What human need to do?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:10 pm
Euler080 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:19 am
Knowledge is percieved, and in these respects knowledge is justified belief. If one where to know the complete data, would it not be an act of will or belief?
Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

We may know/sense a conformation as it not is; we seem to be not able to see certain wavelength of light, then we seem to be not able to know/sense all the radiations which the object is emitting, through eyes. We may have a detector to sense other radiations, to know what exists there.

But, what if we don't know that conformation/object as being emitting other radiations too, and we from eyes know/sense it as to be emitting only certain of them. It seems that we to not say anything as to be existing as sensed, it seems that, we have to say it as, "seems to be existing as sensed/known". Then, we might have thought object might to have existed in the way of emitting certain radiations only. Then, we may build many inventions or discoveries based on the object might as to be emitting certain radiations as seen by our eyes. Later, doing that, we may see that, by accident, like Becquirel (?), object as to be emitting certain other radiations too, by other indirect ways.

Yes, we may be (certain conformations may exist as sensed/known?) not knowing data/conformations as they are (perceived), but as we go on checking whether other conformations are existing as thought, for the attainment of a particular utility, we may come to know on the previously sensed conformation as to be not as known. If we see all the conformations as to be there as known, they will be allowing us to attain the utility as thought, or if they might be allowing us known the unknown data/conformation?

Certain knowledge/conformation/data seems to be perceived (not known/sensed as it exists), and the conformations known/sensed may always be known/sensed as "may be existing as sensed/known" till knowing complete data. Here we seem to be accepting conformation/data sensed/known (perceived) as "may be existing as known/sensed/perceived" till knowing complete data, and it seems that we are not asserting (accepting) something is existing, there seems to be nothing for which proof has to be given, i.e. nothing seems to exist to call as belief, as we are not asserting anything as to be as known.

If all the conformations exist as known, they seem to allow attaining utility, or seem to allow knowing unknown data. It seems that every knowledge/data/conformation might not be perception. In your words, it seems that, knowledge/data/conformation might be perceived, and seems not "knowledge is perceived".

If one where to know complete data, it seems to be not act of belief, as nothing seems to be believed as to be what is sensed/known.





Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

My definitions:
Knowledge = That information which is both "known" and we have been programmed to believe is what is. Much os sports science might be false but I still rank it as knowledge.
Perceived = That which is of perception may or may not be actual, and it may be actual to a varying degree.
Justify = To make acceptable to oneself (to self justify), or to another/others, but not necessarily to prove anything.
Belief = To believe/to follow. This can still be possible without accepting the existence. Truth is perceptual as well, so fine, and for a belief to exist it would have to be experienced, on the experienced level, as true for you.

Sure, you can know unknown data, many know that there is God, but it is not proven that there is God.
What is proof considering all axioms are merely subjective and objective? Has it been proven that proof is not always proved as proof? What is proof but justification, as objectivity, and belief, as subjectivity?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Affirmation one: It generally pays to think with a healthily fully functional mind however, one that completes a process of thought without constantly trying to trip itself up along the way.
Affirmation two: Much is lost when overly preoccupied with detail.
Affirmation three: Nothing of thought can get done by one worth the doing when one`s main objective is merely in indexing the toil.
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

Post Reply