What is the nature of knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

What is the nature of knowledge

Post by James Markham »

So what is that particular trait that determines whether the information we are aware of, can be classed as knowledge. There is a lot of debate about what we can know, or what we have to simply accept is belief, some would argue that real knowledge is unattainable, and others would say that most objections are superficial and unwarranted. If we can accept that we know we exist, then I would argue its possible to know that we are certain of knowing personal things. One is that we are aware, and the other is that we are aware of something that effects that awareness, so simply put, I believe it's possible to know of our subjective being, and an objective influence, with the result that we have an emotional state of which it's possible to know many things about, I know pain is different from pleasure, I know heat feels different from cold, the list goes on.

Beyond these facts I think the distinction can become slightly blurred, for instance, I can say I know 1+1=2, but I can't say for sure there can be anything other than a conceptual difference between two objects, so it would follow that I don't really know two things are able to exist objectively, which means the whole concept of mathematics may be an illusion applied by a mental procedure. It's a this point I would have to say I don't know, but strongly believe in the existence of the rational logic of which mathematics is a part.

So the distinction I would make is that in order to know a fact, it must primarily be subject to personal verification, and that most of the inferred information we receive from objective reality, although we know it exists as an influence, can only be believed to imply such an such.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

If I say: “I know that object is a pine tree, or I say: “I do not know what kind of object/tree that is”, then knowing and not knowing is a different state of mind. Having Knowledge is a mental condition or state made possible by our memory ability. It is easy then to know the nature of knowledge by understanding the “nature of the existence” of things and conditions we can knowledge of.

A Pine Tree is itself and not some other kind of tree because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other existing kind of tree. Thus, we are conscious/know the tree is a Pine Tree because we remember the attributes that relate/equate to the existence of a Pine Tree.

CONSCIOUSNESS/KNOWLEDGE gives us the ability to discuss the nature of different trees because we can remember which attributes equate to the existence of which trees. However, trees are not a subject of philosophical study, but the abstract concepts “existence “and knowledge/consciousness” are. It is impossible to discuss these concepts intelligently when they only exist as their definitions and universal comprehensive definitions of these concepts do not exist.

EXISTENCE: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of being of things and conditions as a construct of their attributes.

KNOWLEDGE/CONSCIOUSNESS: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of mind of recognizing which attributes equate to the existence of things and conditions.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

If knowledge is equating previously learned attributes with 'the existence of things', then where did the previously learned attribute come from?

Socrates may have claimed that this remembrance came from past lives lived. Today, most would say it emanates from our inductive capacities.

The (your) model of knowledge as a state of mind becomes murky when the mind's role in perception is accounted for. That is, when the mind equates attributes with perceived things (pine tree attributes with a 'seen' tree), the mind is matching attributes with... what?
Perception itself seems to be a model created by the mind of 'reality' or sensory input or whatever terminology you subscribe to. Thus, in your model, the mind is matching mental constructs (attributes) with other mental constructs (subjectively perceived experience). If we see a pine tree because the mind has created a model of reality based upon (at least in part) previously learned concepts such as 'pine tree' and then matches the previously learned concept up with what it just created, didn't we just expose a circular definition?
marjoramblues
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by marjoramblues »

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Wyman,
I think you would agree there are far more ways to misunderstand an explanation than there are ways to understand the explanation. Understanding requires one to follow the logic of the explanation. Of course, if one sees there is no logic to follow, one should present his own logical explanation of the “nature of Knowledge”. The two explanations can then be compared to each other and it should be obvious which is the most logical. This process will arrive at a final logical explanation far quicker than just presenting ones’ misunderstanding.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

OK, then I submit a proposition that is merely a modification of your proposition. Knowledge involves not just recognizing the attributes that apply to the object in question, but correctly recognizing those attributes. But then by what criterion do you judge the recognition to be correct as opposed to mistaken?
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by duszek »

Knowledge is recognition.

Re-cognition.

Having the same Aha-sensation again.

Each cognition and each recognition can only be a working hypothesis, open to modification when new aha-sensations occur.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

I would call that criterion something like scientific verification, or 'duszeckian pragmatism.' Let's see if it passes wleg' s muster. It does account for false inductions by weeding them out through future testing and perhaps - peer review, or societal norms?
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Wyman,

Thanks for your reply.

You say: “Knowledge involves not just recognizing the attributes that apply to the object in question, but correctly recognizing those attributes. But then by what criterion do you judge the recognition to be correct as opposed to mistaken?”

I say: I think by understanding; “knowledge” is constructed by recognizing which attributes equate to the “existence” of which things is enough understanding to construct a comprehensive definition. It naturally follows; identifying attributes that do not equate does ‘not’ construct “knowledge”. Understanding the logic of constructing “knowledge”, makes the process systematic. We first identify an attribute, which if it does not exist, the thing we are attempting to construct knowledge of can not exist. We continue this systematic process of identifying all the attributes which, if they did not exist, the thing itself could not exist as itself and different from any other thing. Once enough attributes are identified we have constructed knowledge useful to understanding the nature of the existence of the thing the knowledge is about.

The fact that some will not have the mental astuteness to construct knowledge is a primary benefit of language. It really only takes one person to construct knowledge of a thing and pass that knowledge to others using language.

KNOWLEDGE/CONSCIOUSNESS: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of mind when we recognize the attributes which equate to the existence of things and conditions.

This definition can probable be better worded as long as it reveals how knowledge/consciousness is constructed. Do you recognize this solves Chalmers’ “the hard problem of consciousness”?

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

The fact that some will not have the mental astuteness to construct knowledge is a primary benefit of language. It really only takes one person to construct knowledge of a thing and pass that knowledge to others using language.
This relates to my next question, which was going to be, can a person have knowledge without having either obtained it themselves, or obtained a firm grasp of it? If I tell my 5 year old, 'e=mcc' and then I ask 'what does e equal?' and he says 'mc squared,' then does he 'have knowledge?'

But back to your criterion for 'recognizing which attributes equate to the existence of which things.' I understand, I think, your point that once these attributes are obtained, the enumeration of them is systematic. But how are they obtained, what are their characteristics (are they propositions, names, sensations, thoughts?) and when two people disagree as to whether an attribute equates with the existence of a thing, how do we break the tie?
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Wyman,

You ask: “can a person have knowledge without having either obtained it themselves, or obtained a firm grasp of it? If I tell my 5 year old, 'e=mcc' and then I ask 'what does e equal?' and he says 'mc squared,' then does he 'have knowledge?”'

I say: Yes we each have the knowledge we have learned is school that we would never have gotten on our own. And, some have a better grasp than others of what we have learned in school. Yes, your boy has a bit if knowledge because he knows “mc squared is = to e”.

You say: “But back to your criterion for 'recognizing which attributes equate to the existence of which things.' I understand, I think, your point that once these attributes are obtained, the enumeration of them is systematic. But how are they obtained, what are their characteristics (are they propositions, names, sensations, thoughts?) and when two people disagree as to whether an attribute equates with the existence of a thing, how do we break the tie?

I reply: when we express our state of mind or knowledge about a thing we express it as a propositional statement identifying the thing (subject) and attributes (predicates) that we recognize are related to the existence of the thing (subject). The fact that the subject and predicates may/do not relate has nothing at all to do with the nature of “true knowledge”, it only illustrates the nature of knowledge that is “not true”.

You ask: “when two people disagree as to whether an attribute equates with the existence of a thing, how do we break the tie?”

I reply: As gently as possible; we are our ideas psychologically and our ideas are us and any ideas different from our own is a threat to the state of our psychological existence and self-esteem/ego. Evidence and proof of this condition is the hostility on this forum caused by different ideas. The most rational way to break the tie when ideas are different is to understand how ideas are related to our psychological existence and be able to control the hostility. When/if everyone understands how knowledge is constructed thus understands the mechanics of rational thinking the problems caused by different ideas will be far less severe.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by James Markham »

Wayne, I've just read your last post, an I now see where our definitions of knowledge differ, as I think I stated in my original post, the way I define knowledge is by the personal possession of information that is factually correct. Which is why I reserve it as a term to denote the possession of actual truth, you on the other hand seem to be saying that all interpretations of information are knowledge, but that some is correct where as others are not, is this right?
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

James,

Yes, our knowledge or state of mind can be realistic or unrealistic. This is important to recognize because it creates a handle to understand the nature of "unrealistic state of mind" and "why" it occurs. Philosophers have believed that all knowledge is true because they associated knowledge with language and not as a "state of mind". The ramifications of recognizing knowledge as a "state of mind" can not be overstated.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by HexHammer »

Most people doesn't have sufficient cognitive abilities, and therefore can only do parrotspeeches, which leads to disasterous results if they try to think.

Most knowledge seems counterintuitive for the ignorent, and they will often refude knowledge brought to them by people they don't respect.

People lacking cognitive abilities will always sit and ask silly selfexplanatory questions, instead of reading up on their questions, they should know that the information provided to them in philosophy fora, often lacks essential details and with each time they pass from person to person the information value decreases.
Worse is that answers are often pure nonsens filled with supersticion and mislead. So in essentially one can actually get more stupid by believeing in the answers given.

The most tragic thing is that these socalled philosophers never comprehend the truth, because they expect the answer being filled with beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors.
jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by jackles »

hex your spelllin worster than mine mate.
Post Reply