• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 63
    1. #1
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      20
      Likes
      0

      What is knowledge?

      One of the first texts I read that got me interested in philosophy was the Theaetetus by Plato and it posed this very question. It is a question which seems so simple on the face of it and yet the most obvious explanations quickly become mired in paradoxes.

      Even though I was quiet young when I first read the text and have heard countless explanations since; I am still perplexed and as ever intrigued.

      I'd really love to hear others views on this.

    2. #2
      The Esoteric Copious taltho's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Here is not specifically defined
      Posts
      400
      Likes
      0
      Hi Grey Owl.


      Knowledge cannot be specifically defined. So I might say that i have the knowledge/information that knowledge is a philosophical unknown.
      Reality is only one moment away form right now is reality. Check... Dream Sign... Engage Lucid Dreaming!

      http://www.youtube.com/user/taltho
      http://www.taltho.com
      tlatho.com Coming soon with pic's of me and family.

    3. #3
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      The sum of beliefs that one considers to be accurate representations of objective states.

      (throwin' this one in for debate, feel free to criticize)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    4. #4
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      20
      Likes
      0
      Knowledge cannot be specifically defined. So I might say that i have the knowledge/information that knowledge is a philosophical unknown.
      I like what you say here in fact it reminds me of something wittgenstein argued. I can't remember it exactly but loosely paraphrased, 'there need be no element common to all instances of a property other than they are instances'.

      However I do feel much can be gained in exploring knowledge and that one need not define it in a single instance.

      The sum of beliefs that one considers to be accurate representations of objective states.
      Korrittke your idea is interesting, but it appears to have a built in scepticism as a belief is not as substantial as others might deem knowledge. I wonder do you consider there to be an objective world beyond our senses or do you think that human experience is 'the measure of all things'.

    5. #5
      Banned
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,005
      Likes
      1
      Hello Grey Owl.

      I wouldn't attribute knowledge to A thing. What I mean is the english language you see has no definitions for esoteric mechanisms of nature. You can only say things like 'I was typing on the computer'. You cannot say 'I was knowledge on my computer'.

      This is how the esoteric mechanism escapes your attention to such a degree we now want to know what it is. However when you think about the existence of these kinds of esoteric mechanisms working in nature it then becomes obvious what relationship knowledge would have in the physical world we live in.

      For example when defining the meaning of something like knowledge that is so scale Dependant. I would only attribute it to the context of certain action and the determining scale of it's success reveals the nature of it self evidently.

    6. #6
      Beyond the Poles Cyclic13's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere and Nowhere at once
      Posts
      1,908
      Likes
      40
      Well it doesn't just stop at 'knowledge'...

      Every word's definition is mired in paradoxes as it tries to imply objective meaning onto subjective beings...

      Take a word as simple as 'Good'...

      What does that mean, exactly?

      Yes, I know it means, "having the desired qualities of", but honestly that just uses more meaningless symbols and words to make the original idea even more complicated in order to objectively explain something so subjectively inexplicable.

      Nothing anyone can say would ever answer the question...

      What does it mean?

      What is 'good' for you, is 'bad' for me... what is 'knowledge' for one is 'unimportant' for the other...

      Honestly, words are disparate and desperate attempts of being understood...

      Experience or meaning cannot be passed on, no matter how well written or concisely worded. It can only be recognized or unrecognized by those with or without that experience.

      Words only add clutter to an intent or idea that can only be directly experienced by quieting your surroundings and withdrawing into one's self. Once you take out all distractions long enough, you will know... not just understand. And, if one feels compelled to disagree, they simply don't know yet.
      Last edited by Cyclic13; 06-26-2008 at 05:16 PM.


      The Art of War
      <---> Videos
      Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
      "These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME

    7. #7
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      The tripartite definition is


      "True, Justified, belief"


      There are counter examples and problems with this definition, and it is by no means infallible [see 'Gettier'] ; But it is the definition I tend to work with.

    8. #8
      Beyond the Poles Cyclic13's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere and Nowhere at once
      Posts
      1,908
      Likes
      40
      'Truth' is quite possibly one of the most useless words, yet most important concepts, in any language...

      The moment it's uttered on someone's lips or written down, it becomes the exact opposite to the intent that went into constructing it.

      Truth is paradox personified.
      Last edited by Cyclic13; 06-26-2008 at 05:38 PM.


      The Art of War
      <---> Videos
      Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
      "These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME

    9. #9
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by Grey Owl View Post
      Korrittke your idea is interesting, but it appears to have a built in scepticism as a belief is not as substantial as others might deem knowledge.
      I use belief not in the meaning of 'faith'... which is unjustified or unreasonable belief or belief without evidence. A belief is simply a mental concept or representation of states and aspects of the world. A belief can always be put into words. We say we "know" things when we ascribe the quality "certainty" to a belief. This is independent of the truth value of the belief we ascribe this quality to. Knowledge is a psychological function.
      I wonder do you consider there to be an objective world beyond our senses or do you think that human experience is 'the measure of all things'.
      There is definitely an objective world but we can only get as close to it as philosophical constraints let us.

      Quote Originally Posted by Omicron View Post
      The tripartite definition is


      "True, Justified, belief"


      There are counter examples and problems with this definition, and it is by no means infallible [see 'Gettier'] ; But it is the definition I tend to work with.
      I don't see how "true" applies to knowledge, really. This seems more like what we would like knowledge to be, but not how the word is actually used. Although this is arbitrary and really just a matter of social convention about the semantics of that word... if someone says "I know God exists" and he is literally certain... then I would call that knowledge. Others might not. I think of knowledge as a psychological state, a certan quality of beliefs, without philsophical implications. In particular, I wouldn't tell someone who is certain that God exists, that he is using the word "knowing" in the wrong way... because he isn't. He is the judge of whether or not he knows something.

      Quote Originally Posted by SolSkye View Post
      'Truth' is quite possibly one of the most useless words, yet most important concepts, in any language...

      The moment it's uttered on someone's lips or written down, it becomes the exact opposite to the intent that went into constructing it.

      Truth is paradox personified.
      Not at all.

      1+1=2 is true.
      I exist. <- this is true
      I don't exist <- this is false.
      I am writing words. <- this is true.

      This is what we have the word "true" for. It is perhaps the best word in existence.
      Last edited by Serkat; 06-26-2008 at 06:06 PM.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    10. #10
      Beyond the Poles Cyclic13's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere and Nowhere at once
      Posts
      1,908
      Likes
      40
      Since all of existence is essentially just 1 point stretched infinitely outward in order to perceive itself, we could just say 1+1=1. Since everything is only ever the same 1.

      1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x ... ∞ = 1
      1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / ... ∞ = 1

      Truth is what went into writing these. As long as it holds for that person, it's truth.

      The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true.

      So overall, there are truth in lies, and lies in truth...
      Last edited by Cyclic13; 06-26-2008 at 06:15 PM.


      The Art of War
      <---> Videos
      Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
      "These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME

    11. #11
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by SolSkye View Post
      As was stated in another thread...

      The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true.

      So overall, there are lies in truth, and truth in lies...
      I think my relevancy-detector might need new batteries... or this just wasn't relevant.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    12. #12
      Beyond the Poles Cyclic13's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere and Nowhere at once
      Posts
      1,908
      Likes
      40
      'Relevant'...

      Another word without meaning.

      What matter at hand were we discussing? Truth?

      Philosophically speaking you can't ever show it to me for it to become a matter at hand...

      Truth. A range of definitions are possible, but for our purposes, Truth shall be synonymous with reality as it actually is. Reality as it actually is, in this case, means reality before words and concepts break it up into more understandable bits and pieces. Truth then, is not something that can be communicated or described in its entirety in any way. Descriptions that point the way toward Truth may be called knowledge, but ultimately, they are relative. In other words, knowledge is always provisional: its validity is dependent upon certain preconditions remaining constant. Its conditional nature is exemplified by the progress of science, as new paradigms replace the old and our knowledge adapts to fresh observations.
      Last edited by Cyclic13; 06-26-2008 at 06:30 PM.


      The Art of War
      <---> Videos
      Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
      "These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME

    13. #13
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      Quote Originally Posted by Korittke View Post
      I use belief not in the meaning of 'faith'... which is unjustified or unreasonable belief or belief without evidence. A belief is simply a mental concept or representation of states and aspects of the world. A belief can always be put into words. We say we "know" things when we ascribe the quality "certainty" to a belief. This is independent of the truth value of the belief we ascribe this quality to. Knowledge is a psychological function.There is definitely an objective world but we can only get as close to it as philosophical constraints let us.

      I don't see how "true" applies to knowledge, really. This seems more like what we would like knowledge to be, but not how the word is actually used. Although this is arbitrary and really just a matter of social convention about the semantics of that word... if someone says "I know God exists" and he is literally certain... then I would call that knowledge. Others might not. I think of knowledge as a psychological state, a certan quality of beliefs, without philsophical implications. In particular, I wouldn't tell someone who is certain that God exists, that he is using the word "knowing" in the wrong way... because he isn't. He is the judge of whether or not he knows something.

      Not at all.

      1+1=2 is true.
      I exist. <- this is true
      I don't exist <- this is false.
      I am writing words. <- this is true.

      This is what we have the word "true" for. It is perhaps the best word in existence.

