There is no such thing as knowing

[rantal]

This is now going off topic

all the best, rantal

OK then, this is going to be the third, and if that makes you happy, the last time, I'm asking you this question:

"2.
Please clarify what the role of information is, in regard to ‘know how’, in your theory. Don’t you think your ‘know how’ is anything but ‘have information’?"

You have not provided any compelling reason why I should consider information important.

I have knowledge of how to ride a bike, yet this involves no information nor do any skills.

Knowledge of, is generally considered to involve information but I am argueing that this sub-catagory of knowledge does not exist.

One might object, "But you do know information; you know the way from Cullupton to Newton Abbotts" however I am arguing that that such an example is really no more than a skill; when asked the way, I know how to answer because I possess this particular skill and no information is involved

all the best, rantal

[chaz wyman]

You can also choose to state your objection clearly

all the best, rantal

You could read what others say, and you would realise that i was not making any objection.

[chaz wyman]

It is true that categorization is partly dependent on culture, personality, etc. Science's job is to take all those factors into consideration.

I don't think so. Science creates its own system - one that does not take those factors into consideration, but seeks to invent its own that works regardless of culture, and personality.

People can't go around and speak nonsense and when asked, reply that everything is relative and so on. In your own example, contrary to what you claim, there is indeed a right choice, which was the odd one out; and that was what they picked.

No there is not a right one. Because 100% of literate people pick a different one. If you are going to insist that thre has to be a right ONE, then there can't be TWO right answers.
Maybe you need to read it again. I don't think you get it.

Upon inquiry, they presented reasons which were quite sound, on the basis of their own way of thinking. It would quite have been possible that one of them, because of some defect in his mind, would pick the lump of wood; in that case, he was, in fact, doing it the wrong way. If he was questioned why he picked that one, he couldn't present a plausible reason, but if he was familiar with the clever argument you brought up in this thread, and at the same time he was informed what the other sane ones picked, he could resort to the same argument!

You are confused.

There was in fact a right answer in that particular context, and that was the 'screwdriver'. What you haven't taken into account is that, this 'right answer' is only meaningful in the eyes of the observer of the experiment, who is also taking account of the context in which the experiment is taking place.

You are confused. On the one hand you deny that people are allowed to be 'relative' and on the other you insist on the importance of 'context'. Has anyone ever called you stupid?

This sort of caculation, by no means, depends on culture and personality of the observer, and could be done with any intelligent computer, if you see what I mean. If you just try to think about 'observation of observation',you come close to what I mean.

I think this conversation is over.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Do you know "that" you're alive, and "that" someday you shall die?

[chaz wyman]

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

Do you know "that" you're alive, and "that" someday you shall die?

He knows how to understand what people mean by alive and dead. He understands how he must live, and how to die well, if he can.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Do you know "that" you're alive, and "that" someday you shall die?

He knows how to understand what people mean by alive and dead. He understands how he must live, and how to die well, if he can.

I was thinking that you might have said, that he knows how he is alive, and that in addition, he knows how he is going to die!

[rantal]

When asked if I alive or if I am going to die, I know how to answer, no problem there

all the best, rantal

[chaz wyman]

Do you know "that" you're alive, and "that" someday you shall die?

He knows how to understand what people mean by alive and dead. He understands how he must live, and how to die well, if he can.

I was thinking that you might have said, that he knows how he is alive, and that in addition, he knows how he is going to die!

Good. I think this might be a more accurate description of the state of affairs. And that when we say 'know that', we are talking about a learned response that has its origin in 'knowing how'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When asked if I alive or if I am going to die, I know how to answer, no problem there

all the best, rantal

So tell me then, how are you alive, and how are you going to die?

You can only tell me "that" you shall die, you have no way of knowing "how" you are going to die, unless you plan on killing yourself this very second, otherwise you may die some other way. You cannot possibly know "how," only "that" you shall, eventually, in some way. Neither can you answer, how you are alive. How you are alive could constitute the signs of life, but it could also encompass origins, and you just can't know this, completely, in it's entirety. So you can only know "that" you are alive, what ever "alive" may actually entail. 'You think, therefore, you are!' You cannot know "how," only "that" you are.

