Wyman wrote:I don't think we're going to find common ground here, which is necessary for a discussion to progress, as we disagree over facts (what happens when we learn something or know how to do something). Factual disputes are never solved by conversation.
I understand you as saying that a 'knowing how' is an implication - an 'if...then...' statement. And it is learned through a process of 'reasonings' - putting together a bunch of 'that' statements. I think this fits many scenarios, but will often lead to confusions implicit in jamming a square peg in a round hole. For instance, everyone learns to ride a bike differently,
The that's for riding a bike are all the same on planet earth, that if you fall you will probably get hurt, that you need to balance, that you have to steer when required or get hit by a car, or that you may go over a cliff, that you could die. There are thousands more, and they all lead to know how. Largely because of ideomotor-movement and muscle memory, both beyond the conscious mind. 'That" there is such things, definitely leads to the how of it.
so the series of implications (thats) characterizing knowledge of bike riding will be different for everyone. So everyone has their own, unique 'bundle' of 'thats' when they have learned a skill. I think if you look closely into this, it will become clear that each 'bundle' is both indeterminate and infinite. You hide this in your vague notion of the 'reasonings' which put all the facts together and in not clearly defining how you determine what 'thats' are - how are they determined, defined, enumerated. Obviously, the baby could not enumerate them - so is there some objective method of enumerating which 'thats' have been utilized?
And how do we come to know 'that so and so is true'? Presumably, like any other instance of knowledge, we come to know 'that x is the case' by a series or bundle of other 'that' statements. It can't be a 'knowing how' - such as 'knowing how to recognize a true set of facts' as that would place 'knowing how' firmly on a foundational level. So, it would have to consist of a series of 'that' statements upon which 'that x is the case' rests. How do you get out of this circle - where does the series terminate?
I believe you're trying to make this more complicated than it actually is. The child does not need to know anything other than 'that' it was hungry, whatever 'that' might be, a pain in the pit of it's stomach, weakness, who knows and who cares. Make no mistake it knows (feels) 'that' something is amiss, and it is, 'that' the organism requires nourishment. It doesn't matter if it can quantify it in seven different languages or not. It matters not, that it can enumerate. 'That' it feels 'that' way, (knows), it responds to 'that' pain 'that' it feels and crys. It then learns 'that' when 'that' figure enters into the room, carrying 'that' thing, placing it in it's mouth, 'that' instinct takes over, and 'that' the pain disappears, 'that' it cannot compose a 20 page dissertation, as to "how" to request 'that' which sooth's it's needs, matters not, as the 'how' of it is finally built from those 'that's,' 'that' were in place first. Then it finally knows 'how" to ask for more. If not for those that's, it could never learn 'how'. Later it learns 'that' to cry is not tolerated as a 'how.' As all the 'that's' that the parents complain about, yield a more socially acceptable 'how,' "Please pass me the salt." The 'that's' clearly come before the how's.
You seem to want us to believe 'that' one knows 'how' to ride a bike, fly a plane, build and explode an atomic bomb, before they ever existed. To me it's common sense 'that' one had to know 'that' there was a need for such things, before they knew 'how' to satisfy them.
Are you really trying to say 'that' 'how' they were created, preexisted 'that' they were wanted, and all those things 'that' were in place, prior to them, 'that' gave way to 'how' to achieve them? Obviously all the 'that's,' 'that' were already in place, gave rise to 'how' to achieve them.
There was a show on TV, I forgot it's name, but it showed how invention A, finally, many years later, gave way to invention Z. "That" invention A existed, gave way to 'how' to create invention Z, but only after knowing 'that' Z was wanted.
All the engineers out there are cringing as they read your arguments.