uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
ken wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pmSo, actual 'knowledge' may have nothing at all to do with just a theory?
Epistemology is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to understanding what 'knowledge' means.
So what?
Human beings, have for thousands of years, been dedicating themselves, through "whole branches" of mislabeled "philosophy", to trying to understand what many 'things' mean, without much nor any luck at all if the truth be known, in most if not all circumstances. 'Philosophy' is some thing you have, or do not have. 'Philosophy' is NOT some thing that can be separated into branches and looked at nor studied. A human being either has the love of wisdom, and the want to becoming wiser, or they do not. There is, by the way, only one way to have and maintain that love. Any person who has read even a little of what I have written here in this forum would know what that one way is.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amI presume you mean something like 'justified, true belief', which was rejected by Plato in the Theaetetus and pretty much blown out of the water by the Gettier problem.
You have just ONCE AGAIN presumed WRONG, and very wrongly indeed. Your presumptions are really leading you astray here. Obviously you have not been reading or are not seeing what I have actually been writing. This is a result of presuming, assuming, and/or believing. If you did notice what I have been saying, then you would know what I say about
belief, which is about as far as opposite from what you presume here as could possibly be. I used the words 'actual' and 'knowledge' directly after the response you gave directly to some one else who used those words. I was using the words in the way that I saw them using the words. You, however, overlooked that and instead started presuming some completely other thing, which has obviously led you totally astray.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amken wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pmTheories can always be improved upon...
They frequently are. Einstein, for instance, spent the decade after publication of his special theory of relativity developing general relativity.
And, because that person was relatively far more open than most people, that person would have continued seeing far more and developing far more if that body continued breathing. Even maybe including completely changing the whole perception and theory that they once had previously and developing a whole completely opposing new theory.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amken wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm...whereas
what IS (or actual knowledge) can NOT be improved upon.
Again, why look at theories, instead of just looking at
what IS and therefore
what IS actual knowledge?
Well, ya kinda hit the nail on the head. The problem is, we do not have immediate access to "
what IS".
Are you absolutely sure of that?
Do you KNOW, for sure and forever more, that 'we' do not have immediate access to
what IS?
If you do, then how come you have immediate access to THAT,
what IS?
If, however, you do NOT know, for sure, then WHY write absolute statements, like you just did?
If, as you propose, 'we' do not have immediate access to
what IS, then why do so many people, including you, some times write as though 'you' or 'we' do?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amWhen we look at something, we don't see 'it', we see light reflecting off it. If we listen, we don't hear 'it', we hear the disturbance of air 'its' motion has caused. If we can smell 'it', we are smelling the chemicals 'it' releases; same with taste, should you lick it. As for feel, that's just the surface. Weight is the interaction between 'it' and the planet.
If by 'we' you mean
human beings, then what you wrote here I totally agree with.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amIf you want to claim that 'it' and the phenomena 'it' generates are the same thing, you are a naïve realist.
I do NOT want to claim any thing like that.
I you want to presume I claim that, then that is some thing else.
Would you like to explain what thoughts led to thinking that I would want to claim some thing like that?
To Me, it is so far from the truth that it is a very weird thing for you to start wondering about.
Was there any actual thing that I wrote that led to that sort of conclusion on your part or did those thoughts just appear?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am Generally, it is accepted that the source of the phenomena, is different to the phenomena themselves. What we 'know', as in, without any doubt, is that the phenomena exist.
If you want to take this a step further, then there could still be some doubt as to if the phenomena exists or not.
The only thing 'known', for sure, without any doubt, are the thoughts and emotions that arise within the body. If those thoughts are true, right, and/or correct is another matter, but when we are aware of them, then they are the only thing we 'know' of, without any doubt.
If, however, you do NOT want to take another step and just remain 'knowing', without any doubt, that the phenomena exist, then do NOT let Me try to lead you further along. You are completely free to remain where you are right now.
By the way, when you use the word 'generally' here, what does that actually refer to or mean?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amHow do we know? Because we experience them.
But people experience different things, so how do we 'know', without any doubt, that the 'phenomena' exist? For example, you state that it is generally accepted that the source of phenomena is different to the phenomena itself;
1. Is what is 'generally accepted' absolutely true, right, and correct?
2. Is the source of phenomena ACTUALLY different to the phenomena itself?
3. What IS 'phenomena', itself, and is that
what IS actually true and real, or is the source of phenomena
what IS actually true and real?
4. Is absolutely every thing we experience, see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, absolutely true and real?
5. If not, then how do we 'know', without any doubt, that the phenomena exist?
6. In fact how do we 'know', without any doubt, that we experience some thing?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amHow do we know that our theory about what causes a particular phenomenon is true? We don't.
That was My point, was it not?
If we do NOT know some thing, then WHY make up a theory? Why not just look at
what IS instead? That was what I have been asking clarification of, was it not?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amYour case is that speed makes no difference to the ticking of clocks.
If that is what you see as "My case", then I have actually failed in coming across correctly.
My case is I have not yet seen, understood, how speed could make a difference to the ticking of clocks. I have NOT yet seen any evidence for this, nor can I yet see how speed could affect (or effect) a human made contraption that is made to change at a set rate, relative to light.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amThat it does is as near to actual knowledge as we can get, precisely because when we look at "
what IS" we see that clocks that have been moving relative to each other tell different times.
Is that moving relative to each other and telling different times solely to do with speed (and/or to lesser degree gravity) or could it be because of some thing else (also maybe)?
You come across, to Me anyway, to believe that speed does make a difference to the ticking of clocks. Do you believe speed makes a difference to the ticking of clocks?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amThe fact that they differ by amounts commensurate with the predictions of relativity, implies that relativity is a very good theory.
Or, that they differ by amounts commensurate with the prediction of relativity, COULD imply that some people find and see what they want to find and see. Remember even a human being labeled "jesus" was predicted, and some people found and saw that. The amount of doing that commensurate with the prediction of one being born as "jesus", could also imply that that prediction was a very good one too. If that is what one intends to believe in.
I find it quite humorous just how many times what the one who is loved, admired, followed, and/or being believed in predicts will happen, "actually" then supposedly happens. I am never amazed out how the followers and believers of others, always seem to find and see what the one who is being followed and believed in has said will happen. No matter what it is, if people believe in some thing enough, then they will make it happen.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 amBut if you have a better one, let's hear it.
Are you even remotely or somewhat slightly open to any possibility that a better theory could come, especially from Me?
As usual, truly open and honest answers are much more appreciated.
ken wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pmWhy make up a theory or make up some thing, which may or may not be the truth of things, and try and falsify or prove that, when you could instead just be looking at, seeing, and understanding
what actual IS?
Well, if you are claiming that "
what actual IS" is what you see and understand, you are either some stripe of phenomenologist, or idealist.[/quote]
Well once again I am NOT claiming any thing like what you think here. Your assumptions really do lead you astray. I have already on a number of occasions explained HOW
what actually IS can be seen and understood.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am Fair enough. If on the other hand you insist that clocks do not run at different rates, when they demonstrably do, you are simply an idiot.
You are proving more and more just how closed you really are.
Have I insisted that clocks do not run at different rates, whey they demonstrably do?
Because, to you, clocks demonstrably do run at different rates, is there any possible way that they do not?
Do just words written in a book, supposedly from other's experiences, 'demonstrably' prove always, without doubt, some thing to you?
Or is it only the ones you love, admire, follow, and/or believe in that you accept, without doubt?
Is there any way I could already have a better theory?
Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?