What is your definition of knowledge?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the nature of knowledge, its definitions, and its distinctions from science. Participants share various perspectives on what constitutes knowledge, often describing it as a collection of facts or true beliefs that require justification. The conversation explores whether knowledge can be shared, with consensus that communication is essential, though not always reliable. Verification of knowledge is debated, with some asserting that knowledge should be confirmed against objective reality, while others question the necessity of verification if something is already considered knowledge.The group discusses the categorization of knowledge into different types, such as practical and theoretical knowledge, and whether knowledge can be quantitatively or comparatively measured. The importance of seeking knowledge is emphasized, with participants agreeing that it is crucial for personal and societal improvement. The discussion also touches on the philosophical implications of knowledge, including the challenges of defining and understanding it, and the inherent uncertainties that accompany any examination of knowledge itself. Overall, the thread encourages a deeper reflection on the essence and pursuit of knowledge.
Manuel_Silvio
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Dear Reader,

I've a list of questions and would be thankful if you give your set of answers and let us start a discussion on these answers. I will reveal my answers after having seen yours . New questions to be added to the list are also much appreciated.

01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?
02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?
03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?
04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?
05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?
06. Can knowledge be verified?
07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?
08. Are there different types of knowledge?
09. Should knowledge be sought for?
10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?
11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?
12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?
13. Can knowledge be divided into practical and theoretical knowledge?
14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?
15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?
16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?

PS: Shame on me! I changed "devised" to "divided"...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
knowledge is just data or information (compilation of facts). What you do with it on the other hand is another story.
 
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Dear Reader,

I've a list of questions and would be thankful if you give your set of answers and let us start a discussion on these answers. I will reveal my answers after having seen yours . New questions to be added to the list are also much appreciated.

01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?
02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?
03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?
04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?
05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?
06. Can knowledge be verified?
07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?
08. Are there different types of knowledge?
09. Should knowledge be sought for?
10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?
11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?
12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?
13. Can knowledge be devised into practical and theoretical knowledge?
14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?
15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?
16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?

OK, let's do this:

1. Knowledge is a collection of facts (or, at least, what one believes to be facts). I don't understand the second part of this question.

2. Yes. Yes, it is a more general term. Science is the pursuit of knowledge (or, rather, the system by which we pursue knowledge), obviously the pursuit and that which is pursued are different things.

3. Yes.

4. Any form of communication is a means of sharing knowledge.

5. Not entirely, you cannot always get the point across, no matter which form of communication you use. However, they are reliable, just not perfect.

6. Yes.

7. I don't understand. Do you mean, "how is knowledge verified?"? If so, it is through experimentation (which is what science does).

8. Only in that there is the kind of knowledge that is only consistent of facts (whether this kind of knowledge really exists or not, is another matter), and the kind that is consistent of what the individual believes are fact - but are in fact no facts.

9. Yes.

10. It (basically) means trying to learn more facts.

11. Yes, but it is better to specify on what topic A has more knowledge then B.

12. Kind of, you could specify how many more facts, about a certain topic, A knew compared to B.

13. Theories are practical.

14. That it be useful, and verifiable by experimentation.

15. Yes.

16. Yes, through any/all of the steps of the scientific method.
 
knowledge is like food, some are lucky to be exposed to it, and those who are need to consume it wisely...
 
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?
A collection of facts, that is accumelated and further understood.
without understanding, there isn't knowledge, in my opinion.

02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?
No, science=knowledge. As I said before, knowledge is accumelated and the accumelated facts is what science is.

03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?
YES! Learning should, and is, shared with other humans; hint: teachers.

04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?
Communication. i.e., writing, talking.

05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?
yes and no. For example, before Linnaeus came up with binomial nomenclature, scientists had a hard time communicating, comparing notes.

06. Can knowledge be verified?
Verified? in what context?

07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?
?? no entiendo(a bit of Spanish there...)...I don't understand question 6
08. Are there different types of knowledge?
All knowledge is the same, but there are different branches of it, like physics is a branch of science.

09. Should knowledge be sought for?
Of course, for how will we ever improve our lives, and ourselves?
(that's rhetorical)
10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?
Seeking knowledge is searching for an understanding of something.
11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?
No. Someone will always know something the other doesn't. (even insignificant things)

12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?
no, for aforementined reasons.
13. Can knowledge be devised into practical and theoretical knowledge?
uhhh what Mentat said!:D
14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?
experimentally feasible, or logical.
15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?
no.
16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?
yes. you could read, try new things, and ask questions about everything.
 
01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?

Knowledge is true belief. The quality of the justification you have for a particular piece of knowledge determines how good that piece of knowledge is. Knowledge of a particular piece of fact can be better or worse.

02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?

Science is a particular way of trying to gain knowledge by using a commonly accepted method. (systematic) True belief gained from science will be better knowledge than a true belief gained from other means (eg lucky guesses or 'intuition') because of the stronger justification provided by science.

03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?

Yes.

04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?

Sharing of information. Mainly using words to convey information and ideas.

05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?

Not totally reliable. Just because you are speaking doesn't mean that others are listening/paying attention and that others actually understand. But since we don't have telepathy, communication using words is the best tool we have.

06. Can knowledge be verified?

yes . . . but I don't see the point. If you call something 'knowledge' you already think that it is true. So what's there to verify? Beliefs which are verified become knowledge.

07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?

Correspondance with the truth. (Truth means objective reality.)

08. Are there different types of knowledge?

Maybe. Some people say that 'knowing how to play a piano' is different knowledge from 'knowing that the Earth is round'.

09. Should knowledge be sought for?

Yes - because ignorance is the cause of much evil.

10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?

Trying to find out what the world is like, and finding appropriate justifications for one's beliefs. Constantly putting one's assumptions to the test and finding them strenghened is one way to improve on one's knowledge.

11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?

I think so - esp. when you limit the scope of knowledge. eg When it comes to mathematics, Einstein had more knowledge than I do . . .

12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?

Much more difficult. How should we define a knowledge unit anyway?

13. Can knowledge be devised into practical and theoretical knowledge?

The division between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' isn't an absolute one. I tend to see 'knowing how' as a collection of 'knowing that' statements. eg knowing how to play a piano comprises of knowing what notes to play, where to put your hands etc.

14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?

'Practical knowledge' is just theoretical knowledge about how to apply other theoretical knowledge when it comes to actually doing something.

15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?

In a 'practical' way. :wink: To me that means whether the piece of knowledge allows us to do something to change the world - something which we couldn't have done without such knowledge.

16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?

Observation, listening to others, reading books etc. and thinking about the collected information.
 
Hello everyone,

Thanks for posting! I'll wait a bit more and then start discussing (summoning the demons...); let's see if anyone else posts in.

1. For Iacchus32:
knowledge is just data or information (compilation of facts). What you do with it on the other hand is another story.
This is your answer to the first question, don't you mind answering others? Nevertheless, this single answer has too many potentially controversial keywords to be considered a definition: data and information are distinct concepts, facts have another story and compilation of facts is still another story.

2. For Mentat:

Special thanks for your specific answer :smile:. Regarding the second question on 01, I meant it to further explain the first question, seems like it didn't work. Ignore it, please.

About question 07: verification is a process of comparing the subject to certain well-defined criteria to report its status relative to those criteria. For example, verifying the statement "The moon is made of cheese" against the verifiability criterion reports its state as "verifiable"; verifying the same statement against the factual righteousness criterion reports its state as "nonfactual". For knowledge, you can (if you don't mind) define a criterion, X, and verify knowledge against that criterion reporting it as "Xy" or "nonXy" or "this much Xy". The question concentrates on your opinion of this action. Do you think knowledge can be compared to certain criteria, if any? If yes, what are these criteria?

You're using a set of keywords in your answers. Would you please specify those keywords and give their subject-to-consensus definitions?

3. For Kerrie:

Would her majesty, Queen Of Wonderland, please give me some details on the ingredients of this newly found preparation of food? Does it need royal taste to be enjoyed? Is it a secret of the dynasty or would its recipe, please, be revealed to this humble inhabitant of your realm?

Specificity is crucial to this discussion... (hope you aren't irritated with this)

4. For MajinVegeta:

Another special "thank you!" and please refer to Mentat's section in this post. Please note that A and B in questions 11 and 12 aren't necessarily individuals; they can be books, magazines, paintings, TV programs, movies, music, objects, methods of thought, etc.

5. For Zimbo:

How many special "thank you" thingies should release into the wild? :wink: You posted right before I post this and I had to edit the post...

Just like Mentat, you're using a wide set of keywords. Would you please specify and define them in subject-to-consensus terms?
 
Last edited:
well, like any food, knowledge must be sought and prepared according to taste...an appreciative pallette will enjoy many different kinds of food (or knowledge):smile: ...

ingredients? that is up to you...
 
Knowledge is information that you hold dear. or rather something that is worth anything.. imho.
 
  • #10
Knowledge is what is known, so the question becomes how does one achieve knowing.

I've said several times I believe one can only know something by personally experiencing it until one acquires certainty. This is the standard of science, for example, where one must observe that what one hypothesizes is true. Science obviously has demonstrated it can produce knowledge.

One can share knowledge with others, but that doesn't mean those shared with now possesses that knowledge, since to actually "know" they must experience for themselves what others claim they know (this is how knowledge is "verified"). Nonetheless, people who go to the trouble to know things, and then share that, can be very valuable in guiding others toward experiences that will produce knowledge.

In my opinion, knowledge should be sought incessantly. Further, I believe one is most powerful as a human being when living, acting, and speaking from what one knows. To become a "man of Knowledge" (to quote Castaneda's Don Juan) means assigning great importance to the human qualities of openness, courage, curiosity, and impartiality in order to facillitate learning.
 
  • #11
LW Sleeth wrote: "To become a "man of Knowledge" (to quote Castaneda's Don Juan) means assigning great importance to the human qualities of openness, courage, curiosity, and impartiality in order to facillitate learning."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is non-controversial. We might also include that being a person of knowledge also demands graciousness and generosity. One should not accuse those with a differing viewpoint of mental thuggery, ignorance and similar pointless insults.
 
  • #12
Hi everyone,

Here comes my set of answers. They aren't ordered the way questions are but contain whatever needed to answer them my way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowledge is the collection of whatever that is "known", thus it includes all the outcome of human observation following any method including but not limited to scientific method and even those observations that are claimed to be methodless.

This definition is essentially self-referenced, that means it contains a logical loop. The elements of this loop are knowledge and knowing. Knowledge is defined as a "collection of known things" while knowing is the state of possessing knowledge.

Loops are not allowed in logic while they can be proven to be inevitable. One of the two concepts, knowledge and knowing, should be chosen to be a basis for the other's definition although neither of the two has any superiority for holding that position. This means that the two ways of defining one of them using the other are equally creditable. Hence, the situation ends to a logical loop.

Individuals, societies and the whole species are responsible for the creation, maintenance, modification, analysis, synthesis, archival and destruction of knowledge.

Knowledge can be categorized in various manners. Regardless of the categorization rules, the outcomes are entities called "knowledge bodies". The sum of all knowledge bodies associated with a certain categorization is the whole knowledge, the complete set of all that is known to an individual or a society or the whole species.

Knowledge bodies may overlap or contain contrary packets of knowledge. This characteristic means that their sum may be unexpectedly different from all predictions made upon its subsets which are knowledge bodies and their possible superposition.

One possible categorization of knowledge is the common way that introduces Science as a distinct knowledge body. It is worth noting that this common categorization is noway the only possible categorization but for reasons unknown to me it has proven itself the most efficient one ever used in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control for human beings.

Knowledge can also be viewed in a hierarchical tree of different abstraction levels; each level possibly introducing totally new concepts as a result of synergy, the fact that each level is not necessarily a superposition or union of the subsets of its preceding level. In this hierarchical manner of classification sensory information are perhaps of the lowest abstraction degree while their symbolic notation, the language, makes the next level of abstraction and so on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose all measures taken to study knowledge in content and form (structure) are in vain or at least fruitless. All these studies are themselves knowledge packets that will become parts of the same knowledge they're devoted to study. Thus, they don't qualify for assessing the content or the form. Because of this supposition, I assume that verifiability, portability (eg sharing), nature, definition and limits of knowledge are subject to uncertainty, even the uncertainty itself.

The above description of my opinion of knowledge is also subject to such uncertainty and that's why there is a logical loop in the very first definition of knowledge. This logical loop and many similar loops have their roots in that that we have always taken for granted what we could never have been sure of.

More important, when knowledge - being the most important aspect of all discussions - is subject to such controversy, no other aspect is safe from these controversies. Therefore, no discussion can be carried out without encountering the same problem over and over but in different semblances.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: There's a chance that I'll be unable to access PF for a few days. Please go on with the thread, if you like. The thread is not dead.

PS: Hail Nagual Carlos!
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hello everyone,

Thanks for posting! I'll wait a bit more and then start discussing (summoning the demons...); let's see if anyone else posts in.

1. For Iacchus32:

This is your answer to the first question, don't you mind answering others? Nevertheless, this single answer has too many potentially controversial keywords to be considered a definition: data and information are distinct concepts, facts have another story and compilation of facts is still another story.

2. For Mentat:

Special thanks for your specific answer :smile:. Regarding the second question on 01, I meant it to further explain the first question, seems like it didn't work. Ignore it, please.

About question 07: verification is a process of comparing the subject to certain well-defined criteria to report its status relative to those criteria. For example, verifying the statement "The moon is made of cheese" against the verifiability criterion reports its state as "verifiable"; verifying the same statement against the factual righteousness criterion reports its state as "nonfactual". For knowledge, you can (if you don't mind) define a criterion, X, and verify knowledge against that criterion reporting it as "Xy" or "nonXy" or "this much Xy". The question concentrates on your opinion of this action. Do you think knowledge can be compared to certain criteria, if any? If yes, what are these criteria?

You're using a set of keywords in your answers. Would you please specify those keywords and give their subject-to-consensus definitions?

3. For Kerrie:

Would her majesty, Queen Of Wonderland, please give me some details on the ingredients of this newly found preparation of food? Does it need royal taste to be enjoyed? Is it a secret of the dynasty or would its recipe, please, be revealed to this humble inhabitant of your realm?

Specificity is crucial to this discussion... (hope you aren't irritated with this)

4. For MajinVegeta:

Another special "thank you!" and please refer to Mentat's section in this post. Please note that A and B in questions 11 and 12 aren't necessarily individuals; they can be books, magazines, paintings, TV programs, movies, music, objects, methods of thought, etc.

5. For Zimbo:

How many special "thank you" thingies should release into the wild? :wink: You posted right before I post this and I had to edit the post...

Just like Mentat, you're using a wide set of keywords. Would you please specify and define them in subject-to-consensus terms?

I'm using "keywords"? Please explain, so that I can respond.
 
  • #14
Greetings !

1. Stuff - data that we percieve
as input. Data stored in some form -
input that doesn't dissappear "without
a trace".
2. Indeed. Science is the classification
of data, the patterns according to which
we can divide knowledge to make it more
useful and its internal connections clearer.
3. Naturally.
4. Our senses.
5. Not certain what you mean. Reliability
is a thing of experience - further knowledge.
6. Are you talking about physical effects ?
In that case, I guess my answer is yes.
7. Other knowledge ?
8. Yes. Knowledge can be classified in many
different ways: type of senses providing the
input, emotions/physical effects and more...
9. Yes. Knowledge gives you an edge, an important
thing in modern competative society.
10. Sounds self-explanatory to me.
11. When you're dealing with particular "known"
knowledge, or when you are aware of the
"storage" size of the knowledge and the
patterns contained to it that can lead
to more knowledge.
12. In terms of 11 - it can be measured.
13. In a particular case/environment.
14. Data that is relevant to your present
situation.
15. In the above context.
16. We acquire knowledge through our senses
all the time and even more through analysys
of some of that knowledge. If you're talking
about specific knowledge then I suppose that
it is acquired through the special means
for acquiring it, be it various info sources,
real experiences and more.

"We don't know a millionth of one percent
about anything."
Thomas Alva Edison

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #15
Greets,

1. For everyone:

Shall we start discussing the answers now or shall we wait a bit more?

2. For Mentat:

Keywords are those words in your speech that are substantial to your argument of the case. For example, you wrote that "knowledge is a collection of facts (or, at least, what one believes to be facts)"; in order to understand your argument properly I have to know what "you" intend with "facts" and "believe to be facts". These are the keywords to understanding your piece of argument. I must be introduced to them to get a picture of your opinion. On the other hand, words like "collection" and "one" are subject to consensus in the course of this discussion.

3. For drag:

Thanks for posting. You, too, introduce a set of your own keywords with your own usage of them. Will you please explain them? (I'm especially interested in your usage of the term "data").

Regarding question 05, reliability is a characteristic of (tele)communication that is dependent on different aspects of that specific communication process such as the similarities and differences between the two sides of the communication channel, the error introduced by these two endpoints, the error introduced by mechanisms that enable them to communicate over a certain channel, the modification applied to the subject of communication in order to prepare it for being sent over the communication channel and the properties of the communication channel.

Question 06 attempts to find out whether or not (of course, in your opinion) knowledge can be the subject of comparative studies which certainly include criteria of comparison. Please refer to my description of this question for Mentat, 8 posts before this post.

Question 10 is not as easy as it seems. Seeking knowledge can refer to many different human procedures, eg one can think of it as exhaustive study of sensory information while another views it as minimizing the volume of this type of information in order to let one's mind observe the self in nearly absolute silence. Many other procedures have also been given this title, in fact all human actions can be associated with "seeking knowledge" but different individuals and/or groups prefer to choose certain actions to be entitled. This question focuses on those procedures that "you" consider "seeking knowledge".
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Well, Manuel, when I say "facts", I mean something that is observably and/or verifiably true. And when I say "believe to be facts", I mean that the person would believe this to be observably and/or verifiably true.
 
  • #17
Hallo,

1. For Mentat:

Right. There are still other keywords in your post, I meant "facts" and "believe to be facts" just as examples. It is up to you to choose what terms are the most significant to your speech and define them your way. I only need specifity in those terms to extract your points of emphasis. I, for one, consider the terms "knowledge body", "criterion", "categorization", "verifying", "abstraction level", "superposition", "synergy", "information" and "reliability" invaluable to my speech. Hence, I try to show you how I view them and then use them to describe what I find suitable.

Some other keywords I could distinguish in your post are: pursuit of knowledge, communication, experimentation, useful and scientific method. I think I understand some of them quite well but, for example, your usage of the phrase "pursuit of knowledge" is much different from mine.

2. For everyone:

Computer scientists say "goto" statement is dead. I don't think so, please go to page 1.
 
  • #18


In response to Manuel - I am clarifying my 'kerwords' from my original post here.


1. Knowledge is true belief. The quality of the justification you have for a particular piece of knowledge determines how good that piece of knowledge is. Knowledge of a particular piece of fact can be better or worse.

True = corresponds with the way the world actually is. Truth/falsity applies to propositions/statements purporting to describe how the world is.

Belief = A mental state - self-certainty about the truth of something.

Justification = evidence or grounds for particular beliefs/statements.

Fact = a discreet piece of true proposition/statement



04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?

Sharing of information. Mainly using words to convey information and ideas.

Information = what's being expressed by anything that expresses something other than itself. A random set of numbers contains no information, but a different arrangement of the same numbers may express something about the world. Likewise, genes 'encode' the information needed to make proteins.

06. Can knowledge be verified?

yes . . . but I don't see the point. If you call something 'knowledge' you already think that it is true. So what's there to verify? Beliefs which are verified become knowledge.

I take 'verify' to mean 'confirm as true'. But since knowledge is, by definition, true, seems pointless to try to confirm the truth of something you already know is true.

07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?

Correspondance with the truth. (Truth means objective reality.)

Objective reality = (that's a tough one!) ok . . . if something is 'true', it's implied that it is 'objectively true'. (I don't believe in relative truths.) eg 'the Earth orbits around the sun' is true, even if everybody disagrees with it, or even if there's nobody around to think about it.

So objective reality = the way the world actually is, independent on what we perceive/observe/think it may be. Don't think it is possible to have direct access to objective reality (because information from the external world must pass through our consciousness and hence become subjective), but that doesn't stop us from getting close to the truth, depending on how reliable our senses/thoughts are.

14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?

'Practical knowledge' is just theoretical knowledge about how to apply other theoretical knowledge when it comes to actually doing something.

'Higher-order theoretical knowledge', if you like.

Any more keywords you like me to define?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
What do grubs know?

I think knowledge has its place, but I don't see it as the ultimate means to an end, as reflected from a previous post ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32:

What do grubs know, except perhaps intuitively, what it's like to be a butterfly?

Could it be this is a reflection of our own condition, where we too are earthbound and in need of a "grubstake," as we look around with ravenous appetites and devour everything in sight?

It all seems kind of narrow-minded dosen't it? But then what does a grub know? Not much beyond being a grub I suppose ... but, there will come a time ...

We go to the ends of the universe to discover the truth, with a slew of fancy instruments and calculations and "God" knows what else? (and only he can) but, when you get right down to it, what do we really know beyond what a grub knows, as we "grub" around in the dark?

But, there will come a time in the life of the grub when he says enough is enough, I've had it, leave me alone, I would just like to lay down for awhile.

You see I've stripped the "Tree of Knowledge" bare, and now that I'm full (of myself?), what's the point? Where's the silken thread (wisdom) to this big walking sack of knowledge? I need some time to reflect.

Ahh, what's that you say? Something's coming out my rear end? What? I have everything back to front? Could it be? Yes, there it is! ... the thread ... and, what does the thread say? 1 + 1 = 2. Wow! even a little child could understand that! ... and therein lies the answer.

Perhaps what we need is to take some time out from our "worldliness" and reflect on why 1 + 1 = 2? For if in fact you can see this for yourself, without someone else to say it was so, then why isn't it possible to acknowledge the existence of God? Once again, if you were to ask little children about this (if God existed), most would probably relpy, "Yes."

And from the "one mind" we fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites." 1 + 1 = 2.
 
  • #20
Hi,

1. For everyone:

I repeat the same question. Shall we start discussing the answers?

2. For zimbo:

Thank you! Well-rounded definitions ... when it comes to discussion they'll be of much value.

You see, the post in which I wrote my answers is partitioned. The last part talks about my idea of studying knowledge itself; that I think this study is all in vain. Well, I have a sinister intention in asking everyone to define their keywords. Have you noticed that every definition introduces new keywords that aren't necessarily more informative than what they define?

3. For Iacchus32:

You've got a nice piece there. Up to the point you say "perhaps what we need is to take some time out from our worldliness and reflect on why ..." every word is in place, if I'm asked about it. You're in-an-uncertain-manner-absolutely right about what you've said.

Like I've told almost everyone I've met, Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" is where everything is said; your arguments, too. On the surface, Lem studies the possibility on inter-species contact when there’s no similarity in evolutionary stages that the two species have passed. In depth, he studies the possibility of knowing the Universe. He draws the simple yet subtle question: "Can we know anything after all?"

We're confined to a human understanding of the Universe. We're wrapped in the Unknown that embraces us from outside and inside. Still we dream of knowing.

However, your conclusion that "And from the one mind we fallen, to accept the two ..." can't be directly known from its introduction. It is just "your" very own very personal conclusion. It is an arbitrary conclusion just like anyone else's conclusion just like my arbitrary conclusion.
 
  • #21
However, your conclusion that "And from the one mind we fallen, to accept the two ..." can't be directly known from its introduction. It is just "your" very own very personal conclusion. It is an arbitrary conclusion just like anyone else's conclusion just like my arbitrary conclusion.

Actually what I'm referring to here is the fall from the Garden of Eden. And just as a drug addict becomes dependent upon the source of his addiction (or downfall), we've become dependent on the tree of knowledge. And, although we didn't eat of its fruit initially (like Adam and Eve did), we still depend upon its leaves for sustenance, "as grubs."

And yet there will come a time in the life of the grub when an amazing transformation takes place, and through this one silken thread (wisdom, as opposed to knowledge) he spins his little cocoon and prepares for a very long deep sleep (death). And yet he finally awakens, only to discover that he's a new creature, and that indeed, there is an afterlife! ... well at least for grubs anyway.

Yet who's to say it isn't any different with human beings? The Bible seems to suggest this is so.

But then again, What do grubs know?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
From the thread, Can you believe in both God and the Devil?

Originally posted by Iacchus32:

Evil is the misappropriation of God's power which, can only be brought about by one thing, "ignorance." And yet since God is all knowing, then evil cannot be not perceived as such. On the other hand when God created man, who in and of himself is nothing but ignorant, then that generates a void, which necessitates the need for an antithesis, "the Devil."
And from the "one mind" (God's) we have fallen, to accept "the two" (male versus female), and hence the "knowledge of opposites" (i.e., good and evil).

Whereas before the fall, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and afterwards, 1 + 1 = 2 (where we don't embrace the opposites as a whole, but rather as singular and "seperate").
 
Last edited:
  • #23
As far as "pursuit of knowledge" goes, I used that to mean an effort to uncover facts (and I have defined what "facts" are, in my previous post). "Scientific method" is a series of steps (namely: observation, formulation of hypotheses, compilation of data, experimentation, graduation to "theory") by which scientists verify (which means to ascertain the actual truth of an idea/belief) observations/hypotheses.
 
  • #24
Alright, Manuel, let's start discussing answers.
 
  • #25
Greets,

My thoughts concerning the given answers follow so...

All the given definitions of knowledge, except mine, rely on the keyword "fact". Everyone says it is a "collection of facts" or that it corresponds to "objective reality". May I ask why it is that way? What makes you believe that knowledge has anything to do with facts?

I think limiting knowledge to facts and/or the outcome of processing them is only ignoring a prominent part of knowledge. Facts, by Mentat's definition, are observable by everyone but there have always been an enormous number of individuals who claim experiencing something peculiar to them. What they experience is indeed part of human knowledge while it isn't observable by everyone or even repeatedly observable by someone. I personally have never had such experience but tend to be thoughtful of what constitutes a significant part of human history and not to ignore it.

Zimbo's definition of knowledge focuses on another term as well, "true" (and apparently "false"). What is true? What does truth mean? These questions have made a battlefield for centuries. If we take "truth" as a basis for defining knowledge, how would we then define "truth"? Zimbo likes to say that truth is "the way the world actually is" but then who can say how the world actually is?

Everyone here will, I guess, accepts that what we observe is just a representation of what "is", in the best case. Then where is the "objective reality" from which one has to find out "the way the world is." We know that every representation is dependent on the nature of its medium. Then, is the medium, the human mind in this case, capable of reflecting what it is ought to representing? What else can we do other than making guesses at its incapability? Are there any external signs, say reference points, to ensure us of the compatibility degree of this representation with what is "supposed to be" out there? I say, no!

Objective reality is acceptable as long as it is a daily practice for solving daily problems but when it comes to taking it serious, to thinking there is such thing as objective reality, one word suffices: absurd. No two individuals are similar enough to view the Universe from the same point of view; there are no absolute points of reference eligible for being called "the only reality." Note that this is not a result taken out of proprietary theoretical Physics; this is a result of humane observation of the human situation.

Keeping the common fact-based definition of knowledge in mind and trying to see if knowledge can be acquired, I concluded that knowledge can noway be acquired by this definition. Acquisition of fact-based knowledge requires gathering of facts. Gathering of facts requires distinguishing fact from other things one thinks one experiences. Is this possible? What makes facts distinct from "illusions", "dreams" and "errors"? I say, nothing! As long as there are no absolute reference points to which all measurements can be compared, nothing is more "real" than any other thing. All experiences are equally creditable. One must either throw away the fact-based definition or revise all the structure of human knowledge ... I'd rather change the definition.

From this point on, any other definition of knowledge can be tested to see if is worth a try. You judge my definition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: I reserved one right for me while writing this post, the right of questioning anything and everything, anyone and everyone. Is anyone against holding this right for me and others?
 
  • #26
Aside from the fact that we're all human, we "almost" all have a universal point of reference, and that would be our parents. And, while I'm not sure I can say this is 100% absolute (or, if even we're 100% human anymore?), this was at least the intended design ...

Don't let anybody rob you of your inheritance, and beware of the changeling!

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)
 
  • #27
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Manuel. First off, I did allow for "knowledge" to consist of that which one believes to be a fact, even if it is not actually so.

Secondly, look at your wording:

Originally Posted by Manuel_Silvio
No two individuals are similar enough to view the Universe from the same point of view

You see? You still refer to their being a universe, that humans form opinions about. Even if our opinions happen to vary (even drastically so) that doesn't mean we aren't all trying to describe the same universe ("universe" meaning "objective reality").

Have you ever heard the expression, "this defies the laws of physics!"? This is only in works of fiction, because, in actual experience, nothing violates the laws of physics. So, if "objective reality" (or that which is perceived to be so) is produced by our individual minds, then why aren't there individual "realities" (or "laws of physics")?

I think lifegazer may have pulled him to the Dark Side :wink: .
 
  • #29
As far as "truth" goes...

Manuel asked what "truth" was, and I'd like to try and answer that.

Webster:
the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions

So you see, truth is the body of "real things". Webster (on "real", third definition):

existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> -- compare IDEAL 3b c : having objective independent existence

Does that help at all?
 
  • #30
Greetz,

1. For Iacchus32:

You're going on with Biblical words and fatherly suggestions. That'd be wise if I was seeking relief but I'm just here to give birth to tension, pressure and opposition. Please also take a look at Mentat's section.

2. For Mentat:

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Manuel. First off, I did allow for "knowledge" to consist of that which one believes to be a fact, even if it is not actually so.

"What one believes to be facts" is an essentially paradoxical phrase. If one and only one believes them to be facts then they can't be facts by your own definition. Facts must emerge from objective reality so they must be experienced by everyone involved in objective reality. Consequently, they can't be peculiar to an individual. If there is an objective reality that is always imposed on every individual then no individual can ever dream of anything incomprehensible by others and belonging only to her/him.

I do use the term Universe and I do believe in a consensus on reality among all human beings but I do insist that this consensus is not different from or more influential than personal views. The belief in a consensus and the consensus itself are also part of the individual reality. I consider the common belief that "there is indeed something out there and it is indeed the way we all believe it to be" just as meaningful as "this defies the laws of Physics."

Physics has been made to correspond to sensory information; so, sensory information will never contain something that contradicts Physics. New sensory information is always complementary to Physics not contradictory. The same way, consensus on existence and qualia is built into individual realities.

I think lifegazer may have pulled him to the Dark Side:wink:.

I never got to read the famous Mentat-Lifegazer course of discussion but already was on the "Dark Side of The Moon" since I heard it.

Aside from this, I'm not really making an argument for individual realities. They were important to me about three years ago. Now my core concept is uncertainty. It is enough for me to make others feel confused after making them, to no use, define their keywords and then expose them to my ever-present uncertainty principle and show what sort of sword it is; a double-edged one!

You're giving dictionary definitions to me, they're good as long as they aren't taken serious.

I've these questions: "Do you think words can ever be defined so that an alien being can understand them? Do you think a non-human can ever be introduced to humanity? Do you think I'll ever be able to understand the words like you do?" (hey, I'm not the alien being!)
 
Last edited:
  • #31
1. For Iacchus32:

You're going on with Biblical words and fatherly suggestions. That'd be wise if I was seeking relief but I'm just here to give birth to tension, pressure and opposition. Please also take a look at Mentat's section.
Yes, but how do you "know" that?

I've these questions: "Do you think words can ever be defined so that an alien being can understand them? Do you think a non-human can ever be introduced to humanity? Do you think I'll ever be able to understand the words like you do?" (hey, I'm not the alien being!)
The aliens would have to be at least similar in intelligence, and would probably have to be introduced into "our culture" at a very young age, much in the way we as humans, are introduced into this "alien world" at birth.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio


2. For Mentat:



"What one believes to be facts" is an essentially paradoxical phrase. If one and only one believes them to be facts then they can't be facts by your own definition.

They can't be facts, but they are "knowledge" - that's all I was saying: Knowledge is either consistent of facts, beliefs, or both.

If there is an objective reality that is always imposed on every individual then no individual can ever dream of anything incomprehensible by others and belonging only to her/him.

That is only partially true. Sure, any dreams that a person has are produced by random firings of synapses, and those synapses were produced by objective reality. However, a persons dream does not have to mirror typical (or even possible) reality.

Physics has been made to correspond to sensory information; so, sensory information will never contain something that contradicts Physics. New sensory information is always complementary to Physics not contradictory.

Not true, have you ever studied Quantum Mechanics? This constantly challenges the sensory information that is perceived by a human.


I never got to read the famous Mentat-Lifegazer course of discussion

You missed out.

Aside from this, I'm not really making an argument for individual realities. They were important to me about three years ago. Now my core concept is uncertainty. It is enough for me to make others feel confused after making them, to no use, define their keywords and then expose them to my ever-present uncertainty principle and show what sort of sword it is; a double-edged one!

Not yet confused, keep trying :wink::smile:

You're giving dictionary definitions to me, they're good as long as they aren't taken serious.

Come again? A dictionary definition should be taken seriously (not regarded as definite and absolute truth, but taken seriously, nontheless).

I've these questions: "Do you think words can ever be defined so that an alien being can understand them?

All beings are alien to oneself, and the purpose of communication is to bridge the gap between what I "know" and what all of the "aliens" "know".

Do you think a non-human can ever be introduced to humanity? Do you think I'll ever be able to understand the words like you do?" (hey, I'm not the alien being!)

Off-topic, but hey, it's your topic :smile:. Define "introduced to humanity" (serious "key-word" usage). Were you directing the second question directly at me?
 
  • #33
Greetz,

1. For Iacchus32:

I'm not sure if you really are "going on with Biblical words and fatherly suggestions" but I felt that way. For you said "don't let anybody rob you of your inheritance, and beware of the changeling!" and that is surely a suggestion (or a commandment?). Suggesting me what to do doesn't suffice, you have to prove that I'm wrong and I'd better do it the way you suggest. You insist that we've fallen from one to duality and whatnot. That's OK; my uncertainty principle tells me that whatever given statement can be equally true or false or may even belong to another state that transcends true/false. One such statement is yours.

If I had to choose some statement I'd choose the one that best suited my taste because according to my uncertainty principle no statement can be definitely said to be true/false. This way no statement can be preferred over the other, yours included.

2. For Mentat:
They can't be facts, but they are "knowledge" - that's all I was saying: Knowledge is either consistent of facts, beliefs, or both.

That is only partially true. Sure, any dreams that a person has are produced by random firings of synapses, and those synapses were produced by objective reality. However, a persons dream does not have to mirror typical (or even possible) reality.
If you consider facts as the only input for a human being then beliefs would only be processed (and perhaps synthesized) facts. There lies my point; facts are only one form of input. There've always been many individuals claiming ESP; nowadays this is gone bad to some extents because it's become more of fashion than belief or experience. However, a shaman of a native Australian tribe noway did that for leisure; contacting strange beings from out of our sensing realms was a crucial part of their culture and may have really helped them survive in the course of their time. I myself have never had such experiences and don't have much trust in what others say but I also can't ignore a big part of human culture and knowledge into which this other form of input is firmly woven. I guess, other forms of input can also be thought of.

I think once I read a post from you that implied that you suppose a shaman's reasons for medical effects of honey on bruises to be wrong. "The effects are real, the reasons aren't" or something like that. If I'm right with this remembrance then that is what I exactly disagree with.

When I said "one can't dream of ..." I meant one can't even think of it, I had nothing to do with dreams. Anyway, dreams don't have to mirror objective reality but if it is the one and only reality then the only construction material available for dreams is that sort of reality. Hence, all dreams would be extremely-processed facts (to imply a hidden agreement, well, they are :smile: but you can't use this as a point of discussion).

By the way, who says a dream is "random" firing of neurons?
Not true, have you ever studied Quantum Mechanics? This constantly challenges the sensory information that is perceived by a human.
Honestly, no. I've never "studied" Quantum Mechanics but I will because I'm a freshman Physics undergraduate. QM, however, doesn't challenge the sensory information, what it challenges is the deterministic self-righteous subject-to-consensus interpretation of sensory information. Our one and only way of observing the Universe made of facts is our senses. We induce an electron beam then direct it through a narrow slot and let it hit a fluorescent shield to get "sensible" trails of what has happened; in this case, diffraction of electrons that had to be particles and not waves. Sensory information is the raw input, it doesn't pose for or against anything; thus, it can't be challenged. What can indeed be challenged is the Physicist's interpretation of sensory information which may or may not qualify in accordance to scientific criteria.
Come again? A dictionary definition should be taken seriously (not regarded as definite and absolute truth, but taken seriously, nontheless).
A dictionary definition of a word is at most what its development team think about majority's opinion of that word. This definition is not stuck to the word. Every individual has her/his own variant of the definition which can slightly or extremely differ from the dictionary definition. I asked "what is truth?" and you gave me a definition out of Webster. Webster, in this context, is no more creditable than a 6-year-old child. A group of individuals (intelligent and knowledgeable ones, of course) have come to an agreement about what the majority think of the word "truth". This agreement means nothing to me. Is that what truth is? Has Webster ultimately put and end to the never-ending debate about truth?

The Webster way of saying "truth" is indeed useful. You can use it at home, at work, at school, when you want to tease your teacher who's made a mistake, when you want to get rid of an inquisitive kid and when you need a ready definition in designing a truth-finder PC software. That's all good but here this isn't the case. When it comes to critical discussion of truth you can't offer ready-made definitions because in the court of fair judgement no statement is initially more creditable than any other one. We could start with every statement about truth and we should have got the same results (I think, confusion )
All beings are alien to oneself, and the purpose of communication is to bridge the gap between what I "know" and what all of the "aliens" "know".
We had two questions concerned with communication on the question list: If knowledge can be shared? If the mechanisms of sharing are reliable?

An attempt to communicate is what surely happens but whether or not this attempt is successful remains a question. Also it is important to know whether or not what the aliens learn from you is what you meant to teach them.
Off-topic, but hey, it's your topic . Define "introduced to humanity" (serious "key-word" usage). Were you directing the second question directly at me?
It wasn't off-topic even if this was your topic :wink: (it IS your topic for you're here).

Introducing to humanity means to teach the alien to see and think the human way (before that we must teach it to "see" and "think"). We, as human beings, are exposed to a certain range of the events in the Universe. Out of this range we choose certain parts to receive and process. Moreover, we re-shape this raw input in a certain manner. The range of input presented to us, our selective behavior against that range and our manner of re-shaping this input are the core points in our being human from the Universe's point of view. Suppose some alien being decides to make a human-detector, just like we make a magnetometer. An efficient design for this human-detector can be just like a magnetometer. It should measure the distortion that the subject of experiment introduces into its input. The distortion pattern can determine whether or not the subject is human.

Anyway, these questions aren't off-topic because they are focused on the possibility of contact and communication. This was meant from the dawn of the topic.

Finally, yes, I'm directing that second question directly at you. You understand the words your way; I understand them my way. Do you think the gap can ever be bridged?
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greets,
All the given definitions of knowledge, except mine, rely on the keyword "fact". Everyone says it is a "collection of facts" or that it corresponds to "objective reality". May I ask why it is that way? What makes you believe that knowledge has anything to do with facts?

For the reason that you don't really know something that's false. You may think you know, but you would just be wrong.


Zimbo's definition of knowledge focuses on another term as well, "true" (and apparently "false"). What is true? What does truth mean? These questions have made a battlefield for centuries. If we take "truth" as a basis for defining knowledge, how would we then define "truth"? Zimbo likes to say that truth is "the way the world actually is" but then who can say how the world actually is?

Indeed! Who can say how the world actually is? But when we say something about the world, we are either right or wrong. Nobody 'knows' how much we get right. According to my definition of knowledge, it's hard to 'know whether we know'. But of all the things we say about the world, surely some of them have to be right! So we do 'know' quite a few things, we just don't know what we know!

Manuel: you mentioned a few interesting points about how our capacity for knowledge may be limited. Firstly there's the worry of not being able to find 'objectivity'. In practice, we just do it via 'inter-subjectivity' - something that is observed by multiple people is probably a 'physical' phenomenon 'out-there' rather than an illusion or a dream. There still exists the possibility that we, because of being human, are always distorting our representation of the world through the ways we think/perceive. That we can't really do much about . . . But should that concern us - that we are constitutionally, systematically distorting the way the world is, in our representations of it? Only if you imagine the possibility of jumping out of the human point of view and finding inconsistency between the human view and the 'outside' view. But since that's not possible, we tend to ignore that and just try out best to focus on making sense (ie render internally consistent) of our (possibly) distorted input.

So perhaps in practical terms, the best kind of knowledge we can have involves correspondence with everything else we think we know about the world, which hopefully translates into the way the world actually is. As I said earlier, we can have better or worse knowledge. This knowledge may not be as good as the knowledge possessed by, say, an omniscient being. But as long as it's 'actually' true then it's knowledge.

PS: I reserved one right for me while writing this post, the right of questioning anything and everything, anyone and everyone. Is anyone against holding this right for me and others?

I'm perfectly happy about that!
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Hi,

1. For zimbo:
For the reason that you don't really know something that's false. You may think you know, but you would just be wrong.
Halfway right. What I know should be true because what is true is called knowledge but this is again a logical loop of the sort I used in my own definition. Self-referenced definitions are basically forbidden but as I wrote on my other post are inevitable. That's part of what I want to show by asking others to "define" knowledge. Verbal definitions are the easiest way to show loops are inevitable. When one tries to define a word, she/he encounters other words that need definition. There are two solutions to this situation. First, one can assume there is a set of (yet unknown) words that are used as primitives in building all definitions; second, one may accept that loops are inevitable and that the language contains many self-referenced word definitions.

The former solution requires its user to determine the set of primitive words and prove their being primitive; that is a cumbersome task and has failed many times yet the solution isn't empty of merit.

The latter brings up another question: how have these loops taken shape and built up an individual's vocabulary without the individual initially knowing anything of the language? This question can be answered in the light of structuralism. The language can be seen as a self-contained structure with no connection to outside even though it is used to describe the outside Universe. The language needn't be responsible for what happens outside, instead it re-shapes every event to fit into its own context and capabilities. I think that's why individuals grown in and exposed to different languages have always problems in conveying certain parts of their experiences. I will perhaps never get much of English wit; an English speaking person may as well never understand the signs of eloquence in my native language.

I tend to use the second choice as a matter of taste.
Indeed! Who can say how the world actually is? ...
Really well said! I suppose you're talking of what I call general uncertainty principle which implies that we can't be sure of nothing. The problem again is that general uncertainty principle applies to itself as well. Uncertainty has the lethal effect of never letting its bearer rest assured. How do you make your daily choices when uncertainty rules the Universe?

You see, all we can say is "probably", "perhaps" and "maybe". Is that enough? It seems to be for we've lengthened our lives to more than three times their length of 2000 years ago (average of 18 to an average of 60)using these hopes and fears. This, however, for always deprives us of a moment of rest.

By the way, you're so clever...

Have you listened to Carl Orff's Carmina Burana? It has everything said.

1. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Fortune, Empress of the World)

O Fortuna (Chorus)------------------O Fortune
O Fortuna---------------------------O Fortune,
velut luna--------------------------like the moon
statu variabilis,-------------------you are changeable,
semper crescis----------------------ever waxing
aut decrescis;----------------------and waning;
vita detestabilis-------------------hateful life
nunc obdurat------------------------first oppresses
et tunc curat-----------------------and then soothes
ludo mentis aciem,------------------as fancy takes it;
egestatem,--------------------------poverty
potestatem--------------------------and power
dissolvit ut glaciem.---------------it melts them like ice.

Sors immanis------------------------Fate - monstrous
et inanis,--------------------------and empty,
rota tu volubilis,------------------you whirling wheel,
status malus,-----------------------you are malevolent,
vana salus--------------------------well-being is vain
semper dissolubilis,----------------and always fades to nothing,
obumbrata---------------------------shadowed
et velata---------------------------and veiled
michi quoque niteris;---------------you plague me too;
nunc per ludum----------------------now through the game
dorsum nudum------------------------I bring my bare back
fero tui sceleris.------------------to your villainy.

Sors salutis------------------------Fate is against me
et virtutis-------------------------in health
michi nunc contraria,---------------and virtue,
est affectus------------------------driven on
et defectus-------------------------and weighted down,
semper in angaria.------------------always enslaved.
Hac in hora-------------------------So at this hour
sine mora---------------------------without delay
corde pulsum tangite;---------------pluck the vibrating strings;
quod per sortem---------------------since Fate
sternit fortem,---------------------strikes down the string man,
mecum omnes plangite!---------------everyone weep with me!

2. For Mentat:

Hey, I read you're 14. Wow! You're much too good for that age; actually I thought you're at least 30. I'm 19 and still lack your intelligence and sharpness. I'm dying of jealousy. Be proud of yourself!

And please take a look at my previous post.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
2. For Mentat:

If you consider facts as the only input for a human being then beliefs would only be processed (and perhaps synthesized) facts. There lies my point; facts are only one form of input.

Now, I never said that facts were the only form of input. knowledge is the only form of input, but "knowledge" has been defined (by me, previously) as both a collection of facts, and a collection of beliefs.

I think once I read a post from you that implied that you suppose a shaman's reasons for medical effects of honey on bruises to be wrong. "The effects are real, the reasons aren't" or something like that. If I'm right with this remembrance then that is what I exactly disagree with.

Perhaps you refer to a reply that I made (in the old PFs) to one of TENYEARS' posts. In this reply, I did say something to the same effect as that which you remembered me as saying. I was saying that the fact that a person was healed is sometimes indisputable, but rather often people will claim that it is merely the firm belief - in whatever process is being used (be it miracle healings, sugar pills, or anything else) - that causes the healing. And this point coincides with my definition of knowledge - in that the person's body "knows" that it is being healed by a miracle, even if this is not necessarily factual.

When I said "one can't dream of ..." I meant one can't even think of it, I had nothing to do with dreams. Anyway, dreams don't have to mirror objective reality but if it is the one and only reality then the only construction material available for dreams is that sort of reality. Hence, all dreams would be extremely-processed facts (to imply a hidden agreement, well, they are :smile: but you can't use this as a point of discussion).

I think that you may have missed the point of my post, wherein I stated that the random firing of synapses is responsible for dreams, and that the fact that the firing was random allows for weird "realities" to come up. All of our "knowledge" (as previously defined) is based on something that we have perceived (in one way or another) through objective reality. However, in dreams (random firings of synapses) we shuffle the deck - so to speak - of knowledge.

By the way, who says a dream is "random" firing of neurons?

I do. If you are consciously in control of the specific firings of synapses, then it is not a dream (as dreams occur in sleep, wherein you conscious mind is "shut off").

A dictionary definition of a word is at most what its development team think about majority's opinion of that word. This definition is not stuck to the word. Every individual has her/his own variant of the definition which can slightly or extremely differ from the dictionary definition. I asked "what is truth?" and you gave me a definition out of Webster. Webster, in this context, is no more creditable than a 6-year-old child. A group of individuals (intelligent and knowledgeable ones, of course) have come to an agreement about what the majority think of the word "truth". This agreement means nothing to me. Is that what truth is? Has Webster ultimately put and end to the never-ending debate about truth?

I emphatically agree on this point! There are a few, here on the forums, that would do well to consider what you have stated (in the quoted paragraph).

The Webster way of saying "truth" is indeed useful. You can use it at home, at work, at school, when you want to tease your teacher who's made a mistake, when you want to get rid of an inquisitive kid and when you need a ready definition in designing a truth-finder PC software. That's all good but here this isn't the case. When it comes to critical discussion of truth you can't offer ready-made definitions because in the court of fair judgement no statement is initially more creditable than any other one. We could start with every statement about truth and we should have got the same results (I think, confusion )

Again, very good point.

We had two questions concerned with communication on the question list: If knowledge can be shared? If the mechanisms of sharing are reliable?

An attempt to communicate is what surely happens but whether or not this attempt is successful remains a question. Also it is important to know whether or not what the aliens learn from you is what you meant to teach them.

And this is why I said that communication is not 100% reliable.

It wasn't off-topic even if this was your topic :wink: (it IS your topic for you're here).

Introducing to humanity means to teach the alien to see and think the human way (before that we must teach it to "see" and "think"). We, as human beings, are exposed to a certain range of the events in the Universe. Out of this range we choose certain parts to receive and process. Moreover, we re-shape this raw input in a certain manner. The range of input presented to us, our selective behavior against that range and our manner of re-shaping this input are the core points in our being human from the Universe's point of view. Suppose some alien being decides to make a human-detector, just like we make a magnetometer. An efficient design for this human-detector can be just like a magnetometer. It should measure the distortion that the subject of experiment introduces into its input. The distortion pattern can determine whether or not the subject is human.

Very interesting. It does seem to make a lot of sense (aside from the fact that it is possible that all things process as we do - merely to a lesser (or possibly greater) degree).

Anyway, these questions aren't off-topic because they are focused on the possibility of contact and communication. This was meant from the dawn of the topic.

Finally, yes, I'm directing that second question directly at you. You understand the words your way; I understand them my way. Do you think the gap can ever be bridged?

