4 kinds of things

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:37 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I cannot show you how you have misunderstood, since I am not a mind reader. If you were to give it your best shot in explaining what you think "Unknown knows" means then I can tell you where you have gone wrong.
One need not read minds to show another how they've misunderstood. I've already explained how the meaning of "unknown knowns" is ill-conceived.
There you go, you are not showing that you have tried to understand what you are denigrating.
You're not very good at this are you?

:roll:

Your claim presupposed that I misunderstand coherency. Justify your claim.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:06 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
One need not read minds to show another how they've misunderstood. I've already explained how the meaning of "unknown knowns" is ill-conceived.
There you go, you are not showing that you have tried to understand what you are denigrating.
You're not very good at this are you?

:roll:

Your claim presupposed that I misunderstand coherency. Justify your claim.
You are really crap at this, My contention is that you have misunderstood what Zizek means by "Unknown knows".
In fact you have demonstrated that clearly. You are resting your case on some sort of childish literalism.

And you know what? You can keep your childish literalism, because you rarely post anything worthwhile and I really don't give a shit if you want to stay ignorant.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:21 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:...My contention is that you have misunderstood what Zizek means by "Unknown knows". In fact you have demonstrated that clearly. You are resting your case on some sort of childish literalism.
Your contention is wrong. I can do both, understand Zizek and reject his accounts. In this instance, he neglects to draw and maintain the meaningful distinction between "known" and "known", and in doing so renders any subsequent use of the notions utterly meaningless.

My case rests upon the law of non-contradiction. My case rests upon developing and maintaining coherency. That which is known is not unknown. That which is unknown is not known. That is, my case rests upon drawing and maintaining the meaningful distinction between what counts as being "known" and what counts as being "unknown". That which is unknown is not known. That which is known is not unknown.

Knowing that we do not know 'X' does not make 'X' known.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:23 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:...My contention is that you have misunderstood what Zizek means by "Unknown knows". In fact you have demonstrated that clearly. You are resting your case on some sort of childish literalism.
Your contention is wrong. I can do both, understand Zizek and reject his accounts. In this instance, he neglects to draw and maintain the meaningful distinction between "known" and "known", and in doing so renders any subsequent use of the notions utterly meaningless.

My case rests upon the law of non-contradiction. My case rests upon developing and maintaining coherency. That which is known is not unknown. That which is unknown is not known. That is, my case rests upon drawing and maintaining the meaningful distinction between what counts as being "known" and what counts as being "unknown". That which is unknown is not known. That which is known is not unknown.

Knowing that we do not know 'X' does not make 'X' known.
You are dull minded.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:33 pm

Our knowing that we do not know 'X' does not make 'X' known.

Do you agree or not?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:05 pm

creativesoul wrote:Our knowing that we do not know 'X' does not make 'X' known.

Do you agree or not?
I agree that you are completely missing the point like a literalist moron: thinking like a dullard.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:19 am

You'll have to do much better than that Hobbes.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by ken » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:46 am

creativesoul wrote:
ken wrote:
...What is this "accurate report" of "matters of fact" actually based on, and where can I get a copy of it from?

I wish I also had the ability and the power to be able to obtain these "accurate reports" of "matters of fact" like some people here profess to be able to obtain.

But at least I am able to come here to obtain "completely accurate facts". Although I do wonder why so many of these "accurate reports" of "matters of fact" actually are inaccuracies and contradictions of other "matters of facts", which are reported here so often.
Do you have an argument?
No. In regards to this most trivial of matter I have no argument. I am here to learn how to express better. I have just asked questions to you in a way so that your responses will show Me how open you are, and from this I gain a certain perspective, from which I learn and find a way(s) to infiltrate the belief system in human beings.
creativesoul wrote:
...the first (the one that you wrote) presupposes that it is not possible to know an unknown. Without stipulating a time frame the first means, what it says, forever more, which is not absolutely true. If you do not stipulate a time frame, then what you said is incorrect, sloppy, and/or misleading talk.
There is no time frame necessary. It's a matter of self-contradiction/coherency. All your talk about 'more' true and 'absolutely' true is prima facie evidence of a gross misunderstanding of truth at work. Something is either known or it is not.
Obviously something is known or it is not, to one individual, but also as obvious is the fact that something can be known to one individual and not known to another individual. This some people might argue is an unknown known..

However, to say "We can not know an unknown" is not correct in that if 'we' means human beings, then we CAN discover and/learn an unknown, thus, to say, We can know an unknown" is (more) correct. Remember it was you who was looking at sloppy and misleading ways to talk.

Further to this, if one person speaks for them self and says that they can not know an unknown, then I would inform them that that is only for certain time period. Therefore, to make it an unsloppy and non-misleading way to talk, a time frame is necessary and thus needs to be stipulated. For example one person might say, "I can not fly a helicopter", to which I would reply, " Yes you CAN, once you learn and know how to (and that is depended upon if you really want to learn how to)."



creativesoul wrote:
...do you realize that what is unknown to you at time T1, can be known to another person at the exact same time T1, and thus it then could be known as a known unknown or an unknown known, depending on what perspective this is being looked at?

Or are you still going to hold onto and maintain your same beliefs?
So, if person A doesn't know 'X' but person B does know 'X', then 'X' is both unknown and known to both A and B?

Nah. Swapping between different folks' knowledge base doesn't cut it...
You seriously misunderstood what I was getting to here. But that is My fault for not yet learning, and thus knowing, how to express better to people.
creativesoul wrote:'X' is unknown to A. 'X' is known to B. What is known is not unknown. What is unknown is not known. It is not an unknown known to A, and it is not a known unknown to B. Rather, it is unknown to A and known to B.
Okay, to you, there could NEVER be an unknown known and a known unknown. How open or not you are was what I was looking for and the exact reason you are this way was also what I was, truthfully, unconsciously looking for. Now that I uncovered more of why you are the way you are has been very helpful. Thank you very much for your honest responses. This will help Me greatly in the future. Thanks again.

creativesoul wrote:creativesoul wrote:
Our knowing that you do not know 'X' does not make 'X' known to you or unknown to me.
ken replied;
Can you explain why you said this?

Why did you just not answer the question?

Obviously what you said is true, but that has nothing to do with my question here.

If X is known to you but X is not known to Me, then could X in regards to you be an unknown known from my perspective, (in other words I do NOT know what you know), and, could X in regards to Me be an known unknown from your perspective (in other words again what is known to you is unknown to Me)?
I did answer the question. Perhaps this will help...
I forget the question, in question here, but I think we might find you did not answer the actual question asked.
creativesoul wrote:If 'X' is not known to you then it is unknown(to you). If 'X' is known to me then it is not unknown(to me). You're conflating one person's knowledge with another's when you talk about 'X' being a known unknown from my perspective or 'X' being an unknown known from your persepctive. That's wrong. 'X' is not unknown from my perspective, and it is not known from yours. Thus, it makes no sense to say that 'X'' is an unknown known from your perspective. That is to conflate two different people's knowledge bases and talk about them as if they were one.
Are you saying that there is not a shared knowledge base amongst people?

Maybe this is why you have your view on objective and subjective viewpoints?

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:03 am

ken wrote: I am here to learn how to express better.
A worthwhile aim, so long as what counts as "better" is accompanied by good will.

...obvious is the fact that something can be known to one individual and not known to another individual. This some people might argue is an unknown known.
Indeed, some may argue that. However, in doing so they would be conflating two different people's thought/belief systems. I've already explained how that is and would be the case with those types of arguments. It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you. With regard to my knowledge base, 'X' is known(not unknown). With regard to yours, 'X' is unknown(not known).

Sure, it is trivially true that we all know something that other folks do not. What you're doing with that line of thought is changing targets. It is to change the focus from that which is unknown to everybody(as best as we can tell) to that which is unknown to someone or other. There is nothing unknown that is known by anyone. Only things that are known are the kinds of things that can be sensibly said to be known by one but not another. The caveat here is that this sheds a bit of light upon the notion of calling something "unknown" simply because it is not known to someone or another. Unknown to one does not necessarily mean unknown to anyone.

Follow me?

However, to say "We can not know an unknown" is not correct in that if 'we' means human beings, then we CAN discover and/learn an unknown, thus, to say, We can know an unknown" is (more) correct. Remember it was you who was looking at sloppy and misleading ways to talk.
Indeed. Guilty as charged. I abhor unnecessarily confused ways to talk.

We can sometimes come to know what was once unknown. That is a less confusing explanation than "we can know an unknown". Once it becomes known, it is no longer unknown.

Further to this, if one person speaks for them self and says that they can not know an unknown, then I would inform them that that is only for certain time period. Therefore, to make it an unsloppy and non-misleading way to talk, a time frame is necessary and thus needs to be stipulated. For example one person might say, "I can not fly a helicopter", to which I would reply, " Yes you CAN, once you learn and know how to (and that is depended upon if you really want to learn how to)."
Well, I cannot fly a helicopter. That statement is about the time it is said. You'd be wrong to answer like that, for I wasn't talking about the possibility of learning to fly one later, and you do not have justification for telling another person that they can learn to fly a helicopter if they really wanted to. There are any number of reasons that one may not ever be able to learn to fly one. The main point here is that the speaker is talking about the present situation. What they say about the present situation is true(assuming sincerity in speech), and yet you contradict that true statement.



Are you saying that there is not a shared knowledge base amongst people?
How on earth did you arrive at that?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by ken » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:35 pm

creativesoul wrote:
ken wrote: I am here to learn how to express better.
A worthwhile aim, so long as what counts as "better" is accompanied by good will.
In My view it only could accompanied by good will, and good will to Me could only be for everyone, equally.

creativesoul wrote:
...obvious is the fact that something can be known to one individual and not known to another individual. This some people might argue is an unknown known.
Indeed, some may argue that. However, in doing so they would be conflating two different people's thought/belief systems. I've already explained how that is and would be the case with those types of arguments. It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you. With regard to my knowledge base, 'X' is known(not unknown). With regard to yours, 'X' is unknown(not known).
But, to some people, they would call the 'X', which is known to you, an "unknown known", because from their perspective it is. I am not saying what 'X' is, or is not, I am just saying what some people would do.

An "Unknown known" or a "known unknown" is just a term given to something that may or may not exist. Some argue that it exists, others argue that it does not exist. This is similar to what happens when discussing God. People will argue for what that they believe. Whether 'it' exists or not will depend solely on the agreed definition of 'it', and whether a sound, valid argument is then made or not. Only a universal agreement and accepted definition and a sound, valid argument, which obviously could not be disputed, will provide the answer.

By the way, you wrote, "It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you", why do you continue to think I was writing anything that would lead to that outcome? Does it say anything like that in my writings? I certainly hope not.


creativesoul wrote:Sure, it is trivially true that we all know something that other folks do not. What you're doing with that line of thought is changing targets. It is to change the focus from that which is unknown to everybody(as best as we can tell) to that which is unknown to someone or other.
But I was never changing the focus, thus nor changing targets. I was just showing another way of looking at this. If that way was not the same as your focus nor the same as your target, then that was the actual purpose I was showing/expressing it.
creativesoul wrote: There is nothing unknown that is known by anyone.
By 'unknown' here do you mean unknown to everyone? If so, then do you mean here that there is nothing unknown by every person that is known by any one person?

If so, then that is obvious. That is why I said previously I understand what you are saying.

Only things that are known are the kinds of things that can be sensibly said to be known by one but not another.

Again obviously. If we are going to look at this, and anything else here in this forum absolutely literally, then that is great. I also dislike sloppy and/or misleading ways of talking/writing, especially, and probably only, in philosophical discussions, but if you want to argue for there being no unknown knowns and no known unknowns, then you will have to stipulate that more preciously then just saying there is none. I think there has been at least three examples given to you by different people of how they can exist.
creativesoul wrote:The caveat here is that this sheds a bit of light upon the notion of calling something "unknown" simply because it is not known to someone or another. Unknown to one does not necessarily mean unknown to anyone.

Follow me?
Not really. What do you mean by 'anyone' here? Do you mean 'everyone'?

I think you have come to realize that I have been questioning you about whether you could understand that what is unknown to some person/people can be known to others, but now I am thinking you are saying here that that is not what you were arguing for nor arguing about. What you were/are saying is that the term 'unknown' is in reference to absolutely every person. Am I following you now?

What I want to express and will argue, one day, is that the knowledge of right and wrong (morally), although unknown in "today's terms", is a commonly shared knowledge base that actually is already unconsciously known, instinctively, by everyone. This now unconsciously known knowledge can be realized, and how that actually occurs is part of what I am wanting to express better. The people's of "today" may say that that knowledge is unknown and/or unknowable by anyone, but I will argue that it may well be known by one person, at the moment.

I think this knowledge, which was consciously unknown by everyone, and thus was unconsciously known by everyone, will be(come) consciously known by everyone, when one becomes aware of it, and then learns how to express this idea and knowledge better.

Obviously what is unknown to, and by, everyone then that is unknown, which I think you would totally agree with. But what is unknown knowledge by most, and which is known to some or may be just one, could be known as an unknown known to some, but which I think you would never agree to call it that. Although you could agree that some people do call what is unknown to some but known to another an unknown known, am I right?

creativesoul wrote:
However, to say "We can not know an unknown" is not correct in that if 'we' means human beings, then we CAN discover and/learn an unknown, thus, to say, We can know an unknown" is (more) correct. Remember it was you who was looking at sloppy and misleading ways to talk.
Indeed. Guilty as charged. I abhor unnecessarily confused ways to talk.
We can sometimes come to know what was once unknown. That is a less confusing explanation than "we can know an unknown". Once it becomes known, it is no longer unknown.

The last sentence is obvious. But, if we are talking about sloppy writing, then the word 'sometimes' in the first sentence could be challenged and questioned.

Further to this, if one person speaks for them self and says that they can not know an unknown, then I would inform them that that is only for certain time period. Therefore, to make it an unsloppy and non-misleading way to talk, a time frame is necessary and thus needs to be stipulated. For example one person might say, "I can not fly a helicopter", to which I would reply, " Yes you CAN, once you learn and know how to (and that is depended upon if you really want to learn how to)."
creativesoul wrote:Well, I cannot fly a helicopter. That statement is about the time it is said. You'd be wrong to answer like that, for I wasn't talking about the possibility of learning to fly one later, and you do not have justification for telling another person that they can learn to fly a helicopter if they really wanted to.
I think I would have less of a justification to say that they can not. If you were not talking about the possibility to fly a helicopter, then I think you would need to stipulate that, especially if we are looking at sloppy and/or misleading ways of talking, and especially more so if you wanted Me to know that.

Also, if a person really wanted to do something, then who am I to say that they can not?
creativesoul wrote:There are any number of reasons that one may not ever be able to learn to fly one.
Will you provide some of those reasons?
creativesoul wrote: The main point here is that the speaker is talking about the present situation. What they say about the present situation is true(assuming sincerity in speech), and yet you contradict that true statement.
How do I contradict that "true" statement? There has not, until just now, been any talk about 'present situation'. In fact it was you who previously said, "There is no time frame necessary." regarding this very same issue when I pointed it out to you before. You do realize that the present situation is fleeting so to say "we can not do something" only holds true for a very short period of time.

If I said to you, "We can not fly and land a person on mars", is that a true or untrue statement?

In other words how long does a 'present situation' last for when discussing what we can and can not do?



creativesoul wrote:
Are you saying that there is not a shared knowledge base amongst people?
How on earth did you arrive at that?
I arrived at that because you wrote, "That is to conflate two different people's knowledge bases and talk about them as if they were one." I was just asking you if two or more people's knowledge bases could be combined together to make one common-shared knowledge base, which actually held more truth, that was all.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:12 am

ken wrote:

...obvious is the fact that something can be known to one individual and not known to another individual. This some people might argue is an unknown known.
creative replied:

Indeed, some may argue that. However, in doing so they would be conflating two different people's thought/belief systems. I've already explained how that is and would be the case with those types of arguments. It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you. With regard to my knowledge base, 'X' is known(not unknown). With regard to yours, 'X' is unknown(not known).
ken replied:

But, to some people, they would call the 'X', which is known to you, an "unknown known", because from their perspective it is.
Well they would most certainly be talking nonsense and blatantly stating a falsehood, because from their perspective it is unknown.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:35 am

ken:

People will argue for what that they believe.
No one believes both, that they know 'X' and that they do not.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by ken » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:12 am

creativesoul wrote:
ken:

People will argue for what that they believe.
No one believes both, that they know 'X' and that they do not.
You are stuck in something that I am NOT even saying. I have NOT said what you believe I have said.

What I have said is that within the Universe there exists a 'X', as you suggested. 'X' is known to you and not known to Me for example. I have already stated that 'X' is not yet known to Me. But, to another person the objective 'X' that is in the Universe could be known as an unknown known as well as a known unknown, depending on who's perspectice we are referring 'X' to and from.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:37 am

That wasn't about you. Do you agree with the statement or not? If so, then no problem. If not, then that rejoinder won't do.

You need to address the post above the one that you just replied to...

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: 4 kinds of things

Post by ken » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:55 am

creativesoul wrote:That wasn't about you. Do you agree with the statement or not? If so, then no problem. If not, then that rejoinder won't do.

You need to address the post above the one that you just replied to...
You were the one who put my name in the quote. Although I did not recall writing what you quoted me to have written, I could not be bothered searching back for it. Plus it sort of related to My previous qoute anyway, so I just picked that one, hoping it would clear up the confusion, which it should have now. Anyway, My reply works for My previous quote as well.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests