Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[TimeSeeker]

I understand JTB is not absolute, i.e. it has limitations e.g. Gettier's

The example I gave you is far far worse than the Gettier problem!
In the Gettier problem at least you have COMMITTED to a position (action). You managed to form a belief - even if the belief was wrong.
My example - you can't even form a belief because both outcomes are equally probable: 50/50! You have to flip a coin.

but JTB is the best available and it is useful. Science is JTB.

And that is my problem. It is NOT useful. Science is not JTB. You can't solve the problem of induction with JTB and science doesn't claim to have solved it. All scientific knowledge is probabilistic. A GUESS - based on the best available information.

From JTBs it can be proposed humans could be extinct from a rogue meteor/comet.

Irrelevant. The question was posed on a bounded time-interval. Not on a speculative cause of extinction.

Question: Will humans become extinct tomorrow?
JTB: Humans may or may not become extinct tomorrow.

If you denounce JTB, then scientists should just stop finding preventive measures?
Prevention [arising from JTB speculations] is still better than cure.

False dilemma. I am an applied scientist and I denounce JTB.

If the speculation do not appear to be true, at least all is not lost on that insurance policy and scientists can can exploit the arising technologies for other purposes.

No speculation can be made without risk assessment and the consequences of error. Example:

There is a 1 in 50 chance that my toaster burns my breakfast toast.
There is a 1 in 50 chance that my parachute doesn't open on my next skydive.

To say that these two are identical knowledge is the biggest human blunder of all!
I will make toast on a toaster that screws up 1 in 50. A restaurant owner may not tolerate such crap!
At the age of 35, with my life ahead of me I WILL NOT jump with a parachute that does the same. Maybe you will!
Maybe I will too - at the age of 95!

Knowledge cannot be decoupled from the individual's tolerance for risk and ability to absorb the consequences of error.

And that is why any data which cannot be used to generate a time-bounded confidence interval (a probability distribution!) is not knowledge. It contains 0 bits of information.

If it can't help you make decisions - it is not knowledge!

Humans may or may not go extinct tomorrow is NOT knowledge. Even though JTB says that it is.
Because I can flip a coin and get an answer to the question: Will humans go extinct tomorrow? Information is knowledge!

[Dontaskme]

Not-knowing is the only real knowledge. There is a subtle difference.

OK, genius. What is the shape of the Earth? Flat, Round or oblate?

Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' you are the knowing that cannot be known.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' you are the knowing that cannot be known.

Yes. Which is why we have names so that we can refer to ourselves. Even though we don't KNOW what we are, or how we work (but we are slowly figuring it out). Which is why we have the word "I". SO that you can talk about ourselves.

You are treating knowledge as an absolute. You are an idealist. That is your error.

I know that I have brown eyes. I know that I am 1.8 meters tall. I know when I was born. I know who my friends and family are (e.g I know my history). Is that not knowledge? I know HOW to drive a car. I know HOW to fly an airplane.

Notice how you avoided the question about shape of the Earth. Or whether your pilot knows where he is going.

[Dontaskme]

Knowing is not known by a ''someone'' you are the knowing that cannot be known.

Yes. Which is why we have names so that we can refer to ourselves. Even though we don't KNOW what we are, or how we work.
Which is why we have the word "I". SO that you can talk about ourselves.

You are treating knowledge as an absolute. You are an idealist. That is your error.

I know that I have brown eyes. I know that I am 1.8 meters tall. I know when I was born. I know who my friends and family are (e.g I know my history).

Is that not knowledge?

Life is neither the reader nor the writer or good or bad. Reader, writer, good and bad is labels in the mind. The 'I' lives personal illusory labels in the mind. But, Life is a singular, spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable impersonal flow.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Life is neither the reader nor the writer or good or bad. Reader, writer, good and bad is labels in the mind. The 'I' lives personal illusory labels in the mind. But, Life is a singular, spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable impersonal flow.

How does this help me fly an airplane?
Or get food?
Or have a roof over my head?

[Dontaskme]

You are treating knowledge as an absolute. You are an idealist. That is your error.

Absolute is whole, just as whole is whole and a part of whole is whole. This implies that a label in the mind (relative) is whole and 10,000 labels are not needed to make absolute whole.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Absolute is whole, just as whole is whole and a part of whole is whole. This implies that a label in the mind (relative) is whole and 10,000 labels are not needed to make absolute whole.

Are you part of the whole? Are you absolute?

[Dontaskme]

Life is neither the reader nor the writer or good or bad. Reader, writer, good and bad is labels in the mind. The 'I' lives personal illusory labels in the mind. But, Life is a singular, spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable impersonal flow.

How does this help me fly an airplane?
Or get food?
Or have a roof over my head?

Well, I guess you'll just have to figure than one out for yourself, its self experiential, by applying direct experience. Why the heck are you asking me what only you can know?

.

[TimeSeeker]

How does this help me fly an airplane?
Or get food?
Or have a roof over my head?

Well, I guess you'll just have to figure than one out for yourself, its self experiencial, by applying direct experience. Why the heck are you asking me what only you can know?
[/quote]
Because if YOU KNOW HOW to fly an airplane, or get food, or get a roof over my head, you can tell me?

[Dontaskme]

Absolute is whole, just as whole is whole and a part of whole is whole. This implies that a label in the mind (relative) is whole and 10,000 labels are not needed to make absolute whole.

Are you part of the whole? Are you absolute?

Who wants to know?

[TimeSeeker]

Who wants to know?

I. The one who is one with the whole and does not recognize you as one with himself.

[Dontaskme]

Because if YOU KNOW HOW to fly an airplane, or get food, or get a roof over my head, you can tell me?

That which is unknown will eventually become known...in this unknown knowing.

[Dontaskme]

Who wants to know?

I

Then ask I

[TimeSeeker]

That which is unknown will eventually become known...in this unknown knowing.

But right now YOU don't know HOW?

[TimeSeeker]

Then ask I

I did. I am one with the whole. I do not recognize you as one with the whole. I recognize free will when I see it and I do not recognize free will in you. And therefore I do not recognize you in I.

Therefore you are not I. Therefore I ask you.