Yes, I think it can be bridged. However, to do so, we would have to arrive at a consensus/agreement of what every word that we use means. This does not mean that we will have to meet each other half-way, on all topics. In fact, sometimes one of us would have to admit that he/she is wrong, and take the other person's view-point. And, sometimes, both parties will be wrong, and they will have to agree on a new view-point. But, yes, I think it is possible (with the right amount humility, that is - there is no room for a huge ego, when trying to reach agreement).
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
2. For Mentat:

Hey, I read you're 14. Wow! You're much too good for that age; actually I thought you're at least 30. I'm 19 and still lack your intelligence and sharpness. I'm dying of jealousy. Be proud of yourself!

And please take a look at my previous post.

Thank you.

I have read the post, and responded.
 
  • #38
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I suppose you're mismatching "input" and "knowledge". Input in any form is distinct from knowledge and this distinction must be kept in mind. Knowledge is a gathering and resides "inside" the individual. Input comes from "outside". Input gives us an information stream which in turn will turn into knowledge by being processed. Different forms of input can exist and co-exist while only one form of knowledge exists that is produced by processing and storing information fed in from the input.

You said knowledge is the collection of facts and beliefs. I say that isn't all of knowledge. Even worse, I claim knowledge can't be defined with straight linear definitions.
And this point coincides with my definition of knowledge - in that the person's body "knows" that it is being healed by a miracle, even if this is not necessarily factual.
What if I claimed the person is healed by her/his knowledge affecting the objective reality?
I think that you may have missed the point of my post, wherein I stated that the random firing of synapses is responsible for dreams, and that the fact that the firing was random allows for weird "realities" to come up ... I do. If you are consciously in control of the specific firings of synapses, then it is not a dream (as dreams occur in sleep, wherein you conscious mind is "shut off").
I think you aren't careful enough with your usage of "random." A random event is not simple to talk about. Also it isn't simple to prove something is random. If you give me hard neurophysiologic evidence that neurons ever fire at random then I'll have to re-think this part of my speech.

Dreams and all other brain activities aren't random for sure. Brain activities always follow patterns. When one's dreaming certain parts of her/his brain light up and then go down; a whole area and not a single neuron. There is interactivity among neurons and they don't work randomly or even isolated from each other. I was told that a single neuron's behavior is chaotic. Notice, chaotic but not stochastic. I was also told that chaotic systems may become simpler when their freedom is limited by their interconnection, ie neurons are interconnected so their accumulation which is a brain may exhibit patterned and predictable behavior.

Conscious mind is "said" to shut off while dreaming but that is just a small part of the mind so if the rest of the mind is up we won't get lost in "weird" realities but in a complex processed synthesis of our past experience.
And this is why I said that communication is not 100% reliable.
What if I claimed it to be 0 percent reliable? We may simply be separate with no connection or possibility of contact. You say it isn't 100 percent, then how much is it? Can you prove you've ever talked to me?

2. For zimbo:

Please look at my previous post.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio

Have you listened to Carl Orff's Carmina Burana? It has everything said.

I surely have - very colourful music (and overused in movies IMO). I prefer other sections from the same piece - try 'In trutina' and 'Fortuna plango vulnera' (sp?)

Verbal definitions are the easiest way to show loops are inevitable. When one tries to define a word, she/he encounters other words that need definition. There are two solutions to this situation. First, one can assume there is a set of (yet unknown) words that are used as primitives in building all definitions; second, one may accept that loops are inevitable and that the language contains many self-referenced word definitions.

I agree with the need for loops. So let's see what you conclude from that . . .

The latter brings up another question: how have these loops taken shape and built up an individual's vocabulary without the individual initially knowing anything of the language? This question can be answered in the light of structuralism. The language can be seen as a self-contained structure with no connection to outside even though it is used to describe the outside Universe. The language needn't be responsible for what happens outside, instead it re-shapes every event to fit into its own context and capabilities. I think that's why individuals grown in and exposed to different languages have always problems in conveying certain parts of their experiences. I will perhaps never get much of English wit; an English speaking person may as well never understand the signs of eloquence in my native language.

I don't agree with what you say about language being 'self-contained'. Langauge is not exhaustive of experience - there are many experiences for which we don't have a word, and there are many things we feel we can't describe fairly. Different languages may have different strength's and weakneesses when it comes to describing various things (hence the old anecdote about Eskimo language and snow). There is a certain connection between a string of words and their content (if any exists), though not a perfect one. How could there be a language without there being human experiences/perceptions in the first place?

So where do the loops fit in? Notice that most 'definitional loops' occur for abstract concepts. Whereas there are many definition that can ultimately be reduced to the act to 'pointing' at something. eg a definition of 'red' ultimately leads to the need to simply point at something and say 'this object is red' - do you see potential for a loop there? I don't.
 
  • #40
Greetz,

1. For zimbo:

My favorite part of Carmina Burana is "Estuans Interius." That is a brilliant piece. I've listened to it more than a hundred times. I have the video from the performance in Berlin Philharmonie as well. I'd rather say, it is "misused" in movies (that's a keyword :wink:). I think the piece you're referring to as "In Trutina" (in balance) is in fact "In Taberna" (in tavern)...

14. In taberna quando sumus (When we are in the tavern)


In taberna quando sumus-------------When we are in the tavern,
non curamus quid sit humus,---------we do not think how we will go to dust,
sed ad ludum properamus,------------but we hurry to gamble,
cui semper insudamus.---------------which always makes us sweat.
Quid agatur in taberna--------------What happens in the tavern,
ubi nummus est pincerna,------------where money is host,
hoc est opus ut queratur,-----------you may well ask,
si quid loquar, audiatur.-----------and hear what I say.

Quidam ludunt, quidam bibunt,-------Some gamble, some drink,
quidam indiscrete vivunt.-----------some behave loosely.
Sed in ludo qui morantur,-----------But of those who gamble,
ex his quidam denudantur------------some are stripped bare,
quidam ibi vestiuntur,--------------some win their clothes here,
quidam saccis induuntur.------------some are dressed in sacks.
Ibi nullus timet mortem-------------Here no-one fears death,
sed pro Baccho mittunt sortem:------but they throw the dice in the name of Bacchus.



Primo pro nummata vini,-------------First of all it is to the wine-merchant
ex hac bibunt libertini;------------the the libertines drink,
semel bibunt pro captivis,----------one for the prisoners,
post hec bibunt ter pro vivis,------three for the living,
quater pro Christianis cunctis------four for all Christians,
quinquies pro fidelibus defunctis,--five for the faithful dead,
sexies pro sororibus vanis,---------six for the loose sisters,
septies pro militibus silvanis.-----seven for the footpads in the wood,

Octies pro fratribus perversis,-----Eight for the errant brethren,
nonies pro monachis dispersis,------nine for the dispersed monks,
decies pro navigantibus-------------ten for the seamen,
undecies pro discordaniibus,--------eleven for the squabblers,
duodecies pro penitentibus,---------twelve for the penitent,
tredecies pro iter agentibus.-------thirteen for the wayfarers.
Tam pro papa quam pro rege----------To the Pope as to the king
bibunt omnes sine lege.-------------they all drink without restraint.

Bibit hera, bibit herus,------------The mistress drinks, the master drinks,
bibit miles, bibit clerus,----------the soldier drinks, the priest drinks,
bibit ille, bibit illa,-------------the man drinks, the woman drinks,
bibit servis cum ancilla,-----------the servant drinks with the maid,
bibit velox, bibit piger,-----------the swift man drinks, the lazy man drinks,
bibit albus, bibit niger,-----------the white man drinks, the black man drinks,
bibit constans, bibit vagus,--------the settled man drinks, the wanderer drinks,
bibit rudis, bibit magnus.----------the stupid man drinks, the wise man drinks,

Bibit pauper et egrotus,------------The poor man drinks, the sick man drinks,
bibit exul et ignotus,--------------the exile drinks, and the stranger,
bibit puer, bibit canus,------------the boy drinks, the old man drinks,
bibit presul et decanus,------------the bishop drinks, and the deacon,
bibit soror, bibit frater,----------the sister drinks, the brother drinks,
bibit anus, bibit mater,------------the old lady drinks, the mother drinks,
bibit ista, bibit ille,-------------this man drinks, that man drinks,
bibunt centum, bibunt mille.--------a hundred drink, a thousand drink.

Parum sexcente nummate--------------Six hundred pennies would hardly
durant, cum immoderate--------------suffice, if everyone
bibunt omnes sine meta.-------------drinks immoderately and immeasurably.
Quamvis bibant mente leta,----------However much they cheerfully drink
sic nos rodunt omnes gentes---------we are the ones whom everyone scolds,
et sic erimus egentes.--------------and thus we are destitute.
Qui nos rodunt confundantur---------May those who slander us be cursed
et cum iustis non scribantur.-------and may their names not be written in the book of the righteous.

I don't agree with what you say about language ...
You're right. Perhaps a mixture of the two solutions is appropriate. Some words are pointing to certain sensory patterns, more abstract ones are participating in intertwined loops which may also include some of those words that are pointing to sensory patterns.

However, if I was to keep the self-contained language idea I could answer your questions. Langauge is not only the set of words and sentences but also all symbols that we can use. Those feelings for which we don't have words may be well represented by body gestures which are symbolic for sure. I also would ask if we could ever think without language. If the answer is "yes" then I'd ask you to prove it, if the answer is "no" then I'd conclude that language is self-contained because it marks the borders of thinkable and unthinkable. If every thought happens inside the language then language as the superset of all thoughts must be self-contained because thoughts are all that a human mind is capable of. It can't point to outside because it would be pointing at something that is not a thought.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I suppose you're mismatching "input" and "knowledge". Input in any form is distinct from knowledge and this distinction must be kept in mind. Knowledge is a gathering and resides "inside" the individual. Input comes from "outside". Input gives us an information stream which in turn will turn into knowledge by being processed. Different forms of input can exist and co-exist while only one form of knowledge exists that is produced by processing and storing information fed in from the input.

Hola, Manuel.

Actually, I didn't mismatch input and knowledge. I agree (mostly) with your assesment of the difference between the two. I said that "knowledge" is the collection of facts/beliefs, what one chooses to believe is up to him/her, but their knowledge will be based on what "input" they have recieved. One who has never taken in even the slightest bit of "input" can never produce belief.

You said knowledge is the collection of facts and beliefs. I say that isn't all of knowledge. Even worse, I claim knowledge can't be defined with straight linear definitions.

Is there any basis for your claim, or is this just how you have chosen to believe?

What if I claimed the person is healed by her/his knowledge affecting the objective reality?

You may claim as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have yet to define knowledge, and so far it appears that you think of it as having some physical presence/force that can affect reality.

I think you aren't careful enough with your usage of "random." A random event is not simple to talk about. Also it isn't simple to prove something is random. If you give me hard neurophysiologic evidence that neurons ever fire at random then I'll have to re-think this part of my speech.

I have read from various sources that it appears to be random firing of synapses, and I think that Quantum Mechanics would dictate the same conclusion.

Dreams and all other brain activities aren't random for sure. Brain activities always follow patterns. When one's dreaming certain parts of her/his brain light up and then go down; a whole area and not a single neuron. There is interactivity among neurons and they don't work randomly or even isolated from each other. I was told that a single neuron's behavior is chaotic. Notice, chaotic but not stochastic. I was also told that chaotic systems may become simpler when their freedom is limited by their interconnection, ie neurons are interconnected so their accumulation which is a brain may exhibit patterned and predictable behavior.
Conscious mind is "said" to shut off while dreaming but that is just a small part of the mind so if the rest of the mind is up we won't get lost in "weird" realities but in a complex processed synthesis of our past experience.

You should read "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennet. It clears up a lot of misconceptions about dreams/hallucinations.

What if I claimed it to be 0 percent reliable? We may simply be separate with no connection or possibility of contact.

Objection! Your honor, this is specualtion.

You can claim this, if you wish, but it is demonstrably not true, as I am responding to something that I see on my screen, and I didn't write what I'm responding to, so obviously there is a second party.

You say it isn't 100 percent, then how much is it?

Depends on what is being said. "Hello" is very difficult to confuse, but there are other words that can be said in many different tones, and can easily be confused.

Can you prove you've ever talked to me?

See above. If you haven't talked to me, then what am I responding to, and if I'm not talking to you now, then why are you thinking about what I'm saying?
2. For zimbo:

Please look at my previous post. [/B][/QUOTE]
 
  • #42
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:
Actually, I didn't mismatch input and knowledge...
I thought you did because you wrote "knowledge is the only form of input." And that's indeed a mismatch. Let's forget it.
Is there any basis for your claim, or is this just how you have chosen to believe?
This is what I've come to think of because linear definitions of knowledge (like many other linear definitions) fail to achieve their purpose. They fail to inform their audience of what knowledge is. The reason, if I'm asked, is that human language and human thoughts are actually closed systems in which definitions eventually point to other definitions that are no more informative. This situation leads to the emerging of loops where no loops are allowed. We try to analyze and understand the depth of mind and its artifact, knowledge, but we encounter loops even though we have never trespassed the borders of rational thinking. These inevitable loops are quite meaningful; when mind is studied by itself we actually stand on the brinks of human capabilities.
You may claim as you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have yet to define knowledge, and so far it appears that you think of it as having some physical presence/force that can affect reality.
What I'm doing isn't only claiming, it is counter-claiming. I'm claiming the opposite of what you've claimed to be true; you claimed "the effects are real, the reasons are not." I counter-claim and expect that you give me reasons for your claim. If you've no reasons for that just then we've an equal state: we've both claimed what can't be proven with rational means.

And I've given my definition of knowledge plus much more in a post on page 1.
I have read from various sources that it appears to be random firing of synapses, and I think that Quantum Mechanics would dictate the same conclusion.
Please give me a link to one of your creditable sources (preferably not a book for there's no guarantee on that I can find a certain book here). And what does Quantum Mechanics have to do with Neuroscience? We haven't yet reached those dizzy heights to explain a neuron's behavior on quantum level. Again, don't use "random" carelessly. Don't use it unless you've clear-cut understanding of the differences between "stochastic" and "chaotic" behavior. If you've that understanding then please give me some information on the subject and also prove that neural behavior can ever be "random."

Besides, I've a problem with your vocabulary; is that a "synapse" that fires or a "neuron"? Synapses ought to be inter-neuron junction points where a neuron's Axon meets another neuron's Dendrite. The Axon end releases chemicals when stimulated and these chemicals will in turn stimulate the receptors on the other neuron's Dendrite end. Consequently, what fires ought to be a "neuron" and what carries the signals between two adjacent neurons ought to be a "synapse"; isn't it that way?
You should read "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennet. It clears up a lot of misconceptions about dreams/hallucinations.
I went CogPrints and found Dennett’s (this is the first time I'm searching the name Dennett) article on three essays written about that title but the book itself should be bought somewhere, I guess. That's what I can't afford. Please quote some part of the book to clear up my misconception. And Daniel Dennett, is she/he a philosopher or a neuroscientist?
Objection! Your honor, this is specualtion...
I object your objection :wink:. How do you know that all you're claiming to happen is happening? There is no evidence in the vast expanse of Universe to prove there is the merest piece of truth/reality in what we conceive. Suppose you've a large set of (question, answer) pairs, each pair shows consistency between Q and A; and there's overall consistency in the Qs and As of the set. Can you be sure that exactly two individuals have been communicating?

Have you heard about the two-army deadlock?

2. For zimbo:

Aye, I made a mistake! The piece of Carmina Burana you were referring to was indeed "In Trutina" but the lyrics had a typo so I couldn't find it.

Please take a look at my previous post.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I thought you did because you wrote "knowledge is the only form of input." And that's indeed a mismatch. Let's forget it.

I guess I've slightly changed my definition of knowledge, since the first post. I now define it (as I have been speaking of it in previous posts) as the collection of facts, and that which one believes to be facts.

What I'm doing isn't only claiming, it is counter-claiming. I'm claiming the opposite of what you've claimed to be true; you claimed "the effects are real, the reasons are not." I counter-claim and expect that you give me reasons for your claim. If you've no reasons for that just then we've an equal state: we've both claimed what can't be proven with rational means.

So you are claiming that the shamans, medicine men, etc all have paranormal powers, just because I claim that they don't? Fair enough. However, I think it's a bit off-topic, and I will agree to disagree on this point (for now).

And I've given my definition of knowledge plus much more in a post on page 1.

I can find nothing of the sort. I'll look harder, and then comment.

Please give me a link to one of your creditable sources

Sorry, all I've read it in is books. My friend goes to seminars on the workings of the brain, and she gets a lot of books on the subject, which she let's me read. I am in no way an expert, and don't claim to be, but a few of the books have stated (even if vaguely) that dreams are random firings.

And what does Quantum Mechanics have to do with Neuroscience?

First off, let me clarify that I know very little about neuroscience, and what little I know, has been from books that have dealt more with the mind, then with the physical brain.

However, QM definitely must play a role, because all wave/particle interactions should be understood within the framework of Quantum Mechanics. Since dreams are a wave/particle interaction, they should be as indeterminable/random, as any other such interaction, right?

Again, don't use "random" carelessly. Don't use it unless you've clear-cut understanding of the differences between "stochastic" and "chaotic" behavior. If you've that understanding then please give me some information on the subject and also prove that neural behavior can ever be "random."

"Stochastic" and "chaotic" are synonyms, aren't they? "Stochastic" means "a state of unpredictability, where random chance plays the major role", and so does "chaotic". If my definitions here are wrong, please correct me, but I don't think that the difference between stochastic and chaotic has ever been an issue in this thread (before now, that is).

Besides, I've a problem with your vocabulary; is that a "synapse" that fires or a "neuron"? Synapses ought to be inter-neuron junction points where a neuron's Axon meets another neuron's Dendrite. The Axon end releases chemicals when stimulated and these chemicals will in turn stimulate the receptors on the other neuron's Dendrite end. Consequently, what fires ought to be a "neuron" and what carries the signals between two adjacent neurons ought to be a "synapse"; isn't it that way?

I guess you're right. Like I say, my understanding is very limited. Please correct, and pardon, any mistakes on my part.

I went CogPrints and found Dennett’s (this is the first time I'm searching the name Dennett) article on three essays written about that title but the book itself should be bought somewhere, I guess. That's what I can't afford. Please quote some part of the book to clear up my misconception. And Daniel Dennett, is she/he a philosopher or a neuroscientist?

Daniel Dennet is a very widely acclaimed Philosopher. When I mentioned his book, I was particularly making reference to the parts about hallucinations, and how you could never be fully interactive with any hallucination/dream, since it would have to take into account all possibilities, and this is too much information.

I object your objection :wink:. How do you know that all you're claiming to happen is happening? There is no evidence in the vast expanse of Universe to prove there is the merest piece of truth/reality in what we conceive. Suppose you've a large set of (question, answer) pairs, each pair shows consistency between Q and A; and there's overall consistency in the Qs and As of the set. Can you be sure that exactly two individuals have been communicating?

I object, and I move to strike! As I said before, if we were not communicating, then how could you be thinking about what I'm saying right now? There is proof that we have communicated, and the proof is the fact that you are thinking about the thought that I attempted to convey. That's what communication is.

Have you heard about the two-army deadlock?

No.
 
  • #44
Also - as a side note - I haven't really changed my definition (*looking back at Mentat's old definition*). My definition in the first post was:

1. Knowledge is a collection of facts (or, at least, what one believes to be facts).
 
  • #45
Hi there,

1. For Mentat:
I guess I've slightly changed my definition of knowledge...
Amnesty granted :wink:, we'll go on with your definition that knowledge is a collection of facts and beliefs.
So you are claiming that the shamans, medicine men, etc all have paranormal powers, just because I claim that they don't? Fair enough.
No, my claim goes further. I don't claim any "powers." I claim a two-way interaction between the objective reality and the subjective mind. I'm counter-claiming because your (now famous) saying "the effects are real, the reasons are not" has much to do with your definition of knowledge. Your definition tells me that you make a distinction between two Universes, the inside and the outside, the microcosm and the macrocosm. The worst part for me is that you have this belief with "certainty." I, too, make that distinction and use it in my everyday life but I don't hold it too dear or with certainty. With your definition, outside is where facts come from and inside is where knowledge is stored. As you know, Descartes made similar assumptions about the mind and the body (or the matter). The mind had to reside "inside" and the matter was what built the "outside". Making the cut is quite easy but then comes the problem of interaction between the mind and the matter, the inside and the outside. Descartes thought that mind was essentially distinct from matter, so he couldn't figure out how mind and matter interacted. You, being aware of Neuroscience, don't make that mistake and (probably) consider the mind as software loaded on neural hardware. That solves the problem of interaction but gives rise to a new problem: how certainty can ever be attained if we are aware of a dynamic unpredictable distortion introduced by our perception and interpretation system? This is a new situation in which nothing can be claimed with certainty including the uncertainty itself (ie it may someday dawn on us by unknown means that everything we've perceived has really been the way we understood it).

Make sure you understand my claim thoroughly. I'm not claiming that we know nothing or we can know nothing. I declare a general uncertainty casting shadow over all our understanding. The ever-present uncertainty levels all statements to an equal state because no statement can be proven true/false with certainty. It also levels all experiences to an equal state, eg facts can't be said with certainty to be more "real" or closer to truth/reality than dreams.

Having facts equal to dreams, there remains no concrete experience to hang on to and build a definition of knowledge from.
I can find nothing of the sort. I'll look harder, and then comment.
Are you kidding? I said it was on the first page. It isn't sorted by numbers.
... QM definitely must play a role, because all wave/particle interactions should be understood within ...
I know nothing more, if not less, than you so let's be discreet in making suppositions.

You're correct with your statement but it has nothing to do in this context. Every entity in the physical Universe, including human brain, should be well described using Quantum Mechanics but that means nothing. Every system must be observed and understood at its own level of existence. A neural network is indeed made of wavicles but this doesn't mean that you have to study it at quantum level or even that it behaves like wavicles. There are complexities and ambiguities in applying Quantum Mechanics to systems larger than a single atom and we are way far from computing all wavicle interactions to understand a system's behavior. I think what you actually mean here is the use of Statistical Mechanics which has its own story.
Statistical Mechanics defined by Britannica.com glossary (I know you like that sort of thing):

Branch of Physics that combines the principles and procedures of statistics with the laws of both Classical and Quantum Mechanics. It aims to predict and explain the measurable properties of macroscopic systems on the basis of the properties and behaviour of the microscopic constituents of those systems.

That's it. Anyway, Neuroscience has nothing to do with QM these days. It studies all aspects of neural networks from two points of view, the biological and the mechanical; with advanced mathematics, fast computers and complex Physics of all fields plus much more. The biological side is neurophysiology, neuropsychology, etc and the mechanical side is the study of artificial neural networks, AI, etc. A neuroscientist would surely give a better definition but this definition should have cleared up that Neuroscience in its current form neither studies wavicles nor tries to incorporate QM in its tasks. Yet probability studies and statistical approaches are much practiced which will in turn make use of the advances in Statistical Mechanics.
"Stochastic" and "chaotic" are synonyms, aren't they?...
When discussing literature they're the same, when discussing Science, Chaos theory and Probability theory in particular, they aren't.

Stochastic behavior is behavior subject to stochastic probability, which is scientifically called "random." It is a situation in which the system has no innate tendency towards any of its possibilities, ie no equation of any complexity describes the behavior of that system. For example, the behavior of an electron beam directed at a target is stochastic because statistical analysis can tell us at good approximation what proportion of them will be repulsed but no single electron can be predicted to behave in a specific way with certainty. The system doesn't even show tendency towards a certain state.

Chaotic behavior on the other hand is NOT random. It has an equation governing the system which describes all the inter-dependencies of variables of the system. What systems are chaotic and how chaotic systems behave is the subject of study for Chaos theory. Chaotic systems are non-linear and exhibit almost unpredictable behavior when viewed from classical linear viewpoints. However, they can be predicted at good approximation using Chaos theory. Chaos in this context is sometimes called "deterministic chaos" which is a paradoxical term. We encounter systems whose complexity takes them way out of the reach of our calculations but also have (very complicated) equations governing them. It is randomness governed by deterministic laws. The famous example is the weather which was in fact the first chaotic system to be studied with that purpose by Edward Lorenz (mathematician and meteorologist).

I'm not going to explain it more for my knowledge is very limited. The advanced mathematics used in Chaos theory is something I only can dream of. Nevertheless, many simple insightful books and online resources about Chaos theory can be found if you do a simple search. One book that I know and recommend is:

"Chaos: Making A New Science" by James Gleick

Daniel Dennet is a very widely acclaimed Philosopher...
Is he a scientist, too? Where do his hypotheses come from? Does he work in some lab somewhere to empirically prove them? How does he show that his ideas should be taken seriously?

I ask these because I haven't heard of him, like many other great scientists and philosophers I've heard nothing about. Please tell me more about him.
... the proof is the fact that you are thinking about the thought that I attempted to convey. That's what communication is ...
Am I really thinking? Or it is you who is assuming that I'm thinking?

Regarding the two-army deadlock, well, it's a computer science problem. It goes so:

Suppose two blue armies on two hills around a valley have besieged a white army which is caught in the valley. If either of the blue armies attacks the white army it will be defeated but if both of them attack at the same time they will win. The only means of communication is a messenger sent between the two blue armies. The messenger should bypass the white army to get to its destination.

Now suppose that blue army 1 sends a message to blue army 2 saying: "Attack at 9:00" but blue army 1 can't be sure if blue army 2 has received the message (since the messenger may be captured by the white army) so blue army 2 will send an acknowledgment. When the acknowledgment reaches blue army 1 they can be sure that blue army 2 has received a message so they can attack together but blue army 2 can't be sure if blue army 1 has received the acknowledgment and in the case of loss of the acknowledgment blue army 1 won't attack. So blue army 1 has to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of blue army 2's acknowledgment to ensure them. This story goes on and on unless the commander of one of the blue armies decides to risk and act without acknowledgment. It can be proven that there is no way out of this deadlock without a minimal risk of failure.

This minimal risk solution is used in an algorithm called "three-way handshake" on computer networks when two computers who've established a connection to each other want to release the connection.

The same problem persists for human communication. You can almost be certain that you're talking to me but that isn't certainty. It is minimal uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi there,

1. For Mentat:

No, my claim goes further. I don't claim any "powers." I claim a two-way interaction between the objective reality and the subjective mind.

Oh, I see.

I'm counter-claiming because your (now famous) saying "the effects are real, the reasons are not" has much to do with your definition of knowledge. Your definition tells me that you make a distinction between two Universes, the inside and the outside, the microcosm and the macrocosm.

Perhaps not so much as you might think. For example, I do allow for the objective reality to impose itself on the subjective, I merely don't allow for the inverse to occur.

You, being aware of Neuroscience, don't make that mistake and (probably) consider the mind as software loaded on neural hardware. That solves the problem of interaction but gives rise to a new problem: how certainty can ever be attained if we are aware of a dynamic unpredictable distortion introduced by our perception and interpretation system?

Come again? Who said that our perception would distort anything?

This is a new situation in which nothing can be claimed with certainty including the uncertainty itself (ie it may someday dawn on us by unknown means that everything we've perceived has really been the way we understood it).

This is paradoxical (self-contradictory).

Make sure you understand my claim thoroughly. I'm not claiming that we know nothing or we can know nothing. I declare a general uncertainty casting shadow over all our understanding. The ever-present uncertainty levels all statements to an equal state because no statement can be proven true/false with certainty. It also levels all experiences to an equal state, eg facts can't be said with certainty to be more "real" or closer to truth/reality than dreams.

But, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether what we percieve to be "real" is actually" real, so long as it continues to behave as though it were "real".

Having facts equal to dreams, there remains no concrete experience to hang on to and build a definition of knowledge from.

No, there is still a way to build a definition of knowledge. You see (and this is much reminiscent to my philosophy about Free Will), even if you cannot prove whether you know anything that is actually a fact, that doesn't change the fact that it is "knowledge", by my previous definition of the word.

Are you kidding? I said it was on the first page. It isn't sorted by numbers.

All right, I found it. You don't seem to disagree with me at all, in this post. In fact, your conception seems very similar to mine.

I know nothing more, if not less, than you so let's be discreet in making suppositions.

You're correct with your statement but it has nothing to do in this context. Every entity in the physical Universe, including human brain, should be well described using Quantum Mechanics but that means nothing. Every system must be observed and understood at its own level of existence. A neural network is indeed made of wavicles but this doesn't mean that you have to study it at quantum level or even that it behaves like wavicles. There are complexities and ambiguities in applying Quantum Mechanics to systems larger than a single atom and we are way far from computing all wavicle interactions to understand a system's behavior.

I think that any physical study can be taken down to the realm of QM, and thus understood to be subject to Uncertainty.

Yes, every system should be understood at it's own level of existence, but for all practical purposes, it's level of existence can always be brought to the Quantum level.

That's it. Anyway, Neuroscience has nothing to do with QM these days. It studies all aspects of neural networks from two points of view, the biological and the mechanical; with advanced mathematics, fast computers and complex Physics of all fields plus much more. The biological side is neurophysiology, neuropsychology, etc and the mechanical side is the study of artificial neural networks, AI, etc. A neuroscientist would surely give a better definition but this definition should have cleared up that Neuroscience in its current form neither studies wavicles nor tries to incorporate QM in its tasks. Yet probability studies and statistical approaches are much practiced which will in turn make use of the advances in Statistical Mechanics.

Well, I don't know why neurologists don't use QM in their studies, and I'm not one to criticize their decision. However, what I was really saying is that, at the Quantum level, the behavior of these particles is random.

When discussing literature they're the same, when discussing Science, Chaos theory and Probability theory in particular, they aren't.

Stochastic behavior is behavior subject to stochastic probability, which is scientifically called "random." It is a situation in which the system has no innate tendency towards any of its possibilities, ie no equation of any complexity describes the behavior of that system. For example, the behavior of an electron beam directed at a target is stochastic because statistical analysis can tell us at good approximation what proportion of them will be repulsed but no single electron can be predicted to behave in a specific way with certainty. The system doesn't even show tendency towards a certain state.

Chaotic behavior on the other hand is NOT random. It has an equation governing the system which describes all the inter-dependencies of variables of the system. What systems are chaotic and how chaotic systems behave is the subject of study for Chaos theory. Chaotic systems are non-linear and exhibit almost unpredictable behavior when viewed from classical linear viewpoints. However, they can be predicted at good approximation using Chaos theory. Chaos in this context is sometimes called "deterministic chaos" which is a paradoxical term. We encounter systems whose complexity takes them way out of the reach of our calculations but also have (very complicated) equations governing them. It is randomness governed by deterministic laws. The famous example is the weather which was in fact the first chaotic system to be studied with that purpose by Edward Lorenz (mathematician and meteorologist).

I'm not going to explain it more for my knowledge is very limited. The advanced mathematics used in Chaos theory is something I only can dream of. Nevertheless, many simple insightful books and online resources about Chaos theory can be found if you do a simple search. One book that I know and recommend is:

"Chaos: Making A New Science" by James Gleick

Well, thanks for the reference (to the book), I will try to find it. BTW, I think that I was probably referring to "chaos", when I said that the firing of neurons was random.

Is he a scientist, too? Where do his hypotheses come from? Does he work in some lab somewhere to empirically prove them? How does he show that his ideas should be taken seriously?

He consulted with many neurologists, biologists, and philosophers, before writing his book.

Am I really thinking? Or it is you who is assuming that I'm thinking?

Both.

Regarding the two-army deadlock, well, it's a computer science problem. It goes so:

Suppose two blue armies on two hills around a valley have besieged a white army which is caught in the valley. If either of the blue armies attacks the white army it will be defeated but if both of them attack at the same time they will win. The only means of communication is a messenger sent between the two blue armies. The messenger should bypass the white army to get to its destination.

Now suppose that blue army 1 sends a message to blue army 2 saying: "Attack at 9:00" but blue army 1 can't be sure if blue army 2 has received the message (since the messenger may be captured by the white army) so blue army 2 will send an acknowledgment. When the acknowledgment reaches blue army 1 they can be sure that blue army 2 has received a message so they can attack together but blue army 2 can't be sure if blue army 1 has received the acknowledgment and in the case of loss of the acknowledgment blue army 1 won't attack. So blue army 1 has to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of blue army 2's acknowledgment to ensure them. This story goes on and on unless the commander of one of the blue armies decides to risk and act without acknowledgment. It can be proven that there is no way out of this deadlock without a minimal risk of failure.

Very interesting. I've never hear of this before.

The same problem persists for human communication. You can almost be certain that you're talking to me but that isn't certainty. It is minimal uncertainty.

Well, I - for one - am almost perfectly certain that I am communicating with someone, because I keep seeing these new posts here, and I'm not writing them.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Hi,

1. For Mentat:
Perhaps not so much as you might think…
It is too much indeed. You split the Universe into two, the self and the rest. Then you build up a wall in the middle and say “the rest may affect the self” and “the self may not affect the rest.” That’s indeed too much of an assumption. This sort of division has been common for at least 2000 years and has seen many apexes of popularity that, I think, it didn’t deserve. There is nothing to assure us of the legitimacy of such division; our very rules of deduction and analysis have their roots in the Great Divide.
Come again? Who said that our perception would distort anything?
I said so. By the rule of the Great Divide, the mind sits somewhere inside and gets all its input through a perception and interpretation system (a tokenizer, I guess). You, one such mind, can’t be sure of the honesty of this system. You have always received all you could ever receive through that system. How can you say if it’s been reliable, efficient, capable and honest enough to give you the right picture?
This is paradoxical (self-contradictory).
Indeed! The entire story with definitions is that loops (and paradoxes) are inevitable. I wrote the reason so in another post, when you asked why I think straight linear definitions of knowledge won’t do. You ignored my answer, I presume. If you like you can criticize the idea now.
I think that any physical study can be taken down to the realm of QM, and thus understood to be subject to Uncertainty.
That’s what I said before. I repeat, describing the Universe with Quantum Mechanics is an ultimate (which may prove untrue later) but current Science and processing power don’t seem to be able to cope with such a magnificent problem. Think about it, four interactions between every two particles in a mass made up of 1 mole of particles! CERN and FNAL researchers use the most powerful computers of our time to analyze the results of a collision between two bunches of particles in strictly regulated conditions and they still hunger for more processing power; let alone a 1 mole mass of matter in unregulated conditions.
… why neurologists don't use QM in their studies …
Simply because they can’t. The reason I wrote above. You see, I said that particle behavior can’t be compared to mass behavior without further considerations. Particle behavior is stochastic, I wrote in my previous post. Neural behavior is not, the climate is not, the human society is not, although they’re made of particles.
… I think that I was probably referring to "chaos", when I said that the firing of neurons was random.
That’s why I asked you to be careful in using the term “random.” As a scientific mind, you can’t be using words that already have strict meaning for purposes they aren’t designed for. A mismatch of “chaotic” and “random” is lethal.
He consulted with many neurologists, biologists, and philosophers, before writing his book.
That’s good. Anything more about Daniel Dennett?
Both.
Is that your philosophical answer? Won’t you consider explaining why you think so?
Well, I - for one - am almost perfectly certain that I am communicating with someone, because I keep seeing these new posts here, and I'm not writing them.
You, for one, are looking at the problem simplistically. You know there are many background mental processes running in your brain, couldn’t this illusion be the result of one such process, eg I be that process? Even worse, you’re assuming that what you think is written is actually (not to mention your assumption of the existence of an actuality) written, that what you think you read is actually read, that what is written should be sometime written by someone, that what is written by someone and posted in PF has been written at most 24 hours ago, etc. You’re making countless assumptions when you conclude that way. These assumptions can noway be proven and/or verified.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

It is too much indeed. You split the Universe into two, the self and the rest. Then you build up a wall in the middle and say “the rest may affect the self” and “the self may not affect the rest.” That’s indeed too much of an assumption. This sort of division has been common for at least 2000 years and has seen many apexes of popularity that, I think, it didn’t deserve. There is nothing to assure us of the legitimacy of such division; our very rules of deduction and analysis have their roots in the Great Divide.

Just because there is nothing to assure us that such a division exists, doesn't mean that the division doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing to assure us that it doesn't exist.

I said so. By the rule of the Great Divide, the mind sits somewhere inside and gets all its input through a perception and interpretation system (a tokenizer, I guess). You, one such mind, can’t be sure of the honesty of this system. You have always received all you could ever receive through that system. How can you say if it’s been reliable, efficient, capable and honest enough to give you the right picture?

The point is that it doesn't matter whether it's been reliable to me or not.

Example: You are standing in the middle of a church, singing your favorite hymn, and hearing everyone else sing along with you. But what if no one else is really singing? What if everyone else has sat down, and is telling you to stop singing, but, since you percieve them to be singing, you just keep on singing? In "actual truth" you look foolish to everyone, but it doesn't matter, because your mind is absolutely convinced that everyone is doing what you are doing.

Side Note: While in your conception, the aforementioned scenario should be possible, it is not according to Daniel Dennet. That's why I mentioned his book, wherein he shows that in order for your mind to play such an awesome "trick" on you, it would have to process all of your possible reactions to the "hallucination" and this is simply too much information. So, it makes you behave in a certain way, and "hopes" that you don't notice your lack of free will (this is a LARGE over-simplification of Prof. Dennet's philosophy, but it makes the point).

Indeed! The entire story with definitions is that loops (and paradoxes) are inevitable. I wrote the reason so in another post, when you asked why I think straight linear definitions of knowledge won’t do. You ignored my answer, I presume. If you like you can criticize the idea now.

You presume beyond yourself, I was merely trying to formulate my answer in a way that would get the sense of what I was trying to say across to you. I think that your idea of linear definitions of knowledge is wrong because it requires that one definition inevitably lead to another definition, but this is not so. You see, if my definition of reality (for example) were to eventually lead to a definition that require that you know what a computer is (for example), then I could just find a computer, point at it, and thus not need to define anything to get across the point.

Simply because they can’t. The reason I wrote above. You see, I said that particle behavior can’t be compared to mass behavior without further considerations. Particle behavior is stochastic, I wrote in my previous post. Neural behavior is not, the climate is not, the human society is not, although they’re made of particles.

Who says they're not? The could just as easily be stochastic, and we just think that there is way of predicting them, when in fact there is not (gotta play Devil's Advocate sometimes, eh? :wink:).

That’s good. Anything more about Daniel Dennett?

Well, to be honest, I've only ever read that one book by him (and The Mind's I, which he co-authored).

Is that your philosophical answer? Won’t you consider explaining why you think so?

I just meant that (IMO) you are thinking, and I believe that you are thinking. It's not important to me that you actually even exist (no offense is implied by this), all that matters to me is that I keep percieving these new posts, and I keep responding to them.

You, for one, are looking at the problem simplistically. You know there are many background mental processes running in your brain, couldn’t this illusion be the result of one such process, eg I be that process? Even worse, you’re assuming that what you think is written is actually (not to mention your assumption of the existence of an actuality) written, that what you think you read is actually read, that what is written should be sometime written by someone, that what is written by someone and posted in PF has been written at most 24 hours ago, etc. You’re making countless assumptions when you conclude that way. These assumptions can noway be proven and/or verified.

First off, I don't assume actuality. For example, I actually exist. If you disagree, read my posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am".

Secondly, I know that I'm actually writing, because I percieve new language symbols, and these new language symbols are of my own origin. One way or another, I percieve new symbols, so somebody is writing, and since I think of exactly what is going to be written - before it is written - I assume that that person is me.

Thirdly, You don't assume reading, you just do it. I am taking in new knowledge, through the perception of written languange symbols, thus I am "reading".

Fourthly (is it appropriate to say "fourthly"?), I am visiting the PFs right now, this is not just an assumption. If it weren't true, then you wouldn't be reading my new post, on a site called Physicsforums.com (as I keep bringing up to you). Remember, just because I can't ever know if you are actually reading this right now, doesn't mean that you don't know that you are. And since we both believe the same thing (that you are reading this right now), we have the truth, at the "mouth of two witnesses".

Lastly, these assumptions don't have to be true, to be practical. However, I have shown [at least fairly] good reason to believe that they are true. And the fact that you keep responding (which you know you are doing) just serves as that much more proof.
 
  • #49
Hi,

1. For Mentat:
Just because there is nothing to assure us that such a division exists, doesn't mean that the division doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing to assure us that it doesn't exist.
I'm in total agreement. This is an application of the (or my?) uncertainty principle (this isn't Heisenberg's uncertainty). Your saying alone shows that you aren't sure of such division. Whenever you accept uncertainty on a subject you're in fact giving chance to countless other possibilities to rise. All of these countless possibilities of describing a situation are equally creditable, ie you could split the Universe in any other manner or even split it not at all and all these countless possibilities are equally close to righteousness.
... in order for your mind to play such an awesome "trick" on you, it would have to process all of your possible reactions to the "hallucination" and this is simply too much information ...
If that's all Daniel Dennett has said, well, it is obviously out of context. Determining how much means too much for the mind depends on determining what a mind is and how this mind works. The answer to the latter two questions is context-dependent. Saying that mind is incapable of processing that much information is a scientific claim and requires a few assumptions including one saying something like "mind is a gathering of neural interconnection weights loaded on a neural network."

When you start doing Science you've already submitted to its basic pre-suppositions including but not limited to the Great Divide I mentioned before. I've learned from your speech that you're mainly concerned with Science and are comparing everything to scientific validity and verifiability criteria. If you were to talk about, for example, solid-state Physics you would be right but this isn't the case.

We're at a brink. We're about to assess the validity of the entire human knowledge, Science included. Science itself doesn't qualify for assessing its own validity. Every system of thoughts is consistent from inside. A view from outside would show how this "consistent" structure leaks like a sieve. With your description it seems Daniel Dennett has made the same mistake (who am I to say that?). You can't say what a mind can do in this context using Neuroscience for doing so implies that you have taken a certain not-necessarily-valid scientific understanding of the mind for granted in this extra-scientific context.
... if my definition of reality (for example) were to eventually lead to a definition that require that you know what a computer is (for example), then I could just find a computer, point at it, and thus not need to define anything to get across the point.
Are you sure? How do you know what you call a computer is the same thing for me? You can't be sure whom/what you're talking to, how can you be sure that computer is sensible in my scope of understanding? How can you be sure that your "Hymn in the Church" scenario is not happening?

If you want to "point at" something to give your audience a sense of what you mean, you have to point at something you're sure they'll understand. Since you can't be sure of that (for you can't be sure whom/what you're talking to and if you share a common experience) you can't "point at" something. Your only way to define words is using other words, assuming you and your (poor ) audience share similar vocabularies.
Who says they're not? The could just as easily be stochastic, and we just think that there is way of predicting them, when in fact there is not (gotta play Devil's Advocate sometimes, eh?:wink:).
A little devil who isn't much evil ... and is wrong here :wink:. In previous posts we've followed two lines of discussion; first, the philosophical discussion about knowledge and second, the scientific discussion about chaotic and stochastic behavior. No way! You can't mix Science and Philosophy.

When I talk about neurons I'm talking Science. Being talking Science I'm submitted to its pre-suppositions. There's no such thing as a neuron for Philosophy, it only makes sense when one's talking Science. "Chaotic" and "stochastic" are scientific terms, too. When I'm talking Science I'm agreed to a subject-to-consensus external independent reality which continues to exist if I cease to. This is the scientific Universe in which neurons exist and minds are built on these neurons. Human society and the climate are other entities from the scientific Universe. They needn't appear anywhere else. Being entities from the scientific Universe they'll act the Science way and their science-governed behavior will be observable by scientific means. This is the internal consistency of the scientific Universe.

On the other hand, when I'm talking Philosophy all pre-suppositions should be detected and washed away. To detect and wash away the pre-suppositions I start questioning all that I think is true and see if it can endure this test; if it proves groundless I'll do my best to put it aside in the course of discussion. There is a Greek word "Epoche" which meant "suspension of judgment" to Greek philosophers (or sophists?); that's the best word for this starters' step in Philosophy. One such judgment to be put aside is the distinction made between reality/fact and dream/hallucination/error/illusion.
I just meant that (IMO) you are thinking, and I believe that you are thinking. It's not important to me that you actually even exist (no offense is implied by this), all that matters to me is that I keep percieving these new posts, and I keep responding to them.
I'm madly sad! You don't even care whether I (this precious "I" that I love/hate so much) exist .
The same way, it doesn't matter to Philosophy (to me, it matters) that you don't consider explaining the "why" of your idea. Philosophy won't lose much in that case (I do lose something) except for an intelligent mind who could initiate the wind of change but didn't.
First off, I don't assume actuality. For example, I actually exist. If you disagree, read my posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am"...
Unfortunately enough, I don't have enough time to read everything posted in PF (though I'll miss much). However you do assume something and if that is "I think therefore I am" not only it is an assumption but also it is problematic if viewed from linear logic point of view. I can prove this and my proof suffices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Every statement of the sort "I [beep] therefore I am" is erroneous when viewed with linear logic (I mean, no self-contradiction and/or loops allowed). Here's my proof:

Consider having said "I [beep]", you have to choose one of the two following statements:

P([beep]) : There need be an "I" to "[beep]."
P'([beep]) : There needn't be an "I" to "[beep]."

Since the above statements are contrary, only one of them may be yours (for we're using Aristotelian logic where a statement can be either true or false and nothing else and there's no escape from having chosen one of them).

If you choose 1, you've clearly pre-assumed that there need be an "I" to "[beep]" and you haven't done much in mentioning the consequence that "therefore I am." This is a self-referential statement giving no more information than what was known before.

If you choose 2, you've made another mistake. How could you say it isn't necessary to be an "I" to "[beep]" and then conclude that "therefore I (necessarily) am?" This is paradoxical for the statement is made up of two parts which are contradictory.

(This proof may be wrong. If so, please show my mistake(s))

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your other statements are assumptions, too. You can't be sure of them unless you're viewing the Universe scientifically and the scientific view is a hell of a lot assumptions. Nothing is wrong with assuming whatever you like (just like I do) but you have to be aware that there's no certainty (and no superiority) in these assumptions.
Lastly, these assumptions don't have to be true, to be practical.
I can't understand your sentence. If you mean "these assumptions don't have to be true but they have to be practical" then I'd say that's another assumption.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If that's all Daniel Dennett has said, well, it is obviously out of context. Determining how much means too much for the mind depends on determining what a mind is and how this mind works. The answer to the latter two questions is context-dependent. Saying that mind is incapable of processing that much information is a scientific claim and requires a few assumptions including one saying something like "mind is a gathering of neural interconnection weights loaded on a neural network."

That's not all that Daniel Dennet said. I was just giving a (BRIEF) summary of his idea. And it's not that he's saying that we don't have the processing power to do something like that, it's that he's saying that there are too many possibilities, with too many reprecussions, for any processing unit to pull of such a "trick". For a better understanding of his philosophy, check out the book. I am going to have to read it again, since I don't remember everything that was said.

When you start doing Science you've already submitted to its basic pre-suppositions including but not limited to the Great Divide I mentioned before. I've learned from your speech that you're mainly concerned with Science and are comparing everything to scientific validity and verifiability criteria. If you were to talk about, for example, solid-state Physics you would be right but this isn't the case.

That doesn't mean that science loses it's credibility or usefullness, just because we have to submit to some pre-suppositions. What if these pre-suppositions are right? Isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?

We're at a brink. We're about to assess the validity of the entire human knowledge, Science included. Science itself doesn't qualify for assessing its own validity. Every system of thoughts is consistent from inside. A view from outside would show how this "consistent" structure leaks like a sieve. With your description it seems Daniel Dennett has made the same mistake (who am I to say that?). You can't say what a mind can do in this context using Neuroscience for doing so implies that you have taken a certain not-necessarily-valid scientific understanding of the mind for granted in this extra-scientific context.

Well, it is generally held that the mind is information produced by the brain (for more reflections/discussion about this see "The Mind's I", by Douglas Hofstadter, and Daniel Dennet), and thus Neuroscience (the study of the brain) should be rather useful in describing the workings of the mind.

Are you sure? How do you know what you call a computer is the same thing for me? You can't be sure whom/what you're talking to, how can you be sure that computer is sensible in my scope of understanding? How can you be sure that your "Hymn in the Church" scenario is not happening?

As I've said before, it doesn't really matter. Your starting to remind me of Nietzsche's (and that other guy, who's name I forget, (it starts with an "St")), wherein he posits that there is no external reality, just the individual perceptions.

I'll reply to the rest later, I have to go now.
 

Similar threads

What blue collar trade requires the most academic knowledge?
2
Replies
63
Views
8K
What defines a truly smart person?
Replies
33
Views
4K
I "Knowledge" in Psi-Epistemic Interpretation Fundamental or Emergent?
Replies
3
Views
2K
My Take on the Limitations of Scientific Knowledge
Replies
7
Views
2K
Which Movies Should We Watch Next?
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Should the public know what you are thinking and concluding?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Testing How to not get stressed on the actual exam?
Replies
18
Views
705
Question about the Scientific Method
Replies
15
Views
2K
Are you an "intuitive" or a "reflective"? Quiz sorts us out
Replies
8
Views
3K
'If You Can't Explain It to Your Grandmother…'
Replies
6
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top