I experience my world through a combination of physical and subtle senses.

Sometimes seeing an physical object ... sometimes a vision in my head about someone's medical condition I couldn't possibly know.

Sometimes hearing something in the physical world ... sometimes audible information without a source.

Sometimes touching something physical in my environment ... more often an innate sensing and a tanglible vibration in my body

I 'know' stuff all the time that I have no explanation for ... it took time for me to understand the framework of it... like learning the 'language'.

Regardless, I view the gathering of information as sensory either coming through physical or subtle means... And my making sense of that information comes from prior learning through experience.

It is nothing special. We all have access to both physical and subtle senses. We just don't all choose to use them.

Boy that's a bomb right there.

This could be the topic of a thread in its own right. Where's Funches?

What constitutes knowledge?

Is mere complexity knowledge?

If not, where's the line that crosses over to become knowledge?

If so, then what about the amino acids that had to have formed prior to the DNA. Do they constitute knowledge?

If so, then what about the atoms that came together to form the amino acids. Do they constitute knowledge?

If so, then what about the quantum fields that gave rise to specfic subatomic particles that come together to form atoms. Do they constitute knowledge?

If a quantum field constitutes knowledge could that be the mind of God?

Where's Funches? Tell him we found the mind of God.

JB...



I agree.



Very few premonitions such as what you have described turn out to be of substantive value. In the case you mentioned earlier, I would call that a very lucky guess which required you to be experiencing the event as it happened. Remove the event and you remove the knowledge.

Regarding the innate ability of the pianist...

Innate ability is the measure of one's capability to learn... from life experience.

Ability does not equate to knowledge.


Billy...

No worries, I am not here to tear anyone apart. We are all teachers and we are all students whether we realize it or not...



I dispute the validity of this claim. DNA is alive and it needs interaction within a living organism to fulfill it's nature. Interaction requires experience. Can you support it a little more from the other side?



This is not applicable. I am referring to sentient beings.


Artsy... my love.

You do amazing things... they all required your life's experience(s) though.





James....

Truly though, the question of what constitutes knowledge is a good one.

You appear to be reserving this term only some some kind of sentient beings.

I think Billy is looking at it more from the point of view that the universe would represent knowledge even if it didn't contain sentient beings. Or at least with out humans.

Where do you stand on that?

If humans were removed from the universe would the universe still contain knowledge?

If yes, then what about removing all but single-celled lifeform, like bacteria and amobeas, etc.

Would the unvierse still contain knowledge?

What if there were no life as we know it but the whole rest of the universe was still here. The planets and solar system, just no life on earth. But there was still volcanos, oceans, storms, lightening.

Would that universe contain knowledge.

What is your definition of knowledge?

In the spirit of this discussion, I have taken the definition from the piece in the OP...

OK - now use it in a sentence to make your point on what it means, not just to you, but to the discussion?

are you trying to say - if i go along with the concept that we believe it and it's true then that is "warrant" enough to accept it as ((knowing)) >>knowledge<< ?

Would you?

The nature of what constitutes warrant is no different then what constitutes proof.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would suffice warrant from this author, as long as it could be displayed in an all inclusive manner.

I have displayed warrant in every response. That evidence which warrants my belief and proves that experience is necessary for all knowledge acquisition has been shown thus far.

well with me there's always the problem of knowledge being in-permanent or ever changing and being re-definable, so that's why i said if I and then went to we. but my thoughts on this are out of and off topic - I'm just trying to see where you guys are going with it - so i would like you to tell me - no more freudian comments -

In all actuality the following should close the conversation quite handily, I would think. I thought about it at the time, but did not pursue it.


This comment said it all...

That's what I said love ...

Science vs. God - Reply from a Christian

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment.

"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him how is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fellow Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student: "From...God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir.”

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student: "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice is confident: "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him"

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever actually felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, t here isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops some where in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do"

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

Pass this on if you have faith and love Jesus.

GOD BLESS YOU

keepthehope...

While that was a very inspiring message for those who believe in the 'God' of Abraham, it was not even close to being relevant to the conversation at hand.There are many people here who you may find comfort with in your beliefs, but I can assure you that I am probably not one of them.

Thank you for your understanding.

Peace.

It seems to be a coversation about science, seemed very appropriate. I didn't expect it to comfort anyone, maybe cause a few to think. I have realized that there are many who have their own ideas and feel free to express them, I am just doing the same.

The conversation is about the differences between empiricists and rationalists. While it sort of relates because of the nature of philosophy at the time revolved around the existence of 'God', this particular conversation was not about 'God'...

No harm, no foul...

Thank you for your good intent.

Excuse me for disagreeing with you here. It was very substantial for me, as this knowledge (or information) very well may have saved my life. Perhaps it is of no value to anyone else or to society in general but it was extremely valuable knowledge for me to have acquired.

Now you or the world in general may have preferred that I had received knowledge on how to cure cancer, but personally I appreciated the knowledge on how to prevent being killed or kidnapped in that moment.




Remove the "event" and you remove the need for the knowledge.

Remove just the premonition and I may have been killed or kidnapped or at the very least scared half to death.

(I guess I don't really understand your point about removing the event.)

But your response is spoken like a true skeptic and pragmatic scientific atheist.

It was NOT A GUESS.

I was sitting at a bar having a drink talking to friends. I was NOT guessing anything or even thinking about my car or who might be in it.

I heard inside of my head, my own voice very loud and very clear state: "There is someone in my car!"

This was not a "lucky guess." I was compelled to repeat that information and strongly compelled to go check it out.

It was so strong I could do nothing but repeat the phrase about three times out loud like a recording. People looked at me as if I were nuts. Then I took three men with me to check this information out.

From across the street no one could see anything or anyone near my car. We walked across the dark street. Standing by the car nobody could see anyone in the front seat of the car and the back seat was too dark to see anything. Everyone told me there was no one in the car.

I told them to open the door of the car and when we did that the light came on and it revealed a man hiding in the back seat.

This was not a lucky guess. This was knowledge that probably saved me from an ugly fate.

I have had this kind of "knowledge" happen to me more than once. This is what some call a sixth sense perhaps. I don't know. But it was certainly not a "lucky guess."

I believe we have the innate ability to sense things not available to us by the five known senses and I have personal experience and evidence of just that.

Other than that I don't understand what point you are attempting to make.

Are we born with certain knowledge? To a certain extent our instincts are knowledge.

So you think the ability to play the piano at age three is not innate knowledge? I think it is.

It takes experience and something else to be able to do that in my opinion.

You can't take any three year old and set them in front of a piano and even teach them to play like that. A three year old who does this with no one teaching them to do it has some kind of innate knowledge in my personal opinion. You can "rationalize" another explanation that suits you, but I can disagree.

I disagree because of my own personal experiences.

What it all boils down to always, is personal opinions.

Creative,

So by your statement above I take it that you believe people have "premonitions"?

Do you consider a "premonition" to be knowledge of a future event or just knowledge of a current event in the process?

Concerning your assertion above that "very few" premonitions "..such as you have described turn out to be of substantive value" ~please explain the following:

1.) Out of all premonitions of this sort that you have personal knowledge of, how many do you know had "substantive value" and how many did not and can you site these examples?

(I just would like to know where or how you are getting your statistics for this assertion or if this is just an off-the-wall personal opinion.)

Or perhaps you were born with the knowledge to make statements like this.

2.) How would you rate the "substantive value" of a premonition of this sort?

A. Its contribution to society or science
B. How many lives are saved
C. Who's lives were saved.
D. What kind of information or knowledge it was.
E. Any other method of rating the value of a premonition, if any.

JB

There seems to be some subtle things going on here.

First off this isn't the definition for knowledge this is a definition for knowing.

It begins with:

Knowing a particular proposition requires both that we believe it and that it be true.

That's the part right there that is of interest; "and that it be true".

This implies that there is knowledge out there that can be known.

Knowing, is not the same as knowledge.

Knowledge exists whether it is known or not.

In other words, there are supposedly some 'truths' to the universe, that we call knowledge.

Or to put it another way, "There is knowledge out there that can be known."

The discovery of these truths is how we come to know that knowledge.

Is false 'knowledge' truly knowlege at all?

If you believe that you know something, but what you think you know simply isn't true, then can you really say that you have knowledge of it?

How can you have knowledge of something that isn't true?

Spider often argues this for God. He claims that God can't know things that aren't true because they simply don't exist to know. How can you know something that isn't true?

You may think you know something. But if it isn't true then it's not true knowledge.

For this reason then knowledge must be a prior to knowing.

If this is the case, then Billy's suggestion that DNA represents knowledge would certainly be a valid point.

DNA doesn't need to sentiently 'know' this knowledge, because it is the knowledge.

DNA can be known, but it doesn't need to know itself to be knowledge worth knowing.

Therefore DNA represents knowledge.

To me, "knowledge" seems to be a term that represents information that is known or at least knowable.

The question for me would be, "Is all information knowable?"

Can there be information that is not knowable and if so can you call that knowledge?

The term "knowledge" I believe, relates to mankind's grasp of information that he can know and understand.

Information that mankind cannot grasp and understand and does not know about is not knowledge. It is simply information.

Therefore, DNA is still just information until mankind grasps and understands it completely and knows what the information is for and what its function is.

I then say that DNA is simply information, and for the most part it is not understood or known, at least by modern science or mankind.

(perhaps some advanced race or scientists know more of DNA than we do..)

Billy wrote:

DNA gains knowledge without sense.

I disagree.

I say that DNA is simply information, stored. It cannot gain knowledge it is simply information. It is data. It is a formula, or a program of sorts.



JB

well, so far creative i think JB makes most sense so far, i will input later when i see where this goes, interesting topic.

Just for the record, no.

The issue is the decision as to what consitutes happy/sad.

Before that decision is made, the is no happy/sad.

Sure, there may or may not be sensory input prior to the decision.

But the decision as to whether that sensory input is happy or sad is determined entirely by rationalism.