Philosophy Now Forum

Knowledge is experience and could be justified through group agreement, for experience is always true to the biology that is experiencing it. The collective experience is reassurance that the judgment is justified. The individual's experience and judgment may be derived through an altered or ill biology. No matter what the state of individual biology, its experience and judgment are true to its biology, even where it disagrees with reality. The collective is just reassurance. To the individual truth is experience, to the group truth is agreement.

Guys ... and gals ... there's sumthin' seriously wrong here. The mind is, despite many claiming it's the "most" complex thing in the entire universe, rather simple, too simple in fact to allow us to draw really important conclusions. The can Mr. Sommerton kicked down the road, it seems, can be kicked again ... and again ... and again ... ad nauseum/ad infinitum.

You ate an octopus bro!

I don't recall eating anything with tentacles!

You did!

I did not!

It's gonna be a long, long day!

rantal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 am Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

all the best, rantal

Then you contradict yourself because you are claiming you know that "there is only 'knowing how'".

Consul wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:19 pm

Magnus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:13 am To know something is to be able to observe or to have experienced it, and thus be able to recognize that certain phenomena or experience at a later date.

I know that 3 is a prime number, but I have never observed or perceived that it is; and I couldn't possibly have done so, since numbers are imperceptible abstract objects.

Have you not observed the mathematical breakdowns and explanations necessary to recognize a prime number such as three?

rantal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 am Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

all the best, rantal

Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain utterly meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true. This makes these finite strings tautologies that we know must be true.

We also know that every finite string deduced from the above set of finite strings are also true.