100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On Knowing... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
rerrr reerrr reerrr reerrr rer. I am so happy that I dont feel its my job to quote, and pick apart everything that is said. Too much time on the hands? or superiority complex? Its hilarious how this subject has gotten so far. Very simple. How do you know something is so?
This is not the first day of life. Helloooo! I get that someone might not get it, but so many that are like.. yeah... this is a huge question. Unbelieveable! Good GOD!!! There are other things to do.. think about. I take inventory of myself, and say, there are other things that are so much more important. How bout THAT concept. Not the most cerebral debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 To each his/her own... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sorry if I sounded like a jerk there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion/belief, knowing comes from experience. Without an experience it is just a belief. This does get complicated being that everything is constantly changing. What you know about yesterday is only a belief about tomorrow. For example, everytime I clicked on Internet Explorer my internet came on. It is only a belief that the next time I click it'll come on again, even though I know it did all the other times. The next time I click on it some evil person with superb programming knowledge may have sent some new virus to my computer to stop the INTERNET FROM WORKING! DAMN ALL SPYWARE TO HELL!!!!
Sorry, I got a little carried away, but you get the idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandpit....
For me that feels like knowledge. 'Knowing' is inherant, innate, it's beyond experiential knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sorry if I sounded like a jerk there. The style of my writing sometimes produces those thoughts in others about me, this is an interesting reflection... That is quite alright!  I just did not know how to respond to that. I was unsure of the meaning behind it, and because it could have been taken many different ways, the safest seemed best. That was the safest I could think of at the time. sandpitrecords states... In my opinion/belief, knowing comes from experience. Without an experience it is just a belief. This does get complicated being that everything is constantly changing. What you know about yesterday is only a belief about tomorrow. An interesting perspective is taken up when I consider this... The notion that one cannot know what they do not believe, but if one only believes, then they do not know, because they are not certain enough to consider that belief as unmistakable. For example, everytime I clicked on Internet Explorer my internet came on. It is only a belief that the next time I click it'll come on again, even though I know it did all the other times. The next time I click on it some evil person with superb programming knowledge may have sent some new virus to my computer to stop the INTERNET FROM WORKING! DAMN ALL SPYWARE TO HELL!!!! This is a good example. Earlier Jeremy(billy) mentioned repeatibility, and I believe that it is an element worthwhile to consider. This repeatibility is a property of a system or process, in this case one which involves a person and his/her computer and other things as well, which are not really necessary to get into. I wonder if it would add clarity in thought if we were to view this a little differently? If it were not even thinkable, meaning there had been no prior experience to suggest anything different, would there be any doubt at all in this? If past experience had not confirmed the possibility would there be reason to doubt? Indeed you do not believe that you know, because of the fact that you are aware of another contradicting fact, namely that there does exist a remote possibility of contracting a computer virus which would affect the outcome of the situation. This know - the existence of the possibility for a virus - contradicts what would have been a known, but instead must be a belief. The certainty in the possibility of a virus outweighs the certainty regarding the dependability of the internet connection. Lee... For me that feels like knowledge. 'Knowing' is inherant, innate, it's beyond experiential knowledge. Saying this as simply as I can without meaning to be just contradictory, I can see no distinction in my understanding between the two, other than perhaps innate capability(potential)... I am not exactly sure what all that includes. There is still much to learn and know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 05/01/09 09:41 PM
|
|
Can one be born knowing anything without possessing language, which represents the ability to frame/express it, without learning all of the other facts/ideas required to establish such a construct?
How does one understand this innate knowing without being born into the world and later(through experience) learning language and meaning? Can one think about things without the ability to know what those things are? These are the types of questions which I think about when contemplating innate knowns... a priori knowledge. Is not language a tool of thinking which is used to build our understanding of all that we sense? Those sense perceptions are not all fully developed when we are first born. Hindsight is rather curious sometimes...  I remember funches' thread in the religion forum entitled 'To Believe Is To Doubt' - and that is absolutely true!!! Not in so much as one doubts what they know, but in the fact that there must exist some doubt between a known and a belief. Doubt itself cannot exist without or within knowing something. Doubt about anything is grounded in other knowns. Belief itself is grounded by doubt. Where is funches when you need him? Without doubt, belief cannot exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you learn that the red crackly thing is 'fire' and is 'hot' you know to move away, even if it is nothing more than moving your head away, as a tiny baby.
