I know p

[Logik]

Who cares?!
I don't need to define knowledge in mathematical terms to know pain whenever I experience pain.
EB

But you need to define "knowledge" somehow so that it doesn't lead to circularity.

And you don't know how...


knowledge

facts, information, and skills acquired through experience...

facts

a thing that is known or proved to be true

information

facts provided or learned about something or someone.

Knowledge is defined in terms of facts.
Facts are defined in terms of knowledge.
Information is defined in terms of fact.

You are trapped like a rat in a cage Language is a prison for your mind.

Aristotelian fool.

[Speakpigeon]

Assuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?

The illusion is one's subjective reality. And thus, to....

???
Does that means you know it or not?

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

...the "scientific evidence"
Science is a collective agreement of a subjective set of people agreeing also to a strict method of what qualifies as officially shared interpretations of shared observations. "Objectivity" is not a relevant factor directly to one's internal perception of sensations. If one happens to have a sincere subjective experience of something uniquely unshareable simultaneously, this still doesn't disqualify the sensation of the person experiencing it. It is just not able to be 'confirmed'. Should one accuse that person of not having those sensations, then while this may be the popular conclusion among people, the numbers of those not experiencing can't literally vote on what that person claims they sensed is or is not real and expect it to represent what is 'scientifically' valid about reality. In fact it would be counter to it.

[Imagine there are only two people. If one senses something the other doesn't, does the fact that the other person's lack of ability to share in that experience sufficiently qualify them as to what is or is not 'sensed' by that person? Now multiply that to any number of people. It makes no difference.]

I broadly agree with that but I fail to see the connection with my elephant.
You started by asserting that pain is an illusion and now you seem to say that subjective experience is a reality onto itself. How could you reconcile these two ideas?!
You also would need to learn to make a clear, short point rather than go into long explanations that may be interesting in themselves but may also be largely irrelevant.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I don't need to define knowledge in mathematical terms to know pain whenever I experience pain.

But you need to define "knowledge" somehow so that it doesn't lead to circularity.

???
Whoa. Why would I need to define "knowledge"?
The idea that I would need to define knowledge is as idiotic and insane as the idea that I would need to define reality in order to exist at all.
You're completely insane.
Recognising this is the first step to healing.
You should try to come out of this conceptual hole you've dug for yourself.
EB

[Logik]

Whoa. Why would I need to define "knowledge"?

For the same reason that we need to define all of our concepts? So that two people attempting to communicate can make sure we are both reasoning with similar concepts?

To avoid misunderstandings where your may be an epistemic foundationalist, whereas I am an epistemic coherentist and so our conceptions of "knowledge" lead to us talking right past each other.

The idea that I would need to define knowledge is as idiotic and insane as the idea that I would need to define reality in order to exist at all.
You're completely insane.

So you pre-suppose knowledge. Like every dogmatist.

Here's a conundrum for you. If you have to experience something at least once before you can recognize it.
Why do you think you can recognise knowledge?

Recognising this is the first step to healing.
You should try to come out of this conceptual hole you've dug for yourself.

First step to healing is recognising that you are ill. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome then epistemic foundationalists (e.g all Aristotelians) are most definitely insane. They keep tripping over dogma!

I am out of the hole. I am trying to pull you out

[Scott Mayers]

Assuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?

The illusion is one's subjective reality. And thus, to....

???
Does that means you know it or not?

It depends on your definition of "know", and "illusion".

If by this you are asking, "Do I (recognize reflexively) (what I sense is something not-real)?", no.

I may also know (==recognize reflexively) that others simultaneously appear to assert they cannot sense my claim of what I sense in their presence, and infer that relative to them, I am sensing (what I sense is something not-real) to them.

And further, if I trust their judgment, perhaps because I also had a reversed scenario of someone else claiming something real to something that is not-real to my own personal capacity to sense, then I can induce that the concept of "illusion" is a useful description of that relative disagreement of experience.

The word "illusion" relatively describes something others have of an experience that is not shared but insisted upon as real to them.

My physical description above that describes the phenomena of sensation suitably as an "illusion" in that what I sense is itself, not in and of itself, capable of being shared with certainty by others. So the term "illusion" to describe this has no meaning with exception to our use of it to express that which is inferred as sensed by others from outside and induced to be the same of oneself.

Epistemologically, knowing is sensing. The utility of using the word, "illusion" to describe what we sense is a means to convey the reflexive observation of others we sense who claim to "know" like ourselves. Then the word "knowing" is thus also a reflexive way to acknowledge our shared capacity discretely hidden from each other. So more expressively, "Knowing" is the act of "expressing and confirming each other's shared but exclusively hidden sensations". The sensation is described as "illusive" because it "alludes" our own capacity to