Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. To argue through pure doubt alone results in something which cannot be doubted.

2. This absence of doubt is acceptance, doubt is rejection.

3. To argue through pure rejection alone results in something which cannot be rejected.

4. Acceptance is that which aligns within a filter of knowledge, rejection is that which does not align within a filter of knowledge.

5. The filter is accepted without doubt, what is not accepted is the knowledge which does not align with that filter.

6. That which cannot be doubted acts as a filter and it filters further knowledge which may in turn act as a further filter.

7. Knowledge is that which aligns with further knowledge, it is the filter which filters further filters.

8. This cannot be doubted as to doubt it would be to use this same argument, as knowledge, as a filter.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:50 am 1. To argue through pure doubt alone results in something which cannot be doubted.
Why?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:50 am 1. To argue through pure doubt alone results in something which cannot be doubted.
Why?
Because to continual doubt is to result in a regress resulting in the form of a line. This form cannot be doubt as it is accepted as is. To doubt the line results in further linear regress only proving the line to exist. This form, which underlies all of reasoning, acts as a filter in the respect is seperates some things from another.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:47 pm Because to continual doubt is to result in a regress resulting in the form of a line. This form cannot be doubt as it is accepted as is. To doubt the line results in further linear regress only proving the line to exist. This form, which underlies all of reasoning, acts as a filter in the respect is seperates some things from another.
Are you sure that it has the form of a line? Why should I accept it as is? You can think that now I am doing a linear regress, but this is just your opinion, not mine. I don’t think at all that the line exists: for me it is just your way of thinking. If you decide that your way of thinking is out of doubt, this doesn’t make it objectively out of doubt: it is just your decision not to exit from your perspective. When somebody makes this decision, it is really impossibile to doubt about it, simply because that person decides not to consider the doubt. I don’t keep myself closed in my perspective of doubting, because I doubt about it: I am not sure at all that now I am doubting and even the statement “I am not sure” is only apparently a certain statement because it forced by the structures if the language; so, I would like everybody do consider my words not as statements, but just as instintive expressions of a feeling, I am not sure at all what they are, if they exist, and I am not sure that I am not sure.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 4:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:47 pm Because to continual doubt is to result in a regress resulting in the form of a line. This form cannot be doubt as it is accepted as is. To doubt the line results in further linear regress only proving the line to exist. This form, which underlies all of reasoning, acts as a filter in the respect is seperates some things from another.
Are you sure that it has the form of a line? Why should I accept it as is? You can think that now I am doing a linear regress, but this is just your opinion, not mine. I don’t think at all that the line exists: for me it is just your way of thinking. If you decide that your way of thinking is out of doubt, this doesn’t make it objectively out of doubt: it is just your decision not to exit from your perspective. When somebody makes this decision, it is really impossibile to doubt about it, simply because that person decides not to consider the doubt. I don’t keep myself closed in my perspective of doubting, because I doubt about it: I am not sure at all that now I am doubting and even the statement “I am not sure” is only apparently a certain statement because it forced by the structures if the language; so, I would like everybody do consider my words not as statements, but just as instintive expressions of a feeling, I am not sure at all what they are, if they exist, and I am not sure that I am not sure.
1. The regress of one phenomenon to another, where one doubt leads to another doubt then another (with each doubt being the division of phenomena into core parts), is linear as it takes a form of regression. This regression is inseperable from the line given this regression goes from point A to point B to point C. One cannot negate the line without first observing its existence much in the same manner nothing else can be negated without first observing its existence.

2. The paradox of doubting everything is that it leaves one without doubt that they are doubting. Under a complete skepticism it is without doubt everything is doubted. However under this same complete skepticism where even doubt is doubted we are left with a paradox where not all is doubted. In continually doubting we are left with a pinpoint perspective that there are some things which cannot be doubted given complete doubt leaves us without doubt.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Angelo Cannata »

This means assuming that what is logic is real and what is not logic is not real. In other words, you assume that reality obeys to human logic, while, actually, what happens is the opposite: we observe reality and try to build this mental isntrument, that we call “logic”, to understand it, because our brain is too limited, and without instruments like logic, language, reasoning, it would just feel confused, overwelmed by the complexity, richness and inconsistency of what we call “reality”, but actually we don’t know what it is.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by RCSaunders »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:16 pm This means assuming that what is logic is real and what is not logic is not real. In other words, you assume that reality obeys to human logic, while, actually, what happens is the opposite: we observe reality and try to build this mental isntrument, that we call “logic”, to understand it, because our brain is too limited, and without instruments like logic, language, reasoning, it would just feel confused, overwelmed by the complexity, richness and inconsistency of what we call “reality”, but actually we don’t know what it is.
Exactly what do you refer to when you use the word, "reality?" What is it that you cannot, "actually know?"
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Angelo Cannata »

When I use the word “reality”, I refer to the human illusion of being able to think of a world external and independent from our mind. It is an illusion, because it is based on ignoring the dependence of this idea from our brain.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:16 pm This means assuming that what is logic is real and what is not logic is not real. In other words, you assume that reality obeys to human logic, while, actually, what happens is the opposite: we observe reality and try to build this mental isntrument, that we call “logic”, to understand it, because our brain is too limited, and without instruments like logic, language, reasoning, it would just feel confused, overwelmed by the complexity, richness and inconsistency of what we call “reality”, but actually we don’t know what it is.
1. Complexity necessitates a pattern.

2. Richness is the overlay of one pattern within another.

3. Inconsistency is the opposition of patterns.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Doubting and Knowledge as a Filter

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:42 pm When I use the word “reality”, I refer to the human illusion of being able to think of a world external and independent from our mind. It is an illusion, because it is based on ignoring the dependence of this idea from our brain.

The very fact that one observation changes into another necessitates a reality existing independent of the human mind given the inversion of what is not known to what is known further necessitates a reality beyond human observation which accounts for the change of human observation. Change in human observation is the not known becoming the known.
Post Reply