Isn't that knowing, without knowledge? Without experience? (it's the most simplistic way of attempting to express this feeling, this solid thing called knowing, I can find, Michael)  The need to label everything is humankind's way of communication in a vocal way that others may understand the message or essence you want to express to them. That only creates commonality. How did the first fella, Gallileo (?) KNOW the earth was round? And did he? Wasn't it a theory, a concept, an idea, or a 'knowing' until someone didnt fall off the edge? Wouldn't the not falling off the edge become knowledge? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you'll know it when you know it...
but you won't necessarily know it when you don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can one be born knowing anything without possessing language, which represents the ability to frame/express it, without learning all of the other facts/ideas required to establish such a construct? How does one understand this innate knowing without being born into the world and later(through experience) learning language and meaning? Can one think about things without the ability to know what those things are? These are the types of questions which I think about when contemplating innate knowns... a priori knowledge. Is not language a tool of thinking which is used to build our understanding of all that we sense? Those sense perceptions are not all fully developed when we are first born. I would argue that language is absolutely not necessary for knowing. Of course, I suppose that all depends on what it is you're trying to know. What do you consider to be knowledge? Based on the things you appear to deem important you seem to be concerned with logic and analysis. But is that the only kind of knowing? I suggest not. That's merely one kind of knowing. That's truly more akin to a technological kind of knowing. But is technological knowing the only kind of knowledge? I think not. In fact, it might not even be the most important kind of knowledge. Clearly it can be physically useful for improving the quality of life. But it most certainly is not the only kind of knowing. On the contrary most people would call that kind of knowledge (logical analysis). As an example. Most animals know when it's late in the day and they head to their homes or shelters and prepare to bed down for the night. Did they need words to know that? Did they even need to know the concept of "day" or "night"? Just because we label these things with words and set up patterns for them in our minds, or even understand technically what causes them, that doesn't mean that we have any better knowledge really. So animals don't know what causes day and night. We don't know what causes solar systems to form the way they do and why they bring forth life. Are we truly any further ahead in terms of knowledge in the deepest sense of having a clue of what's really going on? All we've truly done is expand the horizions of our ignorance and make up a bunch of sounds and symbols to represent the limitations of our ignorance. The bottom line is that no human has a clue what's really going on. Even atheists that accept it's all just one big accident have no clue. They just give up and say, "It must be some sort of accident" but even that makes no sense because they are stuck with the unsolved problem of what it was that had the accident and caused the universe. I'm not sure if giving things labels (i.e. language) truly adds much at all to knowledge. All it does is give us the delusion that if we label things it means that we know something about them. I'm in agreement with what Richard Feynman had to say about this: "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." - Richard Feynman Here Feynman is basically denouncing language as being nothing more than a set of labels. He deems the experience to be the truer knowledge. Also, I would hesitate to accept that language is required for reason. I will grant that language and exspecially concise symbolic notation such as used in logic and mathematics make the communication of reason much easier. But that would have to do with the communication of reason, and not reason itself. There is a temptation then to take those abstract languages and say, "But LOOK! There are patterns to knowledge! When we figure something out in great detail using these symbols of communication we can SEE that other truths surface from this structure! There must be knowledge in the structure itself!" This is known as the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics". I understand the excitment about this observation, but at the same time I feel that I fully understand from whence it arises. It appears to arise from the language! That language somehow contains knowledge that is some sort of absolute truth that must have existence of its own! That Platonic Mind of God! However, I reject that notion as being false knowledge. The knowledge that comes out of this complex communication does not arise from the communication itself. It does not exist in some mystious Platonic Mind of God. Unless of course we are prepared to accept that the universe itself is the Mind of God. Because this is precisely from whence these things arise. I really need to write a book. Damn I wish I wasn't so lazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Language is a man-made tool which enables the cataloging and sharing of memories.
In the example regarding fire, a human can experience the physical properties of fire without or before being able to express this. Physical experience is not dependent upon the ability for/of language, however, learning about that experience without having that experience is. Knowing about and of something without directly experiencing it requires language. Language was birthed by the human need to remember and catalogue things, it is an evolutionary tool. The person, no matter the age, can be aware of the existence of a physical thing without knowing a language. So one can be aware of a things existence without being able to impart the understanding of it into another. That awareness could only benefit the individual. Language facilitates the ability to share the understanding of that experience and therefore heighten the awareness of the world around us for the benefit of others as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm Michael......you have suggested that knowing of or about something requires language....I find that doesn't fit....except when attempting to communicate to another the experience of that knowing...
it's why I am tripping up here and sounding so vague... What I feel, what I know, what I am, and what I want to share with you....only one is dependent on language... the rest just 'are'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am saying that knowing of an experience without having that experience requires language.
I am not sure if one can know anything without experience of some sort, even if it is just an experience of sharing language. It seems there needs to be a distinction between knowing of something directly from experience and knowing of it only through language - without having that experience. Two different forms of gaining understanding about the 'same' experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am saying that knowing of an experience without having that experience requires language. I am not sure if one can know anything without experience of some sort, even if it is just an experience of sharing language. It seems there needs to be a distinction between knowing of something directly from experience and knowing of it only through language - without having that experience. Two different forms of gaining understanding about the 'same' experience. What about mimicry? There is no requirement for language in that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instinct? that would be looking for the core creator probably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about mimicry? There is no requirement for language in that. This is a good observation. As is mimicry, both require experience... I would agree that language is not necessary for some forms of mimicry, but where can this observation possibly lead to concerning the relationship between language and knowing? One cannot mimic another without experiencing first hand what is being repeated. However, one can learn of mimicry through language without ever doing it. So, does one who is partaking in mimicry know that s/he is doing such a thing? instinct? that would be looking for the core creator probably. Instinct is an intriguing aspect of human behavior. I do not believe that it requires the acceptance of a 'creator' though, at least not one with intent, purpose, and/or reason. Instinct can be the passing on of physiological tendencies through genetics. Not having read or learned enough about it to make absolutely certain, I do believe that it is thought that instinctual behaviors find their source location within the brain stem or 'reptilian brain'. A baby suckles and cries through innate means. They do not need to learn how to do these things. It is a stimulus/response mechanism, is it not? They are born 'knowing' how? That does not seem to be stated correctly. Are they capable of thinking 'I am crying'??? If they 'know' this, do they know that they know? On what grounds would this be based upon? Eventually grounds have no others... the ground disappears beneath our knowledge. Where should the line be drawn? Do we have to learn to be afraid? That question is definitely up for debate. I believe that 'bad' memories and/or misunderstood observations and/or experieneces lead to preconceptual fear. However, the fact that we can fear is inherent in our physiological construct, and does not require language. To be afraid, one does not have to know that they are. The subsequent behaviors which follow do not necessarily need to be known ahead of time either. Instinct... is it a known? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about mimicry? There is no requirement for language in that. This is a good observation. As is mimicry, both require experience... I would agree that language is not necessary for some forms of mimicry, but where can this observation possibly lead to concerning the relationship between language and knowing? One cannot mimic another without experiencing first hand what is being repeated. However, one can learn of mimicry through language without ever doing it. So, does one who is partaking in mimicry know that s/he is doing such a thing? Suppose a group of children watch the adults of the tribe go out hunting, but they have no weapons and do not actually participate in the hunt other than watching. Can it not be said they are learning of the experience with out experiencing it themselves? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 05/03/09 04:58 PM
|
|
Ah, now I understand better...
It seems as though an earlier statement of mine was wrongly put. Suppose a group of children watch the adults of the tribe go out hunting, but they have no weapons and do not actually participate in the hunt other than watching. Can it not be said they are learning of the experience with out experiencing it themselves? Yes it could be correctly said that those children are learning of hunting without actually hunting. Do they actually know what it is like to participate in the hunt though? No. The experience of 'the hunt' for the child is one of observation but it is still a hunting type experience, it just did not involve participation in the hunt itself. So they know what it is like to observe the hunt, but they still do not know what it is like to be in the hunt. Knowing 'of' and knowing must be held in a different regard then. I am saying that knowing of an experience without having that experience requires language. The above is incorrect, and I much appreciate your astuteness, as it was an important observation. Our perceptual faculty allows learning of an experience, knowing of it, as well... The distinction between knowing of an experience, and knowing what it is like to participate in that experience is necessary. I earlier rambled through this thought without adhering to it when I spoke of horseracing and jockeys... Again, thank you for the reminder! The following statement(s) still hold true. I am not sure if one can know anything without experience of some sort, even if it is just an experience of sharing language. It seems there needs to be a distinction between knowing of something directly from experience and knowing of it only through language - without having that experience. EDIT: It seems there must also be a distinction between knowing 'of' through observation and knowing 'of' through language... language cannot, in and of itself, be more complete... can it? Being able to describe a thing that is known of and knowing of that thing through the actual observation 'of' the experience are not the same thing! The term is becoming more and more muddled... or is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing cannot be done through language alone then?
That does not seem to make sense, does it? Can I not know about something? Of course I can, I can be aware of the existence of something, but it is not the same as knowing is it? Is it even correct then to say that one can indeed know of something? Does that make sense? Is the term being used inappropriately or incorrectly? Being aware of the properties and attributes of a thing is not the same as knowing what it is like to be that thing is it? Can we know a thing without having been that thing, or can we just be aware 'of' it's existence? If we are that thing, does this then mean that we automatically know that thing? One's self!!! Self-awareness... does it equal knowing one's self, or just recognizing the existence of one's self? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 05/03/09 06:14 PM
|
|
Can one be born knowing anything without possessing language, which represents the ability to frame/express it, without learning all of the other facts/ideas required to establish such a construct? How does one understand this innate knowing without being born into the world and later(through experience) learning language and meaning? Can one think about things without the ability to know what those things are? These are the types of questions which I think about when contemplating innate knowns... a priori knowledge. Is not language a tool of thinking which is used to build our understanding of all that we sense? Those sense perceptions are not all fully developed when we are first born. I would argue that language is absolutely not necessary for knowing. Of course, I suppose that all depends on what it is you're trying to know. What do you consider to be knowledge? Based on the things you appear to deem important you seem to be concerned with logic and analysis. But is that the only kind of knowing? I suggest not. That's merely one kind of knowing. That's truly more akin to a technological kind of knowing. But is technological knowing the only kind of knowledge? I think not. In fact, it might not even be the most important kind of knowledge. Clearly it can be physically useful for improving the quality of life. But it most certainly is not the only kind of knowing. On the contrary most people would call that kind of knowledge (logical analysis). As an example. Most animals know when it's late in the day and they head to their homes or shelters and prepare to bed down for the night. Did they need words to know that? Did they even need to know the concept of "day" or "night"? Just because we label these things with words and set up patterns for them in our minds, or even understand technically what causes them, that doesn't mean that we have any better knowledge really. So animals don't know what causes day and night. We don't know what causes solar systems to form the way they do and why they bring forth life. Are we truly any further ahead in terms of knowledge in the deepest sense of having a clue of what's really going on? All we've truly done is expand the horizions of our ignorance and make up a bunch of sounds and symbols to represent the limitations of our ignorance. The bottom line is that no human has a clue what's really going on. Even atheists that accept it's all just one big accident have no clue. They just give up and say, "It must be some sort of accident" but even that makes no sense because they are stuck with the unsolved problem of what it was that had the accident and caused the universe. I'm not sure if giving things labels (i.e. language) truly adds much at all to knowledge. All it does is give us the delusion that if we label things it means that we know something about them. I'm in agreement with what Richard Feynman had to say about this: "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." - Richard Feynman Here Feynman is basically denouncing language as being nothing more than a set of labels. He deems the experience to be the truer knowledge. Also, I would hesitate to accept that language is required for reason. I will grant that language and exspecially concise symbolic notation such as used in logic and mathematics make the communication of reason much easier. But that would have to do with the communication of reason, and not reason itself. There is a temptation then to take those abstract languages and say, "But LOOK! There are patterns to knowledge! When we figure something out in great detail using these symbols of communication we can SEE that other truths surface from this structure! There must be knowledge in the structure itself!" This is known as the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics". I understand the excitment about this observation, but at the same time I feel that I fully understand from whence it arises. It appears to arise from the language! That language somehow contains knowledge that is some sort of absolute truth that must have existence of its own! That Platonic Mind of God! However, I reject that notion as being false knowledge. The knowledge that comes out of this complex communication does not arise from the communication itself. It does not exist in some mystious Platonic Mind of God. Unless of course we are prepared to accept that the universe itself is the Mind of God. Because this is precisely from whence these things arise. I really need to write a book. Damn I wish I wasn't so lazy. TOO LATE!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYoT6l7rrw Are you Experienced? If you can just get your mind together Uh-then come on across to me Well hold hands and then well watch the sunrise From the bottom of the sea But first, are you experienced? Uh-have you ever been experienced-uh? Well, I have (well) I know, I know, youll probably scream and cry That your little world wont let you go But who in your measly little world, (-uh) Are you tryin to prove to that youre Made out of gold and-uh, cant be sold So-uh, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? (-uh) Well, I have Uh, let me prove it to you, yeah Trumpets and violins I can-uh, hear in the distance I think theyre callin our name Maybe now you cant hear them, But you will, ha-ha, if you just Take hold of my hand Ohhh, but are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful |
|
|
|
|
