Certain Knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:43 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:40 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:31 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 pm
Accept what is self-evident. Free-will, other-minds, the first-person authority we have over our mental happenings, the existence of a Intelligent Designer, and so on. None of these can be denied without some sort of self-denial of what is obvious and necessarily follows from our existence. There is your certain knowledge.
All these things can be very easily dismissed as possible illusions or delusions. So, no, they're definitely not certain knowledge.

The only self-evidence for me is my own existence, i.e. the existence of the "I" in the sense of Descartes' Cogito.

And then there's nothing that would follow from the knowledge of my own existence, not even that there should be some efficient cause to my existence.
EB
Here I almost agree with you, EB, except for your denying that thoughts also exist (albeit temporarily).
???

Where is it I denied my thoughts existed?
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:47 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:48 am
EB, once I asked JohnDoe7 to explain his theories in laymen's terms, and he did, and he made sense. His claims don't make sense without an explanation, that much I grant. EB, you are free to ask JohnDoe7 to explain his point, and he will do a good job at it. JohnDoe, I think you would be much better off on this site if you did not talk over our heads but gave better explanations. What you write absolutely makes no sense, because you assume that your readers are familiar with your short-cuts, short forms, and contracted concepts. But we are not familiar with them, and without a patient explanation, sorry, your theories sound gibberish. Not that they are, (as seen after an explanation is given by you), but at first reading they are gibberish.
I can only respond on the basis of what he actually says and he is certainly welcome to express himself in proper English.
EB

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 pm

"No, two. Count them: He, and his thought."

"Again, no. "

Ooookay. If you are so fucking stupid that you can't tell the difference between 1 (one) and 2 (two) then what the dickens are you prancing about on a philosophy forum for? Are you imagining your stupidity for the first time in your life will not shine through clearer than the azure sky in the deepest summer?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:22 pm

"""Here I almost agree with you, EB, except for your denying that thoughts also exist (albeit temporarily)."""
Speakpigeon: """??? Where is it I denied my thoughts existed?"

Almost in all your posts to me. Not directly, but in a logically deducible way.

Well, you said that the self exists and you vehemently and adamantly keep denying that the self and thought are two things. So only one of them exists. If one of them exists, and it's the self, then necessarily thought does not exist. According to your arguments.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:19 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:23 pm


I don't think we know of any point existing out there. Personally, all I seem to know is the idea of the point. So, yes I know the idea of the point, but I can't be said to know any actual point.

Considering the point is infinite in nature everywhere we observe, and everything we observe, is composed of points as point.


Observe? We can't observe zero or one-dimensional things so we certainly are unable to assert their existence.

We observe them abstractly, and through the concept of measurement in regards to empirical realities.


This sounds meaningless to me.

Skepticism is meanlingless when it is not skeptical of itself.


This seems meaningless to me.
EB
If this and other statements are without meaning then tell me what meaning is exactly since you know so much about it.
EB, once I asked JohnDoe7 to explain his theories in laymen's terms, and he did, and he made sense. His claims don't make sense without an explanation, that much I grant. EB, you are free to ask JohnDoe7 to explain his point, and he will do a good job at it. JohnDoe, I think you would be much better off on this site if you did not talk over our heads but gave better explanations. What you write absolutely makes no sense, because you assume that your readers are familiar with your short-cuts, short forms, and contracted concepts. But we are not familiar with them, and without a patient explanation, sorry, your theories sound gibberish. Not that they are, (as seen after an explanation is given by you), but at first reading they are gibberish.
Fair enough but you have to ask questions because I do not understand what you don't understand and I try to avoid writing "pages upon pages"" where I can.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:19 pm
Fair enough but you have to ask questions because I do not understand what you don't understand and I try to avoid writing "pages upon pages"" where I can.
Fair enough. You are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis. Either you make yourself understood, but then you appear too wordy, and you fear not so many will read your writes; or else, you are terse, but you make no sense to others.

I don't envy your position.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:39 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Considering the point is infinite in nature everywhere we observe, and everything we observe, is composed of points as point.
We don't observe any point at all and we have absolutely no necessary reason to take whatever it is we observe as composed of points.

All realities are composed of and mirror geometric forms and in these respects contain points.

A chair or television contain various forms and degrees of the rectangle or square. As extensions of the rectangle/square these objects contain points in much the same manner. Upon closer examination of these objects, the appearance of geometry changes and they may appear strictly as curves upon closer inspection and in this regard mere the circles nature of infinite points through a gradation of the circle as "a curve' or 90 degrees. Upon closer inspection the object takes on the appear of particle-waves which in themselves are composed of points and lines.

In all these respects the observation of a universal geometry is not only applicable but inherent with the point and line maintaining the foundations. At the micro and macro level the object contains points and lines ad-infinitum as a binding median through the same inhernent multidimensional nature of the point and line. In these respects, through infinity, the point and line maintain an ever present nature as "definition/no-definition" which is observed fully as approximation.

We observe realty through "approximations" with the point and line being composed of this trinitarian understanding of definition.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
We observe them abstractly
In other words, we don't observe them. We only have the idea of points.
All empirical realities, according to the empiricists, are justified through the nature of measurement. If it cannot be measured it cannot be justified as real. If that is the case, than physical realities have no value without some form of abstraction and vice versa. To say an idea, as measurement, is not real is to argue simultaneously physical realities are not real as they cannot be justified.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Skepticism is meanlingless when it is not skeptical of itself.
Skepticism that's not skeptical?! Sorry, you just lost me.
Skepticism contradicts itself through an inherent Munchhausen trillemma it tries to avoid. Skepticism cannot exist on its own terms without leading to its own contradictions, and in this regard must be exhibited in moderation and not as a universal perspective leading to truth.

Skepticism skeptical of itself implies:
1) Skepticism exists as it is skeptical of itself (Positive value)
2) Skepticism does not exist if it is skeptical of itself. (Negative value)
3) Skepticism can be applied sometimes but not universally (Neutral Value)

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
If this and other statements are without meaning then tell me what meaning is exactly since you know so much about it.
Meaning is whatever idea you think is specifically expressed by a particular expression.
Meaning acts as a form of "Median" or "Center" between two or more phenomena.

That what you said is meaningless to me just signals that I don't have any coherent idea as to what your are trying to say. I also suspect that nobody but you does.
EB
The above should apply more clarity for you.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:41 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:37 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:19 pm
Fair enough but you have to ask questions because I do not understand what you don't understand and I try to avoid writing "pages upon pages"" where I can.
Fair enough. You are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis. Either you make yourself understood, but then you appear too wordy, and you fear not so many will read your writes; or else, you are terse, but you make no sense to others.



I don't envy your position.
Haha, you want it, you can have it. The simple truth is that underneath all appearances lies an ocean. Each axiom can be viewed as synonymous to its own world.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:41 pm
The simple truth is that underneath all appearances lies an ocean.
Assuming oceans are visible (they are certainly large enough to be seen by the naked eye), then what you are saying is that not only have we got a world, but we have an infinite number of oceans (one lying below another) under each and every visible thing in this world.

You are... watering down your theories.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:13 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:41 pm
The simple truth is that underneath all appearances lies an ocean.
Assuming oceans are visible (they are certainly large enough to be seen by the naked eye), then what you are saying is that not only have we got a world, but we have an infinite number of oceans (one lying below another) under each and every visible thing in this world.

You are... watering down your theories.
Clever joke..haha...but in summation yes. The problem, or maybe better put "nature", of infinity is unavoidable as it allows a nature of "constant" or "stable". The problem occurs in the respects that infinity cannot be observe on its own terms, but rather through structures as extensions of it.

In these respects everything we understand of "truth", "answer" and "definition" really breaks down to an approximation.

This "approximation" occurs through medians, with all medians strictly being a "center point" between various axioms. In these respects we are able to maintain a clarity by observing median points.

Where the lack of clarity again occurs is the median, as a center point, mirrors the nature of the point and reflects ad-infinitum again.


So what we understand of certainty breaks down fundamentally to a triangle of:

1) Clarity through observation of a medial point.
2) Deficiency in Clarity through infinite points as extensions of medial point.
3) Approximation through dual structure of medial point as both clear and un-clear at the same time in different respects.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:26 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:39 pm
All realities are composed of <snip> geometric forms and in these respects contain points.
Er, no. We certainly don't know that this would be the case.

We're talking about 'certain knowledge' in this thread. Well, we don't have it as to reality being 'composed of geometric forms' or containing 'points'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:39 pm
Upon closer inspection the object takes on the appear of particle-waves which in themselves are composed of points and lines.

No. We don't know that either.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
All empirical realities, according to the empiricists, are justified through the nature of measurement. If it cannot be measured it cannot be justified as real. If that is the case, than physical realities have no value without some form of abstraction and vice versa. To say an idea, as measurement, is not real is to argue simultaneously physical realities are not real as they cannot be justified.
I'm saying that we don't have 'certain knowledge' of the physical world. We can only believe it exists and we cannot justify rigorously our belief.

Maybe there is a physical world as we think of it but we don't actually know this is the case.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Skepticism contradicts itself through an inherent Munchhausen trillemma it tries to avoid. Skepticism cannot exist on its own terms without leading to its own contradictions, and in this regard must be exhibited in moderation and not as a universal perspective leading to truth.
Skepticism isn't meant to lead to the truth.

Being skeptical just means you don't believe that something is true.

And then it's up to the believers to offer any justification they may have that something is indeed true. Which you haven't done so far.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
The above should apply more clarity for you.
Unfortunately, no.
EB

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:28 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:41 pm
The simple truth is that underneath all appearances lies an ocean.
Assuming oceans are visible (they are certainly large enough to be seen by the naked eye), then what you are saying is that not only have we got a world, but we have an infinite number of oceans (one lying below another) under each and every visible thing in this world.

You are... watering down your theories.
Upon introspection, the metaphor of an ocean is not really much of a stretch if one it to look at the nature of the ocean.

Take for instance the "waves"...they mirror almost exactly the same nature of a particle wave in regards to both form and function. We see this structure mirror itself further through the elements of nature in air (through fronts), fire and earth (through mountain ranges). Even the human emotional constitution follows this same pattern through how emotions and thoughts "ebb and flow".

All of this is summated loosed as an approximation of triangular structure with at its core it formed from lines and points (much in the same manner a particle wave function follows this inherent geometry).

In these respects we able to see constants mirroring themselves universally across both physical and abstract dimensions. What we understand of reality, through constants, breaks down to multidimensional mirror effect as space.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:39 pm
All realities are composed of <snip> geometric forms and in these respects contain points.
Er, no. We certainly don't know that this would be the case.

We're talking about 'certain knowledge' in this thread. Well, we don't have it as to reality being 'composed of geometric forms' or containing 'points'.
Geometry, as space, is one of the few things we are certain of as space cannot be analyzed past anything but itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:39 pm
Upon closer inspection the object takes on the appear of particle-waves which in themselves are composed of points and lines.

No. We don't know that either.

All observation requires a degree of "knowledge" as knowledge is observation. We know what we observe.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
All empirical realities, according to the empiricists, are justified through the nature of measurement. If it cannot be measured it cannot be justified as real. If that is the case, than physical realities have no value without some form of abstraction and vice versa. To say an idea, as measurement, is not real is to argue simultaneously physical realities are not real as they cannot be justified.
I'm saying that we don't have 'certain knowledge' of the physical world. We can only believe it exists and we cannot justify rigorously our belief.

Maybe there is a physical world as we think of it but we don't actually know this is the case.

Belief exists if and only if their is justification, as the rationality that manifests justification provides the same structure for the nature of the universe as we understand it. All "being" extends itself through reason as "ratio" and "symmetry".
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Skepticism contradicts itself through an inherent Munchhausen trillemma it tries to avoid. Skepticism cannot exist on its own terms without leading to its own contradictions, and in this regard must be exhibited in moderation and not as a universal perspective leading to truth.
Skepticism isn't meant to lead to the truth.
An absence of truth is still truth as absence is strictly deficient truth and not a thing in itself. Skepticism proves what exists by observing what does not exist.

Being skeptical just means you don't believe that something is true.

And then it's up to the believers to offer any justification they may have that something is indeed true. Which you haven't done so far.

It is not up to me or anyone to provide justification for you as you provide no definition or requirement as to what "your justification" would be.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
The above should apply more clarity for you.
Unfortunately, no.
EB

In all frankness I doubt anything is clear to you considering the nature of your arguments are strictly just "no" and contain little to no definition at all.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:37 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 pm
"No, two. Count them: He, and his thought."

"Again, no. "

Ooookay. If you are so fucking stupid that you can't tell the difference between 1 (one) and 2 (two) then what the dickens are you prancing about on a philosophy forum for? Are you imagining your stupidity for the first time in your life will not shine through clearer than the azure sky in the deepest summer?
One thing is for sure, that you truncated my explanation shows you're not prepared to argue your views.
Bye-bye.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm
Geometry, as space, is one of the few things we are certain of as space cannot be analyzed past anything but itself.
Geometry is not space. We know geometry whenever we think of geometry because geometry is an idea but the physical world is not supposed to be an idea so just thinking about it isn't enough to know it. So, we don't know the physical world and therefore we don't know space.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm

All observation requires a degree of "knowledge" as knowledge is observation. We know what we observe.
What we know are our impressions of observing the physical world. This in itself is not knowledge of the physical world.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm
Belief exists if and only if their is justification, as the rationality that manifests justification provides the same structure for the nature of the universe as we understand it. All "being" extends itself through reason as "ratio" and "symmetry".
We are able to believe all sorts of things and some of them are just not real. We usually understand this because we can stop believing something and we in fact often do, and we also often disagree with other people as to what we should believe. So believing something provides absolutely no guaranty whatsoever.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm
It is not up to me or anyone to provide justification for you as you provide no definition or requirement as to what "your justification" would be.
You're welcome.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:35 pm
In all frankness I doubt anything is clear to you considering the nature of your arguments are strictly just "no" and contain little to no definition at all.
If all you can remember of my argument is the word 'no', then we don't have anything to discuss.
Bye-bye.
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest