, they can be validated. Validation is a larger concept than proof. Axioms are validated if they are self-evident.

In the next few posts I will lay out the most fundament Axioms of knowledge and science.

Miracles and Reality

This post is part of a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

"For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God’s existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe."

—Walter Isaacson from Einstein: His Life and Universe

I like this quote about Einstein's convictions even though I believe that he makes the mistake of misidentifying the divine. I define miracles as those surprises that violate the law of cause and effect. A belief in supernatural miracles is incompatible with a belief in a mechanical universe. It is only compatible with a belief in a magical universe.

According to Brigham Young:

“There is no miracle to any being in the heavens or on the earth, only to the ignorant. To a man who understands the philosophy of all the phenomena that transpire, there is no such thing as a miracle...A miracle is supposed to be a result without a cause, but there is no such thing. There is a cause for every result we see; and if we see a result without understanding the cause we call it a miracle. This is what we have been taught; but there is no miracle to those who understand.”

—Journal of Discourses 13: 33, 14:79

Note: Because of the imperfection of language, some might still use the term miracle even though they believe in a mechanical universe. 

Reality and Traditional Christianity

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

As I mentioned in a previous post, traditional Christianity believes in the Absolutism of God. Some believe that the Absolutism of God implies that God could literally do anything, including making murder good, or making contradictions exist.

This is debatable whether this view was part of original Christianity. Some early church fathers such as Justin and Origen of Alexandria rejected the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. So where did this belief come from? According to some biblical scholars, it entered Christianity in the first century by a jewish philosopher from Alexandria named Philo Judeaus. He attempted to reconcile Hellenistic metaphysics with Hebrew scriptures. "Philo rejected the Aristotelian concept of the world as uncreated...By the end of the second century the ex nihilo doctrine was accepted almost universally in the church..."

This view is generally rejected by LDS teaching. According to Joseph Smith,

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

In other words God did not create reality ex nihilo nor could He. In contrast to Traditional Christiatinty Joseph Smith taught that God is bound by law and not a law unto himself. Some LDS scriptures suggest that those who seek not to be government by law, but seeketh to become laws unto themselves, cannot be sanctified by the law. Becoming a law unto oneself is the ultimate goal of Satan. For example, he wants to choose how to act and he wants to choose the consequences for actions (D&C 88:34-39).

Reality, Sin, and Commandments

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

"Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is harmful."

—Benjamin Franklin

This quote assumes the absolutism of reality. Certain acts are harmful regardless of what any consciousness wants (including God). These acts undermine happiness and we simply call these acts "sin". Wickedness is consistently choosing sinful behavior. According to LDS scriptures, "Wickedness never was happiness." (Alma 41:10) This verse implicitly defines wickedness as that sort of lifestyle that consistently makes people unhappy in reality.

The commandments of God show what will make people happy in reality.  According to D. Todd Christofferson, "[God's] Commandments are the voice of reality." (April 2010 General Conference) They are instructions for how to navigate reality. When one obeys God's commandments he/she can see reality more clearly, because reality will give them positive feedback. This is the reason that Christ said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." (John 7:17)

If one believes that the commandments are burdensome, he/she does not understand the relationship between the commandments and reality. Consistently following the counsel of any religion will show whether or not that religion corresponds to reality.

The Zeroth Article of Faith

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

The first 4 articles of faith of LDS theology logically depend on the previous article. Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Article 4) are brought about by the Atonement (Article 3) which was necessary because of our sinful nature and the fall of Adam (Article 2) which we must overcome to live again with Heavenly Father (Article 1).

If there were to be an even more basic article to precede article 1 what would it be? It would describe those things that are more basic than the God. What is more basic than the God? Reality with its eternal laws. God's power comes from his knowledge of these laws (D&C 93:36).

If LDS theology did have a zeroth article of faith then it would be something like: "We believe in reality (that existence exists)," or, "We believe in eternal laws," or, "We believe that reality has primacy over consciousness." This assumption distinguishes LDS theology from all other religious organizations in the world. self-evident axiom

But is their anything more basic than reality? No, the existence of reality is the most basic premise. All other beliefs ultimately rest on a belief in reality. It is a self-evident axiom. A belief is self-evident if one must assume the belief in order to try and deny it. Any argument trying to denying reality would be self-refuting. Axioms cannot be proven because "proof" is a concept that presupposes reality.

Ontological Frameworks

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

Aristotle said, “A small error in the beginning will lead to a huge one in the end.” If this is true, then the starting point of any belief system is the most important point to identity and examined. The study of the ultimate starting point, or most fundamental belief of any belief system is called metaphysics. Ontology is the central branch of metaphysics which is an investigation into the fundamental categories of existence and their relationships to each other such as the relationship between reality and consciousness. Ontology provides a framework for understanding theology.

Western religions can generally be divided into 2 different ontological frameworks concerning the relationship between God and reality.

The most common ontological framework asserts that God comes before reality. This ontological framework is called The Absolutism of God. Since God comes before reality, God created reality out of nothing. Traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism begin with the absolutism of God and develop their theology with that starting premise. This ontological framework asserts the absolutism of God represented as follows:

absolutism-of-god

A less common ontological framework is the absolutism of reality which asserts that reality exists and God is subject to that reality. This view is held by the Mormon Theology and can be represented as such:

absolutism-of-reality