[rantal]

When you ask those question, I know not how to answer, therefore it is not something I know

all the best, urban

[pharaoh]

chaz wyman

Are you under the delusion that what you are doing here is philosophical examination of human understanding? You’re just lurking in your den and whenever something new is up, you jump out, and start bragging and accusing others of all sorts of groundless accusations like someone being hypocrite, or stupid or confusing and so on. Now, I have checked many of your posts and there are loads of them. This is the reason why after more than 10000 posts, you still haven’t learned the most rudimentary rules of discussion. Lots of times, you’ve been asked to demonstrate, why you are opposing an opinion, in a logical way, to receive only the repetition of the words “you’re confusing” or “you’re stupid” etc. from your side; that’s the goon’s way. From now on, I’ve decided to keep an eye on you, to find out the psychological grounds of your ‘objection complex’ and explain it to you, in order for you to behave more orderly, in a place considered to discuss philosophy not pseudo-intellectual hooliganism. It is ridiculous that you are preaching the advice of Sun Tzu, while you are fighting others, most of the time. The only occasions that you agree with someone, is when you want to pretend that you are positive.
Is SpheresOfBalance, who is talking about ‘change’ , a hypocrite or are you, who spend most of your time, groundlessly objecting what others say or do, many times of which, without the slightest understanding of what they’re talking about; all that being a kind of masked fighting, and at the same time, preach advice of Sun Tzu against fighting? Maybe you are so stupid to think that what Sun Tzu said was only related to that level of the war between two countries.

I would be willing to bet that you are to blame for accepting categories based on invented labels just like everyone else.

Does that betting habit come from your background of frequenting casinos? At any rate, that's not considered a philosophical manner of speech.

Science creates its own system - one that does not take those factors into consideration, but seeks to invent its own that works regardless of culture, and personality.

What you have in mind is not science. you cannot reject science with dumb, fallacious, pseudo-philosophical arguments.

No there is not a right one. Because 100% of literate people pick a different one. If you are going to insist that thre has to be a right ONE, then there can't be TWO right answers.
Maybe you need to read it again. I don't think you get it.

What you can't understand is that when you say "there can't be TWO right answers" you are referring to only one 'there'. That connotes only one context. whereas I explained to you very clearly that you might have two or more contexts in each of which, the meaning of 'right' might be different. It is true that there is no absolute right or wrong answers, but there can be relative right or wrong answers. To someone in a moving train, who can't see outside, the train might look stationary; whereas to someone standing by the railway, it is moving. Asked whether the train is moving or not, each one of them would reply differently, and they are both right answers. therefore contrary to your understanding, there can be two right answers.
You can read this as many times as needed to understand.

You are confused.

Another groundless assertions of yours. you're accusing someone of confusion in a situation that you have no clue what he is talking about.

Has anyone ever called you stupid?

Yes, but only those with an IQ under 90.

I think this conversation is over.

This is a blatant evidence of your arrogance. You start an argument, and after having said whatever you wanted to, without referring to the details of my arguments, which you ignorantly state is wrong, proclaim the end of conversation, unilaterally. Do you really think you are that important a person? You know, there is a name for that?

rantal, I apologize for going off topic,I had no choice.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When you ask those question, I know not how to answer, therefore it is not something I know

all the best, urban

No you just don't know "HOW," you only know "THAT" you "shall," DEFINITELY DIE!

Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your assertion is severely flawed, that there is, in fact, "knowing that..."

You're just so full of pride that you dare not admit it. A very prominent human flaw, I think it's time to stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down, the state of the symbiotic biosphere, our lives, themselves, unfortunately, by most, only seen through fouled clouds of silver and gold lining, the veiling of ones true self, to suit the want.

[rantal]

When you ask those question, I know not how to answer, therefore it is not something I know

all the best, urban

No you just don't know "HOW," you only know "THAT" you "shall," DEFINITELY DIE!

Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your assertion is severely flawed, that there is, in fact, "knowing that..."

You're just so full of pride that you dare not admit it. A very prominent human flaw, I think it's time to stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down, the state of the symbiotic biosphere, our lives, themselves, unfortunately, by most, only seen through fouled clouds of silver and gold lining, the veiling of ones true self, to suit the want.

No, control you temper, my friend, such outbursts are not conducive to philosophy.

1.That I do not know something proves nothing, there are many things everyone knows not and were I to know everything then what point would there be in philosophising?

2. I do not KNOW THAT I shall die only how to answer when the question, "Will you die, is asked of me."

3. As you correctly say, pride is indeed a human failing, but here at least, that failing is not mine

all the best, rantal

[SpheresOfBalance]

When you ask those question, I know not how to answer, therefore it is not something I know

all the best, urban

No you just don't know "HOW," you only know "THAT" you "shall," DEFINITELY DIE!

Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your assertion is severely flawed, that there is, in fact, "knowing that..."

You're just so full of pride that you dare not admit it. A very prominent human flaw, I think it's time to stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down, the state of the symbiotic biosphere, our lives, themselves, unfortunately, by most, only seen through fouled clouds of silver and gold lining, the veiling of ones true self, to suit the want.

No, control you temper, my friend, such outbursts are not conducive to philosophy.
This sentence in fact, shows how vivid your imagination is, I was never angry, it was for effect, as death is what all men fear most, in order to stress words, so as to indicate their gravity, for those feeble of mind, that cannot pick them out of a sentence, because of their want, to coddle self. This then shows that you are full of self, incapable of seeing beyond your nose. So you spew out mere projections of your own mind, based upon your flawed assumptions, thus incapable of seeing the truth, which often requires query, instead of labeling due to presumption.

You cannot prove that your assertion is correct merely by "AVOIDING" the question, by not answering it. In fact you "KNOW THAT" you are going to "DIE" because there is no such thing as an immortal. You are a human and "ALL" humans die, for different reasons, at different times, You KNOW THAT this is TRUE, therefore you CANNOT know "HOW," only "THAT" you shall, eventually, one day, "DIE." Your avoidance of this "TRUTH" makes you a "LIAR," my friend. You're just angry because I found something you failed to consider, don't feel bad, most fail to consider DEATH as they FEAR it so. Are you kidding, I'm getting the heebie jeebies typing it so often, especially in caps.

NOT! ANGRY, they're just CAPITALIZED WORDS, no need to FEAR them nor ASSUME they mean anything more than TO STRESS for EFFECT!!!

Do they NOT, get your ATTENTION???

As a LIAR, the rest of your words below then, are IRRELEVANT!


FYI, I was on the 'internet,' before you civilian newbies even knew what it was, unless of course you either worked for NASA or the US DOD, the rule as to caps indicating yelling, back when it was coined was ALL CAPS, NOT INTERMITTENT CAPS, intermittent caps was for STRESS. This was long before the crutch, known as GUI, everything was text. No pretty colors, just monochrome, no formatting, relative text size was dependent upon monitor size. Caps lock was usually used to YELL, not very many yelled with their pinky's, they were too busy beating(typing) their keyboards with a club.

1.That I do not know something proves nothing, there are many things everyone knows not and were I to know everything then what point would there be in philosophising?

2. I do not KNOW THAT I shall die only how to answer when the question, "Will you die, is asked of me."

3. As you correctly say, pride is indeed a human failing, but here at least, that failing is not mine

all the best, rantal

[rantal]

You make the false accusation that I am a liar, for this you should appologise or all will know you have no honour.

You are also generally offensive and clearly have not controlled your temper and I have reported you

You have failed to make any valid objection and in frustration become irrate, this is not appropriate behavior for either philsophy or civilised company. I suggest you desist from participating here till you address these problems

all the best, rantal