the solution to knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

Step 1) have an accurate view of reality: get rid of all bullshit
Step 2) have a coherent view of reality: all of your understandings must concur
Step 3) have a complete view of reality: gradually fill in the gaps (consilience)
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:49 pm Step 1) have an accurate view of reality: get rid of all bullshit
Step 2) have a coherent view of reality: all of your understandings must concur
Step 3) have a complete view of reality: gradually fill in the gaps (consilience)
However, even the most delusional and insane say that they have these 3 steps, down pat.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'reality' here, exactly?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=484064 time=1607594983 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483893 time=1607528965 user_id=15238]
Step 1) have an accurate view of reality: get rid of all bullshit
Step 2) have a coherent view of reality: all of your understandings must concur
Step 3) have a complete view of reality: gradually fill in the gaps (consilience)
[/quote]

However, even the most delusional and insane say that they have these 3 steps, down pat.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'reality' here, exactly?
[/quote]

Reality is consensus experience. It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker, to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Dimebag »

Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:09 am
Advocate wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:49 pm Step 1) have an accurate view of reality: get rid of all bullshit
Step 2) have a coherent view of reality: all of your understandings must concur
Step 3) have a complete view of reality: gradually fill in the gaps (consilience)
However, even the most delusional and insane say that they have these 3 steps, down pat.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'reality' here, exactly?
Reality is consensus experience. It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker, to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
What happens if this kind of system for knowledge inherently misses certain subjective or spiritual realms? Is it still a good system of knowledge? Or, is a system of knowledge not a complete system for living a life fully?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=484405 time=1607751041 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484098 time=1607611950 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=484064 time=1607594983 user_id=16237]


However, even the most delusional and insane say that they have these 3 steps, down pat.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'reality' here, exactly?
[/quote]

Reality is consensus experience. It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker, to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
[/quote]
What happens if this kind of system for knowledge inherently misses certain subjective or spiritual realms? Is it still a good system of knowledge? Or, is a system of knowledge not a complete system for living a life fully?
[/quote]

That would be step three, filling in the gaps, but step one would eliminate most of those possibilities and step two would put science where most of them want to be. There is only one Truth and when you find it, all else most be compatible versions of it.

Or to address the questions a different way, your particular understanding of the truth can never be exhaustive, only sufficient. Because all higher questions, what i would call spiritual (of the human spirit, not woo), are contingent, full knowledge in the common sense (answers) requires understanding those contingencies while full knowledge in a personal sense (solutions) requires plugging in your particulars to that understanding of contingencies. In other words, it's two categorically different levels of knowledge.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:09 am
Advocate wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:49 pm Step 1) have an accurate view of reality: get rid of all bullshit
Step 2) have a coherent view of reality: all of your understandings must concur
Step 3) have a complete view of reality: gradually fill in the gaps (consilience)
However, even the most delusional and insane say that they have these 3 steps, down pat.

By the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'reality' here, exactly?
Reality is consensus experience.
'Consensus' by 'who', EXACTLY?

'Who' KNOWS if they ALREADY HAVE:
An accurate view?
A coherent view of 'reality' [consented experience]?
A complete view of 'reality' [consented experience]?

Can 'you' SEE the catch-22 here?
Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker,
Is ANY 'one' a 'false seeker'?

Are 'you', "advocate", a 'truth seeker'?

By the way, a 'truth seeker' is only one who has NOT YET found Truth.

So, if 'you' are a 'truth seeker', then if I was 'you' I would be questioning; 'WHY have I still NOT YET FOUND thee Truth?'

Furthermore, Truth is HERE-NOW, 'staring 'you' in the face', as they say. For ALL to SEE. So, REALLY, WHY are 'you' still 'seeking truth'?
Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
Go ahead, SHOW.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:30 am
Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm

Reality is consensus experience. It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker, to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
What happens if this kind of system for knowledge inherently misses certain subjective or spiritual realms? Is it still a good system of knowledge? Or, is a system of knowledge not a complete system for living a life fully?
That would be step three, filling in the gaps,but step one would eliminate most of those possibilities
You CLAIM that 'reality' is consensus experience.

Now, SHOW us that you even have 'step one' (down pat).

SHOW us 'an ACCURATE view of 'reality', consensus experience'.
Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm and step two would put science where most of them want to be. There is only one Truth and when you find it, all else most be compatible versions of it.
SHOW us that you are capable of this.
Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm Or to address the questions a different way, your particular understanding of the truth can never be exhaustive, only sufficient.
'Only sufficient' to 'who', EXACTLY?

If one's particular understanding of the truth can ONLY be 'sufficient' to that 'one', then this is VERY INSUFFICIENT, in regards to YOUR 'solution to knowledge'.

I would suggest to 'you' that THEE One and ONLY understanding of Truth IS ACTUALLY exhaustive, and thus sufficient as well, for and to EVERY 'one'.
Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm Because all higher questions,
How are 'you' defining the claim 'higher questions' here?

And, 'higher' relative to 'what', EXACTLY?

Some examples would be highly appreciated.
Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm what i would call spiritual (of the human spirit, not woo), are contingent, full knowledge in the common sense (answers) requires understanding those contingencies while full knowledge in a personal sense (solutions) requires plugging in your particulars to that understanding of contingencies. In other words, it's two categorically different levels of knowledge.
So, if there are now, allegedly, "two categorically different levels of 'knowledge', then what EXACTLY is 'the solution to knowledge', itself.

If there is supposedly some 'solution' to 'knowledge', itself, then that 'solution' would surely work for ALL of 'knowledge', and not just some knowledge but not other knowledge.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

>>Reality is consensus experience. [/quote]
>Consensus' by 'who', EXACTLY?

Everyone. To the extent things are generally agreed, that's what the word reality generally means.

>Who' KNOWS if they ALREADY HAVE:
An accurate view?
A coherent view of 'reality' [consented experience]?
A complete view of 'reality' [consented experience]?

It's a matter of perspective. Everyone understands some part of reality that they uniquely experienced. A few understand the conjunction of what others believe and how it concurs, or not, with various evidentiary standards.

>Can 'you' SEE the catch-22 here?

Not at all. Reality means to the degree everyone agrees. That doesn't mean everyone agrees. It certainly doesn't mean the majority is right in their interpretation of it but they still act as though gravity is real and they move to avoid the bus. That's reality. Some have a much more real understanding of reality.

>Is ANY 'one' a 'false seeker'?

Yes; those who claim to value Truth but make no serious attempt to understand cognitive biases, logical fallacies, logic, or critical thinking.

>Are 'you', "advocate", a 'truth seeker'?

>By the way, a 'truth seeker' is only one who has NOT YET found Truth.

Yes i am a truth seeker, because that doesn't imply having found every shred of Truth in the universe. There's always more to fill in gaps.

>So, if 'you' are a 'truth seeker', then if I was 'you' I would be questioning; 'WHY have I still NOT YET FOUND thee Truth?'

I have found The Truth, just not all of it. It has both explanatory and predictive power.

>Furthermore, Truth is HERE-NOW, 'staring 'you' in the face', as they say. For ALL to SEE. So, REALLY, WHY are 'you' still 'seeking truth'?

If it's non-woo, it's probably the same story with different words and emphasis.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote:>>Reality is consensus experience.
>Consensus' by 'who', EXACTLY?

Everyone. To the extent things are generally agreed, that's what the word reality generally means.
LOL To EVERY one the word 'reality' supposedly, "generally means", what 'you', "advocate", says it does.

Have you CLARIFIED this, to MAKE SURE that this is true? Or, are you just basing this conclusion on your own already held beliefs and assumptions?

By the way, if people find following discussions with you a bit cumbersome, then this is because you refuse to quote properly.


Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote:>Who' KNOWS if they ALREADY HAVE:
An accurate view?
A coherent view of 'reality' [consented experience]?
A complete view of 'reality' [consented experience]?
It's a matter of perspective. Everyone understands some part of reality that they uniquely experienced. A few understand the conjunction of what others believe and how it concurs, or not, with various evidentiary standards.
If this is a matter of 'perspective', then what you CLAIM the word 'reality' means, obviously, is just your own view, which was obviously based solely upon your own individual and unique past experiences.
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote: >Can 'you' SEE the catch-22 here?
Not at all. Reality means to the degree everyone agrees.
I AGREE with this. BUT, we have to WAIT to find out what EVERY one 'agrees' with, and accepts.
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am That doesn't mean everyone agrees.
But there are SOME 'things', which EVERY one does agree with. And it is through discovering or learning what these 'things' are EXACTLY, which IS what will lead to SOLVING ALL 'problems', which by the way 'knowledge', itself, does NOT NEED SOLVING.
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am It certainly doesn't mean the majority is right in their interpretation of it but they still act as though gravity is real and they move to avoid the bus.
You will say just about ANY thing, which you HOPE will back up and support your ALREADY HELD VIEWS and BELIEFS.
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am That's reality. Some have a much more real understanding of reality.
LOL And you would be 'one' of them, correct?
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote:>Is ANY 'one' a 'false seeker'?
Yes; those who claim to value Truth but make no serious attempt to understand cognitive biases, logical fallacies, logic, or critical thinking.
And here 'you' are "advocate" providing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of being one of those who do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND cognitive biases, logical fallacies, logic, AND critical thinking. This is PROVEN by YOUR actual CLAIMS and responses.

By the way, NONE of what you wrote here means some one is a 'false seeker'.

What you are 'trying to' argue is that if ANY one does NOT 'agree' with you, then they are NOT a 'truth seeker', like you ASSUME and BELIEVE 'you' are.
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote:>Are 'you', "advocate", a 'truth seeker'?
>By the way, a 'truth seeker' is only one who has NOT YET found Truth.

Yes i am a truth seeker, because that doesn't imply having found every shred of Truth in the universe. There's always more to fill in gaps.
Will you provide examples of what Truth you have NOT YET FOUND?

What 'gaps' are there that you are STILL 'trying to' fill in?
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am >So, if 'you' are a 'truth seeker', then if I was 'you' I would be questioning; 'WHY have I still NOT YET FOUND thee Truth?'
I have found The Truth, just not all of it. It has both explanatory and predictive power.[/quote]

If you say so, then it MUST BE "true", to you.

Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM, with ACTUAL PROOF?
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 2:59 am
age wrote:>Furthermore, Truth is HERE-NOW, 'staring 'you' in the face', as they say. For ALL to SEE. So, REALLY, WHY are 'you' still 'seeking truth'?
If it's non-woo, it's probably the same story with different words and emphasis.
What EXACTLY is 'woo', to you?

And what 'story' is that, EXACTLY?
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Dimebag »

Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:29 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:30 am
Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:52 pm Reality is consensus experience. It's not an inherent problem for a truth seeker, to start their search there, despite that common understandings are often wrong, because the wrong ones are often mutually exclusive or incompatible with empirical measurement, which gives intellectual purchase to begin the cull.

Anyone can say they have it down, but some of us can show how coherently.
What happens if this kind of system for knowledge inherently misses certain subjective or spiritual realms? Is it still a good system of knowledge? Or, is a system of knowledge not a complete system for living a life fully?
That would be step three, filling in the gaps, but step one would eliminate most of those possibilities and step two would put science where most of them want to be. There is only one Truth and when you find it, all else most be compatible versions of it.

Or to address the questions a different way, your particular understanding of the truth can never be exhaustive, only sufficient. Because all higher questions, what i would call spiritual (of the human spirit, not woo), are contingent, full knowledge in the common sense (answers) requires understanding those contingencies while full knowledge in a personal sense (solutions) requires plugging in your particulars to that understanding of contingencies. In other words, it's two categorically different levels of knowledge.
What if it turned out that some (not all) of what spirituality was actually about, was completely in the realm of the physical world, yet science had never dared attempt to explain it, or, was insufficient, due to its inability to approach the subjective. Much of spirituality if not all, is centred around the subjective.

Maybe, one day science will get there, and at that stage, there will be a science of spirituality. Sounds oxymoronic, but I see no reason why it couldn’t happen if it could explain consciousness, the self, and subjectivity.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=484589 time=1607857596 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484446 time=1607783358 user_id=15238]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=484405 time=1607751041 user_id=5396]

What happens if this kind of system for knowledge inherently misses certain subjective or spiritual realms? Is it still a good system of knowledge? Or, is a system of knowledge not a complete system for living a life fully?
[/quote]

That would be step three, filling in the gaps, but step one would eliminate most of those possibilities and step two would put science where most of them want to be. There is only one Truth and when you find it, all else most be compatible versions of it.

Or to address the questions a different way, your particular understanding of the truth can never be exhaustive, only sufficient. Because all higher questions, what i would call spiritual (of the human spirit, not woo), are contingent, full knowledge in the common sense (answers) requires understanding those contingencies while full knowledge in a personal sense (solutions) requires plugging in your particulars to that understanding of contingencies. In other words, it's two categorically different levels of knowledge.
[/quote]
What if it turned out that some (not all) of what spirituality was actually about, was completely in the realm of the physical world, yet science had never dared attempt to explain it, or, was insufficient, due to its inability to approach the subjective. Much of spirituality if not all, is centred around the subjective.

Maybe, one day science will get there, and at that stage, there will be a science of spirituality. Sounds oxymoronic, but I see no reason why it couldn’t happen if it could explain consciousness, the self, and subjectivity.
[/quote]

Science is rigor. That means specifically measurement, which in turn means replicability. If woo contentions aren't measurable, they can never be real to science, or to anyone who believes in replicability as an evidentiary criteria. All the claims that such things can be measured dismiss the notion that they must be measured over and over to be real, otherwise they are one-offs or otherwise indistinguishable from fiction.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the solution to knowledge

Post by Advocate »

>>>>Reality is consensus experience.
>LOL To EVERY one the word 'reality' supposedly, "generally means", what 'you', "advocate", says it does.
>Have you CLARIFIED this, to MAKE SURE that this is true? Or, are you just basing this conclusion on your own already held beliefs and assumptions?

It's just how words work. You seem to consistently want absolute proof and certainty, but that doesn't come from ordinary use of language, nor is it necessary for ordinary purposes. When i say "reality", 99% of the world has some Venn overlap with what it means to me that is sufficient for the work we're using the word to do. Expressing how the word works isn't useful in ordinary speech. If we want to debate what the world Ought to mean, that's my contention here. Using it to mean the overlap of ordinary people's ordinary experience is what the word means when you choose the version that does the most useful work. You can choose any definition you want, whether or not it corresponds to average ideas, but it will be inferior.

[quote=age]>Who' KNOWS if they ALREADY HAVE:
An accurate view?
A coherent view of 'reality' [consented experience]?
A complete view of 'reality' [consented experience]?[/quote]

I know, because i understand evidence and don't claim to obtain absolute certainty or exhaustive knowledge. Nevertheless, you're missing the point. You can approach knowledge any way you want and call it anything you want, but unless you come up with a version that does better work than this one, you'd better accept this one.

>If this is a matter of 'perspective', then what you CLAIM the word 'reality' means, obviously, is just your own view, which was obviously based solely upon your own individual and unique past experiences.

My particular perspective better accounts for more of reality and provides more actionable certainty and predictive accuracy than others. That's the contention. There is no such thing as "based solely upon your own..." because everyone incorporates many different ideas from others into their understanding of reality. Nevertheless, to the extent my personal view is relevant, i've seen more of psychology, culture, society, government, law, and life's ills than most people so naturally i understand more about how they fit together regardless of the time i've spent doing so explicitly.

>>Not at all. Reality means to the degree everyone agrees. [/quote]

>I AGREE with this. BUT, we have to WAIT to find out what EVERY one 'agrees' with, and accepts.

If you do that, you've given up on the search for knowledge before you even began.

>But there are SOME 'things', which EVERY one does agree with. And it is through discovering or learning what these 'things' are EXACTLY, which IS what will lead to SOLVING ALL 'problems', which by the way 'knowledge', itself, does NOT NEED SOLVING.

A solution is a bespoke action plan. You have to plug yourself and your particulars into it. If you value getting to The Truth, the OP is an Answer (framework for understanding) within which you can find your personal solution. We don't need to understand anything exactly, we need to understand everything exactly Enough.

>You will say just about ANY thing, which you HOPE will back up and support your ALREADY HELD VIEWS and BELIEFS.

Another way to say that is "You will support your contentions with rational argument." You've inserted emotional connotations that do not apply to me. Nor am i susceptible to faith, as you indicate. Nor is anything about me personally relevant to the OP.

>>That's reality. Some have a much more real understanding of reality.[/quote]
>LOL And you would be 'one' of them, correct?

Yes, as i am explaining right now. But once again, this is nothing to do with me personally, despite your ongoing insistence in focusing the conversation that way. Forget ethos for a moment and concentrate on logos.

>And here 'you' are "advocate" providing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of being one of those who do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND cognitive biases, logical fallacies, logic, AND critical thinking. This is PROVEN by YOUR actual CLAIMS and responses.

STFU. Seriously. You turn every single Fucking post into a deep psychological inquiry of the poster. This is both counterproductive, rude, and quite fucking annoying. The End.
Post Reply