Belief vs. Knowledge: Understanding the Difference and How We Attain Them

[RingoKid]

How can there be a non-existent object? And how can you say that a non-existent object can "be" anything if it's non-existent?

cos there is only one of it, so it is only relative to itself. The non existent object is what differentiates what is real from what isn't and it doesn't exist in our frame of reference or even have a term of reference that does it justice...

you can't have one without the other...

...for something to be there has to be something that isn't

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

huh ??

 

[saviourmachine]

Phenomena as opposed to noumena?

First of all, could you clarify if you are using the word "phenomena" in the contemporary sense or in the sense of Kant's phenomena versus nomena? Scientific knowledge is based only on what has happened in the past, but there is nothing that requires what has happened in the past to keep on happening.

Do you think noumena (plural), unknowable, 'exist'? Why do you speak in plural about these ### (I don't know how to call them )? I don't think it's a useful concept. So phenomena, just in contemporary sense (an observable event).

Law and theory

What you are saying seems to simply be the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

Yes, does it? So: "Newton's law" and "Einstein's theory", because I'm able to check up Newton's law as often as I want and can't continously observe evidence for Einstein's theory.

Mahler's definition

Again, everyone's experience is different. However, my definition did not rule out innate knowledge, as innate knowledge is different from "Knowledge"(absolute). I would define innate knowledge as the awareness of the existence of absolute knowledge.

Yes, I didn't know that by your definition of knowledge you actually meant "absolute knowledge". Your definition:

• knowledge is an absolute belief
• belief is a statement supported by evidence

Do you think 'absolute knowledge' is 'the' () noumenon, unknowable, undescribable? It's possible to make things that abstract, that it becomes meaningless.

'Knowledge' = 'belief'?
To equate knowledge to belief would neglect the (beit subjective) value we assign to these different terms. In some way I can sympathise with the idea of a 'noumenal world', but in the sense that our 'physical' and 'mental world' are 'representations' of this world. I would like to define 'knowledge' in regard to the match with this (in several ways knowable) 'ontological world'.

Eternal truths

How can there be a non-existent object? And how can you say that a non-existent object can "be" anything if it's non-existent? I only stated that a triangle would always have three sides, if you can find an example where a triangle would not have three sides then I will be very interested. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with existence.

To be and not to be. That's a question about 'existence'. You formulate the concept of an 'eternal' 'truth'. If you do so, you get involved with questions about the 'existence' of such truths. Is a 'mental truth' eternal? Does it 'exist'? Does the object you imagined 'exist' in your 'mental world'? Does an abstraction of 'mental concepts' 'exist'?
f the 'truth' don't 'exist', if the 'reality' nothing has to do with what is 'true', than you've an opposite world view. I am interested.

Triangle example
What kind of example do you want? The Pinkel triangle? It depends how you define tri-angle. The letter V does have three angles and two sides, the letter M has three angles and 4 sides. It depends of your kind of timespace, Euclidian? Certainly, it doesn't seem like something 'eternal'. Or do you still want to say 'triangle = triangle'? Was you statement analytic or synthetic [Kant]? If it's analytic it's as "'truth = truth' = eternal truth". If it's synthetic than it has to do with 'reality' IMHO.

 

[Royce]

The Second Law applies to a closed system, i.e. a system that is not exchanging material or energy with its surroundings. Given the huge energy flux from the Sun, the Earth is far from being a closed system.

I just found this site:

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

which starts out thusly: "The use of thermodynamics in biology has a long history rich in confusion ... Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law... The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed[/color] system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted..."

There is another part of thermodynamics that people seem to conveniently forget and ignore, organization. Any closed system will tend to become more disorganized, a lower state of organization, over time. It doesn't have to do with just thermal energy. This aspect of the Laws of Thermodynamics is why people such as myself say that life is one prime example that counters the trend of thermodynamics.

To go even further, at the very first instant of the Hot Big Bang, if such a thing ever actually happened, entropy was at its maximum as the temperature and pressure was the same everywhere thus organization was at its minimum. Since then things have become more and more organized decreasing organizational entropy while increasing thermal entropy. As clouds of gas formed eddies condensed into galaxies then; stars then stars with planets; then planets with life; then life with human beings which we think is the most highly organized form of life/mater to date.

While it may be that thermal entropy is increasing it is equally obvious that organizational entropy is decreasing; But since there is a tremendous temperature difference between the center of a star and that of intergalactic space, and that the human body, pound for pound radiates more thermal energy than the sun how can we say that entropy is increasing at all.

If the universe is a closed system and energy/matter cannot be destroyed or created isn't it really a matter of energy becoming more organized as temperature decreases. After all thermal energy has no place to go outside of the universe. Could it be that total entropy remains the same but changes form as does energy and matter remains the same but changes form?

While the universe may be a closed system, it is not a steam engine and trying to apply a "Law" formed about steam engine efficiency to the dynamics of the entire universe may be a bit of a stretch.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There are not different kinds of entropy. Thermal entropy is the same as organisational entropy, to use your terms. When the motion of the molecules becomes disorganized the entropy rises. There is only one equation for this: Boltzman's equation.

The situation of the Earth is that it receives only a tiny fraction of the Sun's high energy photons, but because each photon has the high energy it received at the Sun's photosphere, this corresponds to a high energy flux which tends to warm the Earth. The Earth then radiates at its characteristic temperature, and this produces not high energy visible range photons but low energy infrared photons, but there are a lot of them, and the outgoing energy flux balances the incoming.

Thus the Earth can be thought of as a transducer which changes an energy flow made of of a few high energy photons to an equivalent flow made up of many low energy ones. This is a staggering increase in entropy, and it goes on continuously.

Life on Earth's surface takes place immersed in this background entropy increase. Life does increase entropy but at a slower rate than the background radiation process; thus relative to its background, life generates a decrease in entropy.

 

[Janitor]

Thanks for the point and counterpoint, Royce and Selfadjoint. That is just the sort of discussion I was looking for on this topic.

 

[omin]

He just said it was outside the 5 senses. Many people do have sensory manifestations during spiritual experiences. I know people who have had visual, tactile, and auditory manifestations, plus "a feeling of great warmth". I don't know if this is specifically a Catholic thing; all these individuals were Catholics.

I categorize "a feeling of great warmth" in the touch category.

I wish some spiritualist would point out the somthing that is not physically exerted upon them, meaning spiritually exerted something, but physically sensed, because this sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

Is there a spiritual Newtonian law?

Supernatural Force = Spiritual Mass X Acceleration

Is this the energy that's imparted to humans that is the key to perpetual motion?

Show me the way to an eternal life, brothers and sisters.

 

[saviourmachine]

Sensory manifestation

I categorize "a feeling of great warmth" in the touch category.

Yes, it was meant as an example of a sensory manifestation.

Physically sensed, but without the 5 senses

I wish some spiritualist would point out the somthing that is not physically exerted upon them, meaning spiritually exerted something, but physically sensed, because this sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

Just tell me what 'experience' is, and I will tell you what a 'spiritual experience' is. Awareness, do you sense awareness? The 'spiritual experiences' I had, had to do with awareness (companied by indeed 'feelings of warmth'). Is awareness physically exerted upon me? Do we sense when we dream?

It's pretty obvious physical entities can alter your observations in other ways than by your five senses. Just take a look at drugs or hormones.

Physical - non-physical relations
Maybe your problem is about non-physical things having influence on physical things. I don't think we know enough or ever would know enough of the physical world to rule out this possibility completely. If the physical world is a virtual reality in some other world, the one running the 'application' can exert influence without being part of the virtual world.

 

[Royce]

There are not different kinds of entropy. Thermal entropy is the same as organizational entropy, to use your terms. When the motion of the molecules becomes disorganized the entropy rises. There is only one equation for this: Boltzman's equation.

Yes, I know there is only one kind of entropy; however, for the sake of argument and clarity I separated the two aspects because they are so often ignored. When I was in school and learned the Laws of TD I learned that they were concerned with both heat and organization. I have just recently checked on the web and find that this is still true. I don't know Boltzman's equation at least by name but if he doesn't address organization then it isn't complete.

The situation of the Earth is that it receives only a tiny fraction of the Sun's high energy photons, but because each photon has the high energy it received at the Sun's photosphere, this corresponds to a high energy flux which tends to warm the Earth. The Earth then radiates at its characteristic temperature, and this produces not high energy visible range photons but low energy infrared photons, but there are a lot of them, and the outgoing energy flux balances the incoming.

Thus the Earth can be thought of as a transducer which changes an energy flow made of of a few high energy photons to an equivalent flow made up of many low energy ones. This is a staggering increase in entropy, and it goes on continuously.

Life on Earth's surface takes place immersed in this background entropy increase. Life does increase entropy but at a slower rate than the background radiation process; thus relative to its background, life generates a decrease in entropy.

There remains however the decrease in entropy in the organization of this galaxy, the sun itself, the planet Earth, and finally life. If there were a net increase in entropy then the sun and stars would no longer shine, Earth would be a cold rock and life would have been long gone.

Life uses heat energy to create greater organization and I realize that there has to be some waste but the question remains is the organization greater or less than the wasted heat.

As I said, start with maximum entropy at the Big Bang and explain the Laws of TD as increasing entropy and still have the highly organized, low entropy, universe that we see now. Information and organization take energy. Even the formation of one single hydrogen atom take a tremendous amount of energy that becomes very tightly organized and maintains that organization.
That is a decrease in entropy and I don't care what Boltzmann or anyone else says. Again if the universe is finite, closed or not there is no place for that heat to go and as yet there is still a tremendous difference in temperature, density and organization in this universe.
Stars are still being formed and ignite and planets are still being formed etc. Is that not a decrease in entropy at least locally?

 

[Royce]

I categorize "a feeling of great warmth" in the touch category.

How about emotional category instead

I wish some spiritualist would point out the something that is not physically exerted upon them, meaning spiritually exerted something, but physically sensed, because this sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

I suppose that you have never seen a scene or picture that moved you, heard music that moved you? I suppose you have never loved or been loved? I suppose that you never had a memory that made you cry or feel like crying out of joy, hurt, or sorrow? Would somebody get the shovel this one is dead and needs burying.

Is there a spiritual Newtonian law?

Supernatural Force = Spiritual Mass X Acceleration

Is this the energy that's imparted to humans that is the key to perpetual motion?

Show me the way to an eternal life, brothers and sisters.

Oh dear God! Another one who can only ridicule what he doesn't understand and has never experienced. Any way, Newton is some what limited now-a-days and somewhat passé.

 

[hypnagogue]

Royce, please give http://www.2ndlaw.com/ a thorough reading. Pay particular attention to the sections "The second law of thermodynamics is a tendency" and "Obstructions to the second law make life possible."

 

[Janitor]

I noticed the Read my Journal[/color] feature showed up at PF a few weeks back, but I kept putting off getting into it and seeing what people were writing. As it happens, tonight I finally got some time to investigate it. I find what Zapper Z wrote in his journal for 09-05-2004 bears nicely on the topic that Royce and selfadjoint discussed in this thread, and on which hypnagogue has provided a link.

 

[nightlight]

Royce, please give http://www.2ndlaw.com/ a thorough reading. Pay particular attention to the sections "The second law of thermodynamics is a tendency" and "Obstructions to the second law make life possible."

They've got it backwards. The life is a shortcut to maximum entropy[/color]. Consider an experiment with two identical perfectly closed rooms, except that one has a live cat, another a dead cat. Which room will have a higher entropy in a year?

This is mathematically similar to a phenomenon with a data compression -- any algorithm which compresses some data patterns will on everage produce the net data expansion over all possible data patterns.

Consider for example data collection where any item can have only 8 discrete values (uniformly distributed over the collection, e.g. a set of 8 eight distinct items). The flat, non-compressed code would encode the items 1-8 as 3-bit strings, for example as:

1. 000
2. 001
3. 010
4. 011
5. 100
6. 101
7. 110
8. 111

Suppose you decide to compress the item 1 code from 000 to 00 (i.e. you wish to lower the information entropy of item 1 by one bit; analogous to lowering the entropy of a live creature). In order for the compressed item 1 to be distingushable from the old item 2, which had a code 001, you now need a different 2-bit prefix for the item 2 (the only symbols you have are 0 and 1, i.e. you have no commas or spaces to distinguish 00 from 001 on that basis). But since all other 2-bit prefixes (01,10,11) are fully used up, you need to extend two other codes[/color] by one bit, e.g. you can code items 2 and 3 as 0100 and 0101, yielding the net expansion of 1 bit for the (information) entropy of the whole system of all eight items.

Similarly, if you wished to reduce the entropy of the item 1 by two bits, coding it as 0, then the items 2,3,4 would need longer codes since prefix 0 is now fully used up, requiring expansion of three additional codes by 1 bit (e.g. items 5,6 and 7 would gain an extra bit and share their 3 bit prefixes with the expanded codes for items 2,3 and 4), yielding the entropy expansion of 6 bits for the rest of the system (the new total size would be 1*1+6*4+1*3=28 bits vs the old size of 8*3=24 bits), i.e. now you pay the 2 bit saving on the item 1 by a 6-bit cost on the rest of the system, resulting in the net entropy increase for the whole system of 4 bits. For a system of n=2^s items, if one item is reduced maximally (from s bits to 1 bit i.e. reduced by s-1 bits), the overall system entropy grows by 2^s-s-1 bits. Or more generally, if the entropy of one item is reduced by r bits, where r<s, then the overall entropy grows by 2^(r+1)-r-2 bits.

The same mathematics (Kraft's inequality and its generalizations) which leads to the larger net information entropy operates for the physical entropy (which is also a log(NumberOfDistinctStates), except with a different convention for the unit multiplier) -- if there is a mechanism/process which creates an imbalance by making some sub-system (such as a live organism) maintain a lower entropy you always pay an interest in excess entropy for the whole system which is exponential in the amount of "saving" on the low entropy sub-system.

Life is thus an exponential accelerator of the entropy growth, an extremely efficient shortcut to the thermal equilibrium (max entropy) or in the terminology of that article, the life is the enhancer of the 2nd law, not the obstruction.

 

[Royce]

Royce, please give http://www.2ndlaw.com/ a thorough reading. Pay particular attention to the sections "The second law of thermodynamics is a tendency" and "Obstructions to the second law make life possible."

hypnagogue, I have read this before or something very like it. I know that it is pointless to argue the second law of thermodynamics with any physics types. My view point is that it includes organization and that while there is heat energy loss, the organization of life is far more important yet often overlooked or ignored. In fact the entire universe has moved from chaos, high entropy to cosmos, order, low entropy yet the physicist say that it is following the 2nd Law and losing heat energy and disorganizing, falling into chaos.

Sorry, I don't see it that way. I see stars being created, organized out of clouds, chaos, igniting and generating vast amounts of radiation and organizing simpler atoms into more complex. I see life taking disorganized heat and light and turning it into organisms of more and more complexity.
The universe abounds in energy (once in the beginning that's all that there was) and it has nowhere to go. Organization and information takes far more energy to come about and outside of black holes I don't see it falling back spontaneously into disorganization. This is IMHO far more important and pertinent than what relatively little heat energy is "wasted."

Please forgive me my impertinence and heresy.

 

[dekoi]

I would rather have asked the question "What is the difference between faith and knowledge?" It seems much more logical to ask two things that are completely contrary to each other. Belief is something based on empirical evidence. Faith is only granted to your mind when you have the fullest of belief. Knowledge is something empirical as well.

And although i understood the answer to your question before i typed the last sentence, i have just confused myself. Both knowledge and faith are systems of understanding something based on evidence. Yet i feel/know there has to be a difference. Perhaps one can say knowledge is physicality -- thus, basing some sort of understanding on physical evidence; while faith would be much more metaphysical -- outside of time. ?? if not, i would have to say "faith" is wrongly defined in some dictionaries; since the standard definition of faith is almost identical to the one of belief (although in reality, they are very different).

 

[Locrian]

I see stars being created, organized out of clouds, chaos, igniting and generating vast amounts of radiation and organizing simpler atoms into more complex.

This suggests a deep misunderstanding of stars, entropy or both. There is nothing more organized about a star than simply gas; in fact, a star is far more chaotic than a big ball of gas not giving off heat, because the heat reduces organization that might be produced as layers form due to density.

Your use of the word complex is also troubling. What has complexity to do with this? Be more aware of your definitions. Just because something is more complex does not necessarily mean it is either more ordered or more chaotic. Crystals can be very complex, and are very ordered. Plasma gases are very complex and very chaotic.

These are common mistakes made by people unfamiliar with the idea of entropy who take on its organizational nature. They rely on intuition, fail to define their terms correctly, and do not spend enough time studying the mathematics that resulted in this understanding. The result is disasterous.

 

[TENYEARS]

Ah, but you can never know that you know!

You can only BELIEVE that you know.

sorry, but even knowing gets reduced to a belief.

love&peace,
olde drunk

No true, because there is an experience of knowing which does occur in the relative which is knowing the knower. When you go completely absolute, the jig is up. I don't expect you to believe me and don't what you to. It's useless.

 

[Royce]

Locrian,
It is clear that we do not agree, that one of us doesn't know what he or the other is talking about. Since I am not a formally trained physicist I will assume that it is me and drop the subject as it is not the subject of this thread anyway.

Olde drunk and TEN YEARS,
I think knowledge is based on personal experience whereas faith or belief is based on what others tell or teach us, what we read or learn from sources other than our own experience. For example I can only take others words for it that electrons, atoms, relativity etc exists are real and really work the way others say that they do. I have no personal experience in any of these things. I believe all of this to be true and have faith in the people that have told me or the books that I have read or the TV programs that I have seen.
Yeah, that's right I have faith in the sciences and scientist; but, I have personal experiences that I know are absolutely true for me, to me.
I have certain knowledge of my subjective and metaphysical experiences but can only have faith in technology, science and mathematics. Just the reverse of they way most people think.
Most people think that because they learn something in class or in a book that it is true and that they know it and thus it is knowledge. Since they have no experience or scientifically proven knowledge or the mystical, spiritual or metaphysical then that is a matter of faith for them.

 

[Royce]

OK, after doing some more searching and reading I found the following:

"The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology). According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. This site provides basic texts, articles, links, and references that take the reader from the classical views of thermodynamics in simple terms, to today's new and richer understanding."

I found it at http://www.entropylaw.com. Needless to say my education was more than 10 years ago and I was using the 2nd Law as I learned it which is now out of date. All I can say is "NEVER MIND" ala Rosanna Rossana Danna of SNL fame. Or in my words belay everything after "DUH?"

 

[Janitor]

Thanks for the link, Royce. I learned a new word: Autocatakinetic.

 

[omin]

Sensory manifestation
Yes, it was meant as an example of a sensory manifestation.

Something physical always puts sensation into motion in our body.

Physically sensed, but without the 5 senses

A physical body remains at rest or in uniform motion, unless acted upon another body. All bodies are physical or they cannot touch another body to exert motion upon them.

Just tell me what 'experience' is, and I will tell you what a 'spiritual experience' is.

Experience is the smallest unit of mental activity that is what we call awareness. All mental units of awareness represent something sensned. All things sensed are physical, electrical impulses, hormones, pressure, etc.

Do we sense when we dream? This is mental activity, memories. Memories are in circumstatial acceleration. Memory units, come from conscious units which represent things we have sensed only via five senses. Senses all represent something physical from the world. There combination is circumstatial, making dreams a strange experience of psuedo-physical order.

It's pretty obvious physical entities can alter your observations in other ways than by your five senses. Just take a look at drugs or hormones.

Yes, key word, physical. But only things that are physical that collide can affect other things, because they transfer velocity, that is speed and direction to another physical thing.

Physical - non-physical relations
Maybe your problem is about non-physical things having influence on physical things.

Only physical things can touch physical things. Physical things that touch may impart motion to other physical things. All senses are physical. They are only moved, put in motion, by things physical.

I don't think we know enough or ever would know enough of the physical world to rule out this possibility completely.

Since conscious units represent sense units and sense units represent physical things, physical things are all that we can know. If it's not physical, we may not sense it, nor know it.

If the physical world is a virtual reality in some other world, the one running the 'application' can exert influence without being part of the virtual world.

We do not know, things we do not know, nor can you represent them. You may only speak from experience and your thoughts are representations of circumstatial orders.

 

[saviourmachine]

1) A physical body remains at rest or in uniform motion, unless acted upon another body.
2) Experience is the smallest unit of mental activity that is what we call awareness.

I am not sure of that. You put statements as if they are the truth and the truth only.

Physics
You seem to know much about physics. What did apply force to virtual particles? What did apply force that collapsed the probability wave that accompanied a particle? What did apply force to the first cause?
Pretty common to believe that every event must have a cause, but why should that be the case? Why would (real) random events be impossible?
My thoughts are representations of circumstances, circumstances of which you think that are completely described by cause-effect relations. IMHO the complex systems and mutually relationships in physiological, sociological, biological, cosmical and physical evolution are perfectly able to hide new forms of relationships.

Awareness
If awareness* is physically exerted then you're right, but it doesn't have to be the case. I don't think that you explained awareness if you're merely saying that it's a sum of experiences. Don't you have to tell me "why consciousness is in the way experienced as it is experienced"?
I'm not very critical towards the physical stance, for example: I think that if you would copy me, there would exist two entities who had the same personality (combination of body, mind, whatever). I see clearly that consciousness and mental activity correlate, but I don't know what consciousness makes it the way it is. I don't know what 'it' is that makes me more than a zombie.

*I use awareness and consciousness interchangeable.

 

[omin]

Hey I tried to say it simple. I'll say it in one sentence again: Your repsonse was caused by the reading of my response and your circumstantial mental state.

BTW, the truth is what we sense, and it's the only ultimate truth we know. Why? I'll say it again. All that we know is what we sense (5 of them). What we sense is caused by something physical in the environment. Everything in the environment is physical. This is all we know. This is the what the word "truth" represents! Don't get it confused with change of senses. That's another concept.

 

[cogito]

All that we know is what we sense (5 of them). What we sense is caused by something physical in the environment. Everything in the environment is physical. This is all we know. This is the what the word "truth" represents! Don't get it confused with change of senses. That's another concept.

Actually, this is false. There are all sorts of things we know that are justified independently of sense experience. Further, we can know all sorts of things about objects we have never (and could never) sense. For instance, I know with absolute certainty that every object, even objects I have never sensed, are each identical with themself. I know abstract truths of logic, like that the rules of first-order logic are necessarily truth preserving, completely independently of my senses. Now, I may know about logic party because I have used vision and so on, but my senses don't (and can't) sense the necessity of logical or mathematical truths. Yet I still know that logical and mathematical truths are necessarily true. See, you empiricists have it all wrong...

 

[omin]

Actually, this is false. There are all sorts of things we know that are justified independently of sense experience.

No, because human conscious units only occur because of a physical interaction, which is a force upon our awareness. Otherwise, our consciouness would remain in an unchanged velocity senseing nothing, thus no conscious units. An object stays at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by some outside force.

Further, we can know all sorts of things about objects we have never (and could never) sense.For instance, I know with absolute certainty that every object, even objects I have never sensed, are each identical with themself.

To know this requires a physical force upon your consciousness. To know something requires that is directly or indirectly physically touched your mind.

I know abstract truths of logic, like that the rules of first-order logic are necessarily truth preserving, completely independently of my senses.

You said the key word, know. Knowledge is awareness, and awarness comes only because of forces exerted upon our consciousness creating the notion of knowing anything. Abstract doesn't mean non-physical. Otherwise, abstract wouldn't be sensed and you couldn't speak of it, because it wouldn't arrive as a thought, induced by physical force upon the consicousness.

Now, I may know about logic party because I have used vision and so on, but my senses don't (and can't) sense the necessity of logical or mathematical truths.

You are talking about physcal deduction and physica induction properties. Circumstantial changing states of mind all represent physica states, which imply the properties deduction and induction which we see in math and logic. The change in physical states is like a change in velocity, which is a significant principle that gives of sense of deduction and induciton in math and logic. Without the circumstatial physics sensed in the patterns they present to our consciousness, we'd have no physical mental representations of deduction and induction.

They Yet I still know that logical and mathematical truths are necessarily true. See, you empiricists have it all wrong...

Again, these truths are based upon states of physics as they pass through the consciousness, which are all incomming from the five senses. To have mental ordering mechanisms, we require instantaneous physical states of mind rolling through to know differentiation of sensed states.

 

[cogito]

No, because human conscious units only occur because of a physical interaction, which is a force upon our awareness. Otherwise, our consciouness would remain in an unchanged velocity senseing nothing, thus no conscious units. An object stays at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by some outside force.


To know this requires a physical force upon your consciousness. To know something requires that is directly or indirectly physically touched your mind.



You said the key word, know. Knowledge is awareness, and awarness comes only because of forces exerted upon our consciousness creating the notion of knowing anything. Abstract doesn't mean non-physical. Otherwise, abstract wouldn't be sensed and you couldn't speak of it, because it wouldn't arrive as a thought, induced by physical force upon the consicousness.



You are talking about physcal deduction and physica induction properties. Circumstantial changing states of mind all represent physica states, which imply the properties deduction and induction which we see in math and logic. The change in physical states is like a change in velocity, which is a significant principle that gives of sense of deduction and induciton in math and logic. Without the circumstatial physics sensed in the patterns they present to our consciousness, we'd have no physical mental representations of deduction and induction.



Again, these truths are based upon states of physics as they pass through the consciousness, which are all incomming from the five senses. To have mental ordering mechanisms, we require instantaneous physical states of mind rolling through to know differentiation of sensed states.

This reply is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that some physical change isn't always causally responsible for each state of knowing. I'm claiming that not all knowledge is derived through the senses. These are two radically different claims. Some knowledge, like knowledge of necessary and abstract truths, doesn't rely on sensation. I know not only that 2 + 2 =4, but also that this is necessarily so . The property of logical necessity is not a physical property, hence it exerts no phsysical force, hence it is not able to be sensed, hence any knowledge of it can't be sensory in nature. QED

 

[omin]

These are two radically different claims. Some knowledge, like knowledge of necessary and abstract truths, doesn't rely on sensation. I know not only that 2 + 2 =4, but also that this is necessarily so . The property of logical necessity is not a physical property, hence it exerts no phsysical force, hence it is not able to be sensed, hence any knowledge of it can't be sensory in nature. QED

Properties are physical. Property is a trait that is noticed from a change between two or more sensed physical states.

Neccesity is a principle of density. For example, state-one has always been sensed before state-two. When our knowledge (sense of the enviroment) shows that state-one has never been sensed (known) prior to other anyother-states, we can say it has the property necessary, meaning significantly prior.

You sense what a principle is because of knowledge states (that represent physics) that change.

Your sense of order is comparing memory of physical states to other memories of physical states, or memory of physical states to present physical states represented in the consciousness.

Neccessary shares the same property with because.

 

[Philocrat]

I would like to discuss the difference between belief and knowledge. How do we come to know? And how do we come to believe?

There are two fundamental things about knowing:

a) knowing that something (or anything) exists at all.

b) knowing what actually exists or is the case.

From the point of view of epistemology and proper conduct of the human reason, very often (a) and (b) are mixed up and confused. From the point of view of the perceiver or knower, who is also the believer, (a) is always beyond doubt, regardless of whether you were hallucinating, dreaming, a brain in the vat, or under the control of an ingenious evil demon. Therefore, any proposition that makes claims under (a) is never at dispute. And this is where the cartesian Corgito formula holds a solid epistemolgical ground. And since beliefs share the same syntactical, symantical and logical structures as propositions, they too must share the same epistemolgical outcome of the propositions under (a).

However, when it comes to propositions under (b) this is usually where the epistemolgical nightmares begin. The truth values of propositions under (b) are usually contingent and uncertain, and any beliefs that result from them consequently share the same epistemological fate. The LAW OF RATIONALITY greatly suffers from this when it comes to enumirating and knowing the outcomes of humnan interactions in an environment that we purportedly share.

 

[omin]

I think I agree, in general, but I'm not sure.

If I say I know I am having a thought, that's about as true as anything gets.

I call that knowing. I call that existence. About as pure as existence gets is consciousness itself.

Since all things that I think must be a sensed first, I know they exist. There is a wave of energy that is guaranteed to pass between things that exist and my consciousness every time a thought occurs, no matter how many transformations in that distance occur.

When I make a proposition about things I've sensed, it's the order I must test with others to know if I represented existence orderly or less orderly.

But every thought unit, as well as what inspired it, are directly connected and I claim they do exist.

I don't think I could say something doesn't exist. Negation and zero concept mean very little or extreme distance.

A proposition always represents someones thoughts, because someone must think it before they can say it. A proposition has elements that all exist. The order is the key thing. The thought units that make up the proposition either represent:

a subjective order, created by the circumstance of the mind, which have very little relation to the outside world

or, an order that does represent the world more.

 

[Philocrat]

I think I agree, in general, but I'm not sure.

If I say I know I am having a thought, that's about as true as anything gets.

I call that knowing. I call that existence. About as pure as existence gets is consciousness itself.

Since all things that I think must be a sensed first, I know they exist. There is a wave of energy that is guaranteed to pass between things that exist and my consciousness every time a thought occurs, no matter how many transformations in that distance occur.

When I make a proposition about things I've sensed, it's the order I must test with others to know if I represented existence orderly or less orderly.

But every thought unit, as well as what inspired it, are directly connected and I claim they do exist.

I don't think I could say something doesn't exist. Negation and zero concept mean very little or extreme distance.

A proposition always represents someones thoughts, because someone must think it before they can say it. A proposition has elements that all exist. The order is the key thing. The thought units that make up the proposition either represent:

a subjective order, created by the circumstance of the mind, which have very little relation to the outside world

or, an order that does represent the world more.

I made the distinction between type 'a-propositions' and type 'b-propostions' as a personal device for countering 'Hardcore Scepticism' that usually lures some philosophers into denying everything. Yes, I accept that there are many epistemological problems with type b-propositions. But type a-propositions are frankly self-defeating, since any attempt to deny everything with them quantitatively and logically declares the speaker non-existent too.

 

[Philocrat]

What do you think of the following sentences?

1) Nothing exists!

2) I believe that nothing exists

3) It is possible that nothing may exist afterall.

3) I see, hear, smell and feel nothing, I believe that this is the case, therefore, I know that nothing exists.

Spooky...aren't they? Well, these are all class a-propositions and don't be surprised if you come across them in some wacky philosophical texts. For me, this is frankly an abuse of logic.

Strange claims like these ones were the very things that kick-started Decartes on the project of restoring certainty of reality, if not to the world, at least to himself.