Subjective Deduction Part 3

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Subjective Deduction Part 3

Post by wirius » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:54 pm

I divided the parts of the knowledge theory into more managable bits.

Part 3 in Google Doc format: Length 4 pages ... sp=sharing

Part 1 forum analysis pointed out my first part is very similar to Locke. My analysis and remarks on this are on page 3 of part 1. The link to "Part 1's post is here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19202&p=258008#p258008

Part 2 here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19283

This is a summary so you can get a general idea of what to expect. This is NOT the google doc. If you do not read the google doc, you will not understand anything.

Part 1: Link if you need a refresh ... sp=sharing
1. Beliefs are inductions. Knowledge is a rational analysis of beliefs to determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Justification for a belief cannot be inductive. If a belief is inductive, and justification is inductive, then a belief that is not rationally ascertained is used to argue for another belief that is not rationally ascertained.
3. Conclusion: A theory of knowledge which uses deductive Justification should be a rational argument for one's beliefs not being contradicted by reality.

4. I must demonstrate deductive justification is possible.
5. Descartes Cogito comes close, but misses the mark.
6. Taking my own Descartes like turn, I discover "I discretely experience" is deductively justified.
7. Conclusion: An awareness of a discrete experience I call, cognitive knowledge.

Part 2
8. How do I take cognitive knowledge and apply it to reality without contradiction? I know the identity of what I call a sheep, how do I know "that thing" is a sheep?
9. There are two types of knowledge. There is cognitive knowledge, or the ability to create discrete experiences. The second is applicable knowledge, or an attempt to match one's cognitive knowledge to reality without contradiction. Cognitve=image of what I call a sheep Applicable=that thing over there matches my Cognitive sheep with deductive justification.
10.Conclusion: If my observations match to the properties in my identity which I have defined as essential, and my observation can match to no other non-synonymous identities, I applicably know my identity matches reality without contradiction through deductive justification.

Part 3
11. How do different people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
12. People must first agree on a cognitive context, such as definitions, and an applicable context such as senses or measurement used.
13. Conclusion: Once the contexts are established, the same deductive process is used to applicably know things as a group.

Part 4-End
14. Not everything can be deduced, is there a way to use the understanding of deductive justification to establish a cogent method of induction?
15. I demonstrate a hierarchy of induction based on its distinct level of separation from deductively justified cognitive and applicable knowledge.
16. Conclusion: The hierarchy can be used as a rational dismissal of "counter arguments" from a lower level of the hierarchy. This solves the brain in a vat argument.

I will wait a few days to release a forum post about part 4 to avoid forum spam.

Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 3

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:17 pm

To get a little discussion going, this part solves the epistemlogical thought problem of "Theseus ship".

To those that don't know, the problem goes like this. A man name Theseus buys a brand new ship. Over the course of his sailing years, the ship's parts slowly break or rot and are replaced with new parts. Eventually, the ship contains no original parts anymore. Is the ship still Theseus' ship?

The problem is not a problem of applicable knowledge, but a decision on what the cognitive context should be. In the context of a societies laws, they may decide what qualifies as ownership of an object. If they decided the ship's identity went down to its component parts, then Theseus' ship would no longer be his ship after the first part replacement. A society could go even further and state identity changes upon the first atomic change. Such cognitive contexts however aren't useful to society and virtually destroy the concept of ownership.

Going further with Theseus' ship, let us imagine that someone has collected all of the old original parts of Theseus' ship that Theseus has thrown away over the years. This garbage collector then reconstructs Theseus' original ship, broken and rotted that it is. Which ship is Theseus' ship? Again, its a question of cognitive context, which society can decide any way it likes. There could be a society which decides the rebuilt ship is actually Theseus' as well, and claim that both ships are his. Or one ship is his. Whatever the society desires, as long as they apply that context consistently, that is how they define the identity.

The question then becomes a MORAL question of knowledge. How SHOULD we define Theseus's ship? Argueably, that requires a rationally deduced morality. Maybe I'll post my work on that down the road. As an inductive proposal, I would state that how the society defines the ship's identity should be to the greatest benefit of the society as a whole. As to what that is, I'm not here to argue that.

Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 3

Post by wirius » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:31 pm

One of my favorite parts about this section is it allows me to both cognitively and applicably understand math. Math truly is the logic of discrete experience, yet it must be applied to reality before it is applicably known. Thus the theory allows me to know math apart from the apriori argument. I've always disliked the apriori argument which always has been at its core an admittance that we can't say how we know something, but we all just accept it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest