When Does Believing Become Knowing?

[Philosophy Now]

Valerie Mackenzie pins down the difference with some examples.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/6/When_Does_Believing_Become_Knowing

[jayjacobus]

I had an experience once. Call it a spiritual experience or call it a cerebral anomaly but it was an actual experience. At the time I thought I knew where it came from but as time passed and the experience had no practical use I came to question the source. I had a strong belief initially but now have a half hearted belief in a source. Still I can't be sure and belief is neither not there or slightly there.

My point? Spiritual (cerebral) experiences can lead to some kind of knowing. You cannot dismiss that.

[jayjacobus]

Reading the article brought another thought to mind. I am a skeptic about life after death yet I had a dream about life after death once. It was symbolic but my interpretation was life after death. I am still skeptical but I have a slight thought that my skepticism is actually unfounded.

I don't know what I don't know.

[Serendipper]

Valerie Mackenzie pins down the difference with some examples.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/6/When ... me_Knowing

I think she means "suspecting" instead of "believing". Believing is knowing, but without absolute proof. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/believe

Inspector Collins was convinced Billy had done the garage job.
Suspected.

Sandy believed Peter was having an affair.
Suspected.

Marion believed herself to be pregnant.
Suspected.

I have a choice of whether or not I believe there is a God.
No you don't. One doesn't even have a choice if they suspect there is a God. One cannot, by power of will, decide to suspect there is a Santa Claus, nevermind actually believing it.

So if the question is: When does suspicion become knowledge? Then the answer is: Upon confirmation.

[Eodnhoj7]

I had an experience once. Call it a spiritual experience or call it a cerebral anomaly but it was an actual experience. At the time I thought I knew where it came from but as time passed and the experience had no practical use I came to question the source. I had a strong belief initially but now have a half hearted belief in a source. Still I can't be sure and belief is neither not there or slightly there.

My point? Spiritual (cerebral) experiences can lead to some kind of knowing. You cannot dismiss that.

And what was the "experience" (ie its structure, form, nature that you percieved)? A perception is a perception, it does not necessitate a strict degree of "truth" or "falsity" if observed as strictly a phenomena in itself.

[jayjacobus]

I had an experience once. Call it a spiritual experience or call it a cerebral anomaly but it was an actual experience. At the time I thought I knew where it came from but as time passed and the experience had no practical use I came to question the source. I had a strong belief initially but now have a half hearted belief in a source. Still I can't be sure and belief is neither not there or slightly there.

My point? Spiritual (cerebral) experiences can lead to some kind of knowing. You cannot dismiss that.

And what was the "experience" (ie its structure, form, nature that you percieved)? A perception is a perception, it does not necessitate a strict degree of "truth" or "falsity" if observed as strictly a phenomena in itself.

The experience was for me. If you want an experience, have one but leave my experience alone.

[jayjacobus]

Intuition is knowing something without reasoning or proof.
Subtuition is knowing something without mental concentration or attention

[uwot]

It all depends on how you define knowledge. One way is to take Descartes' sceptical approach and insist that to 'know' is to assert a proposition that cannot be doubted. By following his 'method', you accept that you cannot 'know' the cause of your experiences. It is logically possible that you are hallucinating, being deceived by an evil demon, a brain in a vat, wired into a matrix, a piece of sentient cheese in Father Christmas' armpit, or any number of hypotheses you care to invent. The only thing you know is that there is whatever experience you are having right now.

[jayjacobus]

It all depends on how you define knowledge. One way is to take Descartes' sceptical approach and insist that to 'know' is to assert a proposition that cannot be doubted. By following his 'method', you accept that you cannot 'know' the cause of your experiences. It is logically possible that you are hallucinating, being deceived by an evil demon, a brain in a vat, wired into a matrix, a piece of sentient cheese in Father Christmas' armpit, or any number of hypotheses you care to invent. The only thing you know is that there is whatever experience you are having right now.

I suppose your possibilities can be true but there is no evidence whatsoever that any one can be true. So you can't know they are true. At least you can't be convincing.

[uwot]

I suppose your possibilities can be true but there is no evidence whatsoever that any one can be true. So you can't know they are true. At least you can't be convincing.

I'm not really trying to be. The point is that any one of those possibilities could be true, because it is impossible to prove that they're not. On the other hand, the proposition 'I am not experiencing the experiences I am currently experiencing' is a logical nonsense. You can doubt the reason for your experiences, but you cannot doubt that you are having them.

[jayjacobus]

I suppose your possibilities can be true but there is no evidence whatsoever that any one can be true. So you can't know they are true. At least you can't be convincing.

I'm not really trying to be. The point is that any one of those possibilities could be true, because it is impossible to prove that they're not. On the other hand, the proposition 'I am not experiencing the experiences I am currently experiencing' is a logical nonsense. You can doubt the reason for your experiences, but you cannot doubt that you are having them.

All my life people behaved as if they were real. Some even said they were real. Now some philosopher comes along and says perhaps the world is not real. But his argument is not based on proof but instead it is based on imagination. Since his proof is missing I will go with the intuitively obvious and challenge him to prove I am wrong.

[uwot]

All my life people behaved as if they were real. Some even said they were real. Now some philosopher comes along and says perhaps the world is not real. But his argument is not based on proof but instead it is based on imagination. Since his proof is missing I will go with the intuitively obvious and challenge him to prove I am wrong.

Sounds like a good plan. I'm not claiming that any of those possibilities is true and wouldn't bother trying to persuade you. The point of this thread is 'how do you know?' Well, you know that you have experiences, but as long as it is possible that you are dreaming, hallucinating or any other possibility, you don't know that you're not.

[jayjacobus]

All my life people behaved as if they were real. Some even said they were real. Now some philosopher comes along and says perhaps the world is not real. But his argument is not based on proof but instead it is based on imagination. Since his proof is missing I will go with the intuitively obvious and challenge him to prove I am wrong.

Sounds like a good plan. I'm not claiming that any of those possibilities is true and wouldn't bother trying to persuade you. The point of this thread is 'how do you know?' Well, you know that you have experiences, but as long as it is possible that you are dreaming, hallucinating or any other possibility, you don't know that you're not.

You don't know that you are not because you are over thinking things. I am not.

[uwot]

You don't know that you are not because you are over thinking things. I am not.

Welcome to philosophy. Without an understanding of the limits of knowledge, how do you know you are not under thinking things?

[jayjacobus]

You don't know that you are not because you are over thinking things. I am not.

Welcome to philosophy. Without an understanding of the limits of knowledge, how do you know you are not under thinking things?

You can't be my barometer because you way out there.