Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is it to know?
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 1 of 74 (166545)
12-09-2004 12:48 PM


This proposal is a spin off from a thread about how we know that sidelined started in response to a statement by Hangdawg13. They seem to reach a mutual closing point. But I got to wondering not so much "how we know" but what is it that we know. What is knowledge?
My first thought is that knowing is behaviour, it is knowing how to do something. Take gravity as an example. It's a word that we can use to reference language, science, or physical activity but all those things are learned memory. I think that the reality of gravity is something we will never know. I think we can know our own experience but that is either direct or recalled sensory information. The same could be said for an external physical object or for an internal state. I'm not sure at all how "knowing" God would fit in this.
I am proposing this topic not as a debate but as an exploration. I would like to examine the various knowings including what does it mean to know a divinity. I welcome any help in improving my statement of this topic. I know my topic proposal aren't generally of interest but Hangdawg13 said he was interested in this discussion.
lfen

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-09-2004 3:17 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 12-10-2004 1:01 AM lfen has replied

  
AdminDawg
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 74 (166575)
12-09-2004 3:02 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I just wanted to clarify that this topic is more about what knowledge is rather than how we obtain it.
This message has been edited by AdminDawg, 12-09-2004 03:04 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 3:16 PM AdminDawg has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 3 of 74 (166579)
12-09-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminDawg
12-09-2004 3:02 PM


What knowledge is? Yep.
Thanks, Dawg, and good clarification. Sheesh, is this ever a venerable and difficult topic in philosophy and now neuroscience. Kind of wish I had shoved my foot in mouth, well, put my hands in my pockets so I couldn't have typed this. And yet I think it is a really key issue.
UG Krishnamurti offers a radical position that I find intriguing. That is we don't know what anything is, even ourselves. The knowledge we have is either the organims behaviour from genes and sensory motor learning or it's the symbolic knowledge that we have by virtue of our society. A chair is a chair because that is what we call it and we sit on it, burn it if it's wood etc all without ever knowing what it is. The world we know is a combination of our genetic adaptions and our participation in society.
So I'll offer this to start. Knowledge is knowing how to do things even though that can get very complicated and sophisticated it remains operational and ignorant of what the essence of anything is.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminDawg, posted 12-09-2004 3:02 PM AdminDawg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-09-2004 3:29 PM lfen has replied
 Message 8 by Ben!, posted 12-09-2004 5:58 PM lfen has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 4 of 74 (166581)
12-09-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lfen
12-09-2004 12:48 PM


My first thought about knowledge is that knowledge is information that we believe to be true. I know you dislike concepts filled with dualities like true and false, but this is the way that I see things.
Since our abilities to understand are limited, obviously there will be things that we can only partly or approximately understand.
I kind of see what you are saying about knowledge by experience, but you might want to explain that some more. If we want to know about something that we have no direct experience with, like say gravity or quantum mechanics, then we tend to use our imgaination to analyze and synthesize other information to create an artificial or approximate understanding of the concept we are trying to grasp.
I'm not sure at all how "knowing" God would fit in this.
Well, with God, I have information about Him that I believe to be true, therefore I accept it as knowledge. My understanding of Him is far from perfect and since I have no direct sensual experience with Him, I must rely on anthropomorphisms and approximations based on the information I believe to be true in order to create a picture of Him in my mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 12:48 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 12-09-2004 3:54 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 7 by nator, posted 12-09-2004 5:41 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 5 of 74 (166586)
12-09-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by lfen
12-09-2004 3:16 PM


Re: What knowledge is? Yep.
Sheesh, is this ever a venerable and difficult topic in philosophy and now neuroscience. Kind of wish I had shoved my foot in mouth, well, put my hands in my pockets so I couldn't have typed this. And yet I think it is a really key issue.
It really is... I just finished "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Kurzweil... If his predictions are correct computers will surpass humans in flexibility and intellect in 20 years.
That is we don't know what anything is, even ourselves.
Yep, when you get down to it, we are mostly empty space with a slightly higher probability of energy than the rest of space. And we don't know where energy or space or probability comes from. And we don't even know if these things are true... If the universe as it appears to be actually exists in some form, then the probability is exteremly great that we are already living inside a computer matrix because once computational capacity rounds the nose of the curve and increases beyond all bounds, time increases to infinite...
So... as Poe said, "Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream?"
Knowledge is knowing how to do things even though that can get very complicated and sophisticated it remains operational and ignorant of what the essence of anything is.
I can see how that definition can be stretched to cover pretty much every kind of knowledge. It is another way to approximate what we do not fully understand...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 3:16 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 10:45 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 28 by lfen, posted 12-11-2004 3:48 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 74 (166592)
12-09-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
12-09-2004 3:17 PM


quote:
I kind of see what you are saying about knowledge by experience, but you might want to explain that some more. If we want to know about something that we have no direct experience with, like say gravity or quantum mechanics, then we tend to use our imgaination to analyze and synthesize other information to create an artificial or approximate understanding of the concept we are trying to grasp.
Even if I do not know how gravity or quantum mechanics work, I KNOW that if I hold up a pencil and let go, it will fall to the floor. This is knowledge born out of experience, even if I lack some of the facts behind the phenomena. Many cultures had explanations as to why things fall (ie gravity) and some of those explanations were rooted in the supernatural or were culturally biased one way or the other. For instance, people from those cultures might claim that "things fall because Zeus orders it, I just know it". This is different from explanations that try and form conclusions from incomplete data sets, such as is done in science. However, no scientist would ever claim that they "know" how gravity works. Although these explanations may later have to be thrown out, they are still justified at the time being that they were consistent with the data at hand.
quote:
Well, with God, I have information about Him that I believe to be true, therefore I accept it as knowledge. My understanding of Him is far from perfect and since I have no direct sensual experience with Him, I must rely on anthropomorphisms and approximations based on the information I believe to be true in order to create a picture of Him in my mind.
I see nothing wrong with that explanation. I just see it as a different realm of knowledge from explanations describing physical reality or knowledge of the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-09-2004 3:17 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 74 (166635)
12-09-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
12-09-2004 3:17 PM


quote:
My first thought about knowledge is that knowledge is information that we believe to be true. I know you dislike concepts filled with dualities like true and false, but this is the way that I see things.
I think I would change your use of the word "true" with the word "reliable".
Since what we know can be relied upon to a greater or lesser extent depending upon each bit of knowledge, then this allows for infinite shades of gray.
The universe is not a dualistic place. There are infinite shades of gray.
I would say that knowledge has to be able to reliably stand up to testing. If it doesn't, such as belief in the supernatural, then it must be considered myth and mystery, not knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-09-2004 3:17 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 10:51 PM nator has not replied
 Message 24 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-10-2004 4:20 PM nator has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 8 of 74 (166645)
12-09-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by lfen
12-09-2004 3:16 PM


Re: What knowledge is? Yep.
lfen,
I think one crucial matter in asking "what is knowledge?" is to define "what is mind?" or "what is being?" I think the dualist's understanding of knowledge will be fundamentally different from the reductionist's understanding of knowledge.
For this thread, do you prefer to talk about one over the other? Or just to hear the thoughts from both dualists and reductionists?
I'm formulating a post in my head in the meantime...
Being -> What is it to know -> What is knowledge... got it...
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 3:16 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 10:30 PM Ben! has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 9 of 74 (166769)
12-09-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ben!
12-09-2004 5:58 PM


Both dualists and reductionists
Or just to hear the thoughts from both dualists and reductionists?
Ben,
Both dualist and reductionist most certainly. And yes, what is being, and what is mind, indeed! Good questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ben!, posted 12-09-2004 5:58 PM Ben! has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 10 of 74 (166777)
12-09-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hangdawg13
12-09-2004 3:29 PM


Re: What knowledge is? Yep.
I just finished "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Kurzweil... If his predictions are correct computers will surpass humans in flexibility and intellect in 20 years.
I just checked online and my library has this book. If it's still in this weekend I'll check it out and give it a look see. I'm skeptical about that prediction, but you know I'm a skeptic so probably guessed.
If the universe as it appears to be actually exists in some form, then the probability is exteremly great that we are already living inside a computer matrix because once computational capacity rounds the nose of the curve and increases beyond all bounds, time increases to infinite...
That is some sentence!
The brain is a computational matrix. Are we living inside the brain?
The ego self seems to depend on the brain function and the brain coordinates the actions, the doings of the organism. The universe we experience and know seems to be something modeled in the brain. This is getting I think at Ben's point about asking what is mind.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-09-2004 3:29 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-10-2004 4:33 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 11 of 74 (166780)
12-09-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
12-09-2004 5:41 PM


The universe is not a dualistic place. There are infinite shades of gray.
Schraf,
Would you say then that fuzzy logic is a better model of the way organisms operate than two value logic? I think that may be the case.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 12-09-2004 5:41 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 12-09-2004 11:00 PM lfen has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 12 of 74 (166784)
12-09-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by lfen
12-09-2004 10:51 PM


The universe is not a dualistic place. There are infinite shades of gray.
In talking about 'knowledge' in a very very limited scope--that of neural implementation of memory--this is certainly the path that has been taken. Neural network / PDP models have (IMHO) certainly shown their power over other types of 'dualistic' models of knowledge. One of the powers of the PDP models is the 'greyness' of THIS 'version' of knowledge.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 10:51 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 11:08 PM Ben! has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 13 of 74 (166787)
12-09-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ben!
12-09-2004 11:00 PM


Ben,
So are you favoring fuzzy logic over two value logic? That is how I'm understanding your post though you haven't said it quite explicitly.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 12-09-2004 11:00 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Ben!, posted 12-09-2004 11:25 PM lfen has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 14 of 74 (166788)
12-09-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by lfen
12-09-2004 11:08 PM


lfen,
I'm not really familiar with fuzzy logic. I took a look at a webpage (the first one Google returns on 'fuzzy logic')...
I'm not sure I'd say I favor fuzzy logic over two-value logic. I'd have to know a lot more about fuzzy logic first. From my 2 minute understanding of fuzzy logic, it still seems that they are operating on high-level information.
I would favor PDP models that operate on MUCH lower levels (chemical and physical) of information than the ones that fuzzy logic and two-valued logic work.
So to summarize... I think two-valued logic has very poor explanatory power. Fuzzy logic... I'm not sure about. I'll just detail a view on one reductionist's view (mine!) on 'knowledge' in a bit (working on typing it up), and hopefully that will answer your quesitons better.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 11:08 PM lfen has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 15 of 74 (166828)
12-10-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lfen
12-09-2004 12:48 PM


Please clarify your use of the term 'knowledge'
lfen,
At this point, I've written a bit about 'what is knowledge' on my local machine. At this point, I'm getting stuck on what facet of 'knowledge' you're interested in investigating. "Knowledge" is just a word--humans use it as a symbol to refer to some set of 'things'. Can you describe for me what part of 'knowledge' you're interested in investigating?
My answer, to this point, is simply that "knowledge doesn't exist," that it's a term coined based on a dualist / mind-body separated reality. I deny that reality; in my reality there is nothing that the term 'knowledge' can refer to. Yet, at the same time, there are things that are related to facets of this classical knowledge (such as long-term storage, affect / causation, etc).
Can you try to expound a little more on what YOUR direction of 'knowledge' is intented to be? A word is, in many ways, meaningless. Only a common 'cultural literacy' can 'give' a word a meaning, and I don't think we have that here. So.... throw me a bone
Regardless, I'm continuing to expound on the 'classical notion' of knowledge on my local machine, as well as what parts of my current model seem somewhat related to this classical notion.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lfen, posted 12-09-2004 12:48 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lfen, posted 12-10-2004 1:37 AM Ben! has replied
 Message 17 by lfen, posted 12-10-2004 1:51 AM Ben! has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024