Social reality

April 19, 2012

One living philosopher that I can recommend is a professor from UC Berkeley named John Searle. He is an analytic philosopher that has done a lot of work on the issues of philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and philosophy of society. I am currently listening to his recent lectures at Berkeley via iTunes U. I own one of his books and I ordered another one which I expect to arrive today. The new book I ordered is The Construction of Social Reality. He has some insights that I find both convincing and fascinating. I will briefly summarize one of his insights here using my own visual interpretation of his views and add some of my own insights as well.

One important distinction of reality is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity describes that which is the same for everyone. Subjectivity describes that which is different for everyone.

In one of Searle’s latest books Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, Searle poses a fascinating question:

“We make statements about social facts that are completely objective—for example, Barack Obama is president of the United States, the piece of paper in my hand is a twenty-dollar bill, and so on. And yet, though these are objective statements, the facts corresponding to them are all created by human subjective attitudes. …How is it possible that we can have factual objective knowledge of a reality that is created by subjective opinions?”

One of Searle’s favorite examples is money. Money only exists(objectively) because we believe it exists(subjectively). To rephrase his question, how can observer-relative objective facts arise from observer-independent facts of reality? Below is one real world application of the question:

 

Searle unravels this paradox by identifying a distinction between epistemic and ontological modes of existence. Don’t be intimidated by the fancy words. Epistemic simply means pertaining to knowledge. Ontological means pertaining to existence. The question of social facts seems paradoxical because the objective/subjective distinction doesn’t account for ontological and epistemic dimension. For example, The belief that Rembrandt was born in 1606 is an epistemically objective fact while the belief that Rembrandt is better than Rubens is an epistemically subjective belief. Here is a visual example of the distinction:

The epistemic objectivity of the statement that Rembrandt was born in 1606 arises from facts about the ontological existence of Rembrandt. The epistemic statement corresponds to reality. The statement of Rembrandt’s birth is justified because of observer-independent fact of reality. The diagram below shows the correspondence theory of truth.

But when it comes to social facts such as money, the connection is different. The ontologically subjective belief in money leads to the epistemically objective fact that a particular piece of paper is worth $1.

 

The important thing to emphasize is that such social institutional facts can be epistemically objective even though human attitudes are part of their mode of existence.  That is, observer relativity implies ontological subjectivity but ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Searle attempts to explain how observer-relative objective facts arise from observer-independent features of reality. I will just briefly mention some of the conditions that Searle thinks are necessary to create observer-relative objective facts. These conditions include Language, collective intentionality, and status functions. A common language allows us to exchange ideas and thoughts about reality and make decisions together. Collective intentionality roughly means that multiple people agree on something at the same time (Its actually much more complicated than that. A status function means that we assign a purpose to an object. We don’t discover functions in reality, we assign functions to objects. Status functions are the glue that holds human society/civilization together. So in the case of money, we use language and intentionality to collectively assign the function of money to pieces of paper.

Searle also develops the logical form of social facts. He argues that all social facts have the logical form X counts as Y in context C. I will list a few applications that show the logical form. This piece of paper (X) counts as $1(Y) in the United States (context C). Barack Obama counts as the president of the United States. Such and such a move in chess counts as a legal knight move. The fascinating part of this logical structure is that it can iterate upward indefinitely. For example, such and such a sentence in English can count as making a promise, and uttering such and such a promise counts as undertaking a contract. Or, Professional chess players can play blind chess where they don’t even need an object in reality to assign a function. They can assign functions to mere thoughts about things that have functions. Wow!

I find this line of thought very interesting and I will continue to explore in writing how observer-relative facts relate to the observer-independent facts.

Discussion 2 Comments Category Epistemology, Metaphysics, Science

The nature of God’s laws (part 2)

April 17, 2012

This is a continuation of my last post.

I started the recent string of posts with a distinction between observer-independent (OI) facts and observer-relative (OR) facts.These words probably cause more confusion than clarity. Unfortunately I have not yet thought of better terms to describe my thoughts. I will try to use them very carefully. Reviewing my post on these terms is recommended.

After the last post I received this thoughtful comment from my friend:

“If God’s laws are observer-relative, then He is not subject to them, but rather created them. If He created them, He should be able to determine the consequences of breaking those laws.”

To respond to this comment let me clarify again the way I am using the terms observer-independent and observer-relative. The fact that conscious agents exist is an observer-independent fact. Also, the fact that social norms can cause an increase or decrease in happiness among conscious agents is an observer-independent fact. For instance, conscious agents do not actually decide what makes them happy in reality. (This is a whole other conversation that I would rather address in a later post.)

I will come around to tying this back into the comment above. Please bear with me. Let me use another example. Money is created by conscious agents. It is an observer-relative (OR) creation. However, the fact that money decreases transaction costs among conscious agents is an observer-independent (OI) fact. Conscious agents cannot decide whether or not money decreases transaction costs.

Let us imagine that (within an LDS context) that God’s laws did not exist. According to the LDS view, consequences for our actions would still exist. Those consequences are (OI). God cannot choose those consequences. He has no power over them. But he institutes (OR) laws to help us avoid (OI) consequences.

Let me invoke 2 metaphors that I hope will clarify this point.

The Hot Stove Metaphor—In reality, my daughter would burn her hand if she touched a hot stove. I institute the household law—“Thou shalt not touch hot stoves.” I cannot choose the consequences, but my (OR) law is instituted within the framework of the laws of reality(OI).

The Dangerous Street Metaphor— Children who play in the street are likely to get hit by moving vehicles. Therefore I institute the household law—“Thou shalt not play in the street lest I execute punishment by grounding.” In this case, I did choose the (OR) punishment, but it was only to protect my daughter from (OI) consequences of which I have no control.

In the Hot Stove metaphor, I did not set a punishment for breaking the law. The blessing for obeying my law was not getting burned by the hot stove. I could have changed my law because it was (OR). But, I had no control over the (OI) consequences. I believe that the majority of God’s laws reflect the principles in the Hot Stove metaphor. God does not actively set the punishment, he lets us learn from reality ourselves if we choose to disobey.

In the Dangerous Street metaphor, I did set an (OR) punishment for breaking my law because I wanted to give my daughter extra disincentive against playing in the street. I could have chosen a different punishment such as removing all of the marshmallow shapes from her Lucky Charms cereal. Some of God’s laws are instituted as such. According to LDS theology, every spirit willingly agreed to these laws and conditions in a pre-mortal existence.

Another quick point before I conclude. The purpose of God’s laws are to help us learn and progress to become like Him. Human beings learn differently based on different social contexts. If adjusting or changing a law would help us learn better based on a certain social context, then it would make sense to adjust the law to fulfill a higher purpose. For example, the Law of Moses was customized for the ancient Israelites to help them learn in their own way, but eventually the Law of Moses was replaced with a higher law. Likewise a law against drinking was not necessary at the time of Jesus. This law was “given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints” (D&C 89:3)  So in within social contexts laws must change and evolve to fulfill their purpose. God will not give us a law that we are not ready for because it would condemn us more than it would help us.

In conclusion, yes, God could change the consequences of His laws, but his laws are just because they conform to observer-independent law.

Discussion 5 Comments Category Metaphysics, Religion, Science

Early LDS views of God and Law

April 15, 2012

Today’s post is one of my infrequent LDS-centric posts.

Just 3 months before his death, when his theology and beliefs were most mature, Joseph Smith gave a sermon to 20,000 early Latter-day Saints. The sermon took place shortly after the funeral service of a man named King Follett. That sermon is commonly known as King Follett’s Discourse. In this sermon Joseph Smith said,

“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”

What is the nature of these laws that God instituted?

To answer this question I will try to answer what we mean by the word “law”. To clarify the word law, I will invoke a distinction made in my last post—the distinction between observer-independent facts and observer-relative facts. Laws can refer to both distinctions. An observer-independent law is a universal principle that is independent of consciousness. I use the word consciousnesses similar to the word intelligences. Consciousnesses refers to all beings that have consciousness include human beings and Gods. Examples of observer-independent laws include the laws of thermodynamics, the law of non-contradiction, the Pythagorean Theorem, Boyle’s law, etc. An observer-relative law refers to rules of conduct and behavior to be enforced by social institutions. Examples include traffic laws, contract law, the law of Moses, etc.

These two uses of the word “law” are very different. But, using these 2 senses of the word interchangeably is the source of much confusion.

Are the laws instituted by God observer-independent, observer-relative, or both?

Let me reference some of the laws of God. In this context, I think “law” and “commandment” are the same. Here is a partial list:

  • “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
  • “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. …
  • “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. …
  • “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. …
  • “Honour thy father and thy mother. …
  • “Thou shalt not kill.
  • “Thou shalt not commit adultery. (The law of chastity)
  • “Thou shalt not steal.
  • “Thou shalt not bear false witness. …
  • “Thou shalt not covet.”
  • The law of tithing
  • The law of consecration
  • The word of wisdom
  • Love God. …
  • Love thy neighbor. …
  • Care for the poor

All of these laws are observer-relative because they only exist as a result of a conscious agent. Observer-relative laws can be adjusted for different social contexts. For example, the law of Moses was done away through Christ. Likewise the law of polygamy served a temporary purpose in different periods of history.

But, did God institute any observer-independent laws such as the law of thermodynamics, or the pythagorean theorem? Since God is an observer himself, it would be contradictory to say that God instituted laws that were independent of him. But some might argue that those laws of nature are independent to everyone but God.

All the laws that God has shared with us have been observer-relative laws. There is no reason to believe that God created any laws that appear to humans to be observer-independent.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith taught that God himself cannot transcend any law that is independent of Him. (I have posted here and here on this topic.) The apostle John A. Widsoe in his book Joseph Smith as a Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy wrote:

“The interesting fact about this matter is, naturally, that in this conception of God, Joseph Smith was strictly scientific. He departed from the notion that God is a Being foreign to nature and wholly superior to it. Instead, he taught that God is part of nature, and superior to it only in the sense that the electrician is superior to the current that is transmitted along the wire. The great laws of nature are immutable, and even God cannot transcend them.”

These immutable laws are not the laws that God instituted. His laws are observer-relative laws are instituted within the framework of the immutable laws of reality. That means that observer-relative laws are based on observer-independent laws. For instance, the fact that God’s observer-relative laws help us grow in knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence is an observer-indepdendent fact. This is a more complex subject which I will address in a later post.

In conclusion, God’s laws are observer-relative and they are not observer-independent. Mormons can be confident that their beliefs will not conflict with any of the observer-indepedent laws so far discovered by science.

Discussion 7 Comments Category Metaphysics, Religion, Science

Reality and Consciousness

March 27, 2012

Reality is that which exists. Everything that exists in reality has an identity. Consciousness is the means by which we can identify everything that exists. Existence is identity, consciousness is identification.

The process of identification involves conceptualization. We categorize and group things based on their similarities and differences.

There are 2 broad categorizations of things that exist in reality:

(1) The first category is that which is exists independent of consciousness. This includes things like matter, time, forces, and particles. These are observer-independent features of reality. They would still exist even if conscious agents did not. Also, the fact that consciousness exists is an observer-independent fact.

(2) The second category describes everything that is dependent on consciousness for existence. This includes things like the United States of America, money, language, and marriage. These are observer-relative features of reality. They could never exist without conscious agents.

Natural science deals with observer-independent facts. The social sciences deal with observer-relative facts.

This distinction is foundational. I will use this concept to support 2 arguments in upcoming posts. I will explain some things that God can do and cannot do. And, I will explain the difference between eternal laws and temporary laws.

 

Discussion Leave a comment Category Epistemology, Metaphysics, Science Tags

The law of attraction and self-fulfilling prophecy

March 21, 2012

This is the last post on the law of Attraction. I won’t spend much time on this post because I want to move to other things, but I at least want to put my ideas down before I forget them.

Those who believe in the law of attraction often point to their own experience as evidence for their beliefs. They say things such as, “I thought about “X” and all these experiences happened that lead me to obtain “X”.”

I have had this experience in my life as well. When I bought my Chevy Malibu and was thinking about my Malibu, all I noticed on the freeway was Malibus. I had never noticed them before and they weren’t new. It also seems that I have obtained things that I wanted when I started to think about them and focus on them. Sometimes these experiences are referred to as “self-fulfilling prophecies”.

Those who think that these experiences support a belief in the law of attraction are mistaken for the following reasons:

Premise 1: We remember the successful experiences and we tend to forget the unsuccessful experiences. I think that gamblers have this same psychological problem.

Premise 2: Humans naturally try to attach explanations to random events. For example, ancient peoples explained the movement of leaves on trees as the result of some type of spirit or diety. Likewise believers in the law of attraction attribute their successful experiences to the law of attraction. I have written more about this here.

Conclusion: Therefore, believers in the law of attraction are confusing correlation and causation. This is the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. They think that they and the law of attraction are the causes in their life. They don’t take into account circumstances beyond their control, random events, and the fact that their own life refutes the law of attraction, but they just don’t remember why.

Thinking about “X” never guarantees that we actually obtain “X”. Self-fulfilling prophecies are only identified ex post (after the fact). Humans are terrible at predicting self-fulfilling prophecies ex ante(before the fact).

Don’t believe in the law of attraction.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Epistemology, Metaphysics, Science Tags

An LDS argument against the law of attraction

February 19, 2012

This is the fourth argument in a series of arguments against the law of attraction.

“That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.” —D&C 88:35

Those who take the law of attraction seriously cannot logically also believe in laws of reality by which we are judged. They seek to become laws unto themselves. They reject reality and it’s eternal laws. A belief in reality is the fundamental assumption of LDS theology. Therefore, one cannot consistently be LDS and also believe in the law of attraction.

Discussion 2 Comments Category Ethics, Metaphysics, Religion, Science Tags

The Law of Attraction is Dangerous

February 18, 2012

This is the third argument in a series of arguments against the law of attraction.

The law of attraction assumes that consciousness has primacy over reality. If consciousness really had primacy over reality, then there would be no reason to be respond to feedback from reality. If there is no incentive to react to reality, then a person will be dangerous to himself and to others.

For example, I blame the law of attraction for shortening the life of Steve Jobs. In his biography, we learn that Jobs could have prolonged his life if he followed his doctors counsel—if he had adhered to reality. Instead Steve Jobs believed that he could cure himself through positive thoughts and quack medicine. (It is actually illogical for those who believe in the law of attraction to also believe in any sort of medicine, but it is not surprising that the remedies they do believe in are usually not science-based).

If you really take the law of attraction seriously, then let me know when you are on the road so that I can avoid you. You will be a danger to me and yourself because you will not wish to be bothered by my presence.

In reality, no one actually takes the law of attraction seriously, because no one can live it consistently and survive. Thankfully, those who tried to live it consistently have already removed themselves from the gene pool.

Discussion 1 Comment Category Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Religion, Science Tags

The law of attraction is self-refuting

January 26, 2012

This is the first argument against the law of attraction.

1. The law of attraction is self-refuting

The law of attraction assumes that consciousness can change reality. Therefore, it must logically assume that there is no objective reality. This is idealism. In my terminology, the law of attraction assumes that, “Consciousness has primacy over reality”.

The first axiom of rationality is that an objective reality exists. This is an axiom because any person that tries to argue against it must first assume it. Whenever a person uses the word “is” as in “This thing is that thing“, they are assuming the first axiom. To say the words “the law of attraction is a true law” is to make a contradiction. That proposition assumes that there is an objective reality and it also assumes that there is no objective reality.

If it was true that the law of attraction could grant the believer anything, then someone could use that law to destroy the law of attraction if they really believed hard enough. The law of attraction applied to itself reveals the contradictory nature of the belief.

No person can live a balanced life when there are contradictions in his/her mind.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Epistemology, Metaphysics, Science Tags

The Law of Attraction

January 25, 2012

In 2006, a DVD was released that offered a sensational depiction of a popular self help idea. “The Secret“, which was followed by a book of the same name, taught that one attracts whatever they think about. They called this notion the law of attraction.

Various speakers spoke in the DVD about this law that can give you anything. Some even suggested that our mind sends out vibrations that attract corresponding things to us including wealth, fame, and happiness. The law of attraction is a genie that will grant your every wish.

When I have spoken to people who believe in the law of attraction, they say that the law of attraction is so powerful that they can achieve anything if only they believe enough.

I know many people that either buy into it or feel that something is wrong with the theory without being able to articulate why. I will offer a four simple arguments to refute the law of attraction. The four arguments are listed below. I will write a post for each of them in the next few days.

1. The law of attraction is self-refuting
 2. The law of attraction insulates the believer from feedback
3. The law of attraction is dangerous
4. The law of attraction is evil from an LDS perspective

Discussion 2 Comments Category Epistemology, Metaphysics, Religion, Science Tags