      Wouldn't it be belief if it wasnt true?


      I can't imagine someone being able to know something if it isn't true.. they'd just believe it, but be wrong. In order for them to know it it would have to be true.

    14. #14
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      For example:

      "I know that 1+1=2." This is true and it is knowledge.

      "I believe I will live until I'm 80." This is not knowledge, is it not probable or improbable, it is a mere guess.

      "I believe I will wake up tomorrow but I don't know for sure." This is not knowledge, it could be true or false. It is a justified belief about the likelihood of an event.

      "I know I was born on [my assumed date of birth]." This is knowledge, it could be false or true. (messed up birth certificate)

      "I believe Jesus is the Son of God but I don't actually have evidence." This is not knowledge and not true.

      "I know that Jesus is the Son of God because it says so in the bible." This is certain belief and not true. [*]

      In the past, people did not know that atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. Some believed the atom was the smallest particle in existence and claimed this as knowledge. This was wrong. However, it was a state of knowledge, like the realization that 1+1=2, entirely different from the supposed "knowledge" that one wakes up on the following day.

      If knowledge implies truth then whenever we use that word we are making a bold claim about the nature of the universe that might turn out false in the long run. Things that we once thought we knew get replaced by other things. That doesn't change the fact that, at that point in time, all phenomnological qualities that determine knowledge were met.

      [*] Whether you would refer to this as knowledge or not is a semantic issue. Obviously, in reference to a certain believer I wouldn't say "He knows that Jesus is the Son of God". I would say "He claims to know that Jesus is the Son of God" and I would use the word "claim" to indicate that my belief about Jesus does not match the belief of that person. Were our beliefs matching, I would say "He knows that Jesus is the Son of God" because our beliefs would be identical... hence I would imply this by referring to the claimed knowledge as actual fact.

      So, in conclusion: We use the word knowledge to refer to beliefs that carry the quality of certainty. Such beliefs that we think are absolutely true. We also use this when referring to beliefs and claimed knowledge of others. All of this is, however, independent of the actual truth values of those beliefs, be they mere guesses or bold claims of certainty.
      Last edited by Serkat; 06-26-2008 at 07:39 PM.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    15. #15
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      Quote Originally Posted by Korittke View Post
      For example:

      "I know that 1+1=2." This is true and it is knowledge.

      "I believe I will wake up tomorrow but I don't know for sure." This is not knowledge, it could be true or false.

      "I know I was born on [my assumed date of birth]." This is knowledge, it could be false or true. (messed up birth certificate)

      "I believe Jesus is the Son of God but I don't actually have evidence." This is not knowledge and not true.

      "I know that Jesus is the Son of God because it says so in the bible." This is certain belief and not true. [*]

      In the past, people did not know that atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. Some believed the atom was the smallest particle in existence and claimed this as knowledge. This was wrong. However, it was a state of knowledge, like the realization that 1+1=2, entirely different from the supposed "knowledge" that one wakes up on the following day.

      If knowledge implies truth then whenever we use that word we are making a bold claim about the nature of the universe that might turn out false in the long run. Things that we once thought we knew get replaced by other things. That doesn't change the fact that, at that point in time, all phenomnological qualities that determine knowledge were met.

      I agree that peoples usage of the word is wrong.. but the definition is the definition regardless of how the people use it, if they use it wrong.

      Anyway I agree with you on most points, except that where you would say peoples usage of knowledge is right, I would say most people use the word wrong.

      Another problem is that we can never really know anything is objectively true. So arguably we can never know if we know something because we can never see the objective truth.

    16. #16
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      I changed some things. I edit way too much.
      And now is football.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    17. #17
      Banned
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,005
      Likes
      1
      Korittke this is a terrible notion you have in your head.

      Quote Originally Posted by Korittke
      philosophical constraints

      How can you be taken seriously when you string those two words together. That's like as far as intelligent ignorance will get us.

      Quote Originally Posted by Korittke
      And now is football.
      I never found that game interesting or intelligent. Even if they do win and carry the ball to the end of the field it won't change the nonsensical tackling against each other will it? Why don't we bang our head against the wall and see who can stop each other from doing it while the first with the tennis ball through the door wins a medal. Even then what's the use in watching the event and getting emotional over it. And you think philosophy is a constraint.

    18. #18
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix View Post
      How can you be taken seriously when you string those two words together.
      Philosophical constraints, i.e.

      - Existing implies subjectivity
      - Subjectivity implies uncertainty
      - Being human implies inaccuracy
      - Progress implies failure and vice versa
      - Language influences world view
      - Socialization influences judgment
      - Statements that don't relate to the world can be true within their own axiomatic systems, but statements that relate to the world don't have axiomatic systems associated with them which could validate them.
      - Other things you don't understand

      I never found that game interesting or intelligent. Even if they do win and carry the ball to the end of the field it won't change the nonsensical tackling against each other will it? Why don't we bang our head against the wall and see who can stop each other from doing it while the first with the tennis ball through the door wins a medal. Even then what's the use in watching the event and getting emotional over it. And you think philosophy is a constraint.
      Please stab yourself with a sharp pencil directly into the eye.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    19. #19
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      20
      Likes
      0
      People have said some really interesting things so far and I do hope this topic doesn't descend into senseless arguments.

      Korittke your ideas are actually very similar to the tripartite analysis, all its adding is that a justified belief must be true in order to count as knowledge. I can understand why you disagree with this last step, but I feel your use of the word belief becomes evidence transcendent that is what distinguishes a justified belief from a belief. This of course doesn't make your thinking wrong but it does present a further issue.

      For those interested the tripartite analysis is the following.

      1 p,
      2 a believes that p
      3 a's belief that p is justified

      The Gettier counter examples show that all three conditions can be satisfied and yet someone doesn't actually know p.

      Another common theme so far is that knowledge cannot be defined, which is an equally valid position to take. I can understand this point of view as there are many things which cannot be defined, to give a bad example one cannot literally define colour with language. However I still feel there is much to be learned in trying to approximate in our understanding.

      Nevertheless I think solskye makes a fantastic point when he says.

      Experience or meaning cannot be passed on, no matter how well written or concisely worded. It can only be recognized or unrecognized by those with or without that experience.
      Finally minervas phoenix you make some interesting points but if you could expand on this last point that would be most helpful.

      For example when defining the meaning of something like knowledge that is so scale Dependant. I would only attribute it to the context of certain action and the determining scale of it's success reveals the nature of it self evidently.

    20. #20
      What's up <span class='glow_006400'>[SomeGuy]</span>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      LD Count
      About 1
      Gender
      Location
      Tmux on Debian
      Posts
      2,862
      Likes
      130
      DJ Entries
      4
      Knowledge, in my opinion, is just your list of gathered facts throuout your lifetime.

      Hey guys, I'm back. Feels good man
      ---------------------------------------------------
      WTF|Jesus lul
      spam removed

    21. #21
      Banned
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,005
      Likes
      1
      Expand on it?

      how shall I expand on it?

    22. #22
      Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      20
      Likes
      0
      To be more precise with my difficulty.

      I’m not clear on what you mean when you say knowledge is scale dependent; and hence don’t understand that particular paragraph as a whole.

    23. #23
      I LOVE KAOSSILATOR Serkat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Posts
      2,609
      Likes
      2
      A belief is a constituent of ones world view. There's no psychological alternative to beliefs. They are simple mental representations of the experience. Thought models that can be put into words and that enable humans to navigate the world. Faith and knowledge are types of beliefs with specific qualities.
      A belief can also only be prominent for a specific time frame and vanish later. They still work within the same psychological system.

      A belief can be justified and still not be knowledge. Such as: "I believe I will be alive in 5 minutes." This is a justified belief that is (a) not certain, (b) not knowledge and (c) possibly false.

      But yes, knowledge is usually "justified" as well, although the term "justified" is both vague and dependent on the standards of justification of the knowing individual, so it's not a very high quality constituent of knowledge. One might consider the bible a medium of justification, or the most recent edition of Nature. For the effected individual, each would be valid if he thinks so.
      Last edited by Serkat; 06-27-2008 at 12:18 AM.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

      Ich brauche keine Waffe.

      Ich ermittle ausschließlich mit dem Gehirn!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eP84n-Lvw

    24. #24
      Banned
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,005
      Likes
      1
      Grey Owl no problem.

      Size is scale Dependant. The nature of the size depends on the relation to other things to determine what size. Distance is scale Dependant in relation to other things to determine what distance. Speed is scale Dependant in relation to other speeds. Knowledge is scale dependent in relation to other degrees of knowledge.

    25. #25
      Dream Worm Croneus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Vegas baby!
      Posts
      70
      Likes
      1
      So to have true knowledge you must be cogniscant of THE absolute truth on a subject I think is what we are saying. A belief cannot factor into knowledge because it's flawed. You can believe that God exists, or that the Holocaust never happened. With both there exhibits a strong arguement that you are wrong. The information against you saying indeed the Holocaust did happen, and the fact that since God is God, you can never truly "know" him/her/it.
      Last edited by Croneus; 06-27-2008 at 12:37 AM. Reason: high typing
      Everyone knows what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, however, few are familiar with the North Vegas slogan: What happens in North Vegas will haunt your dreams forever.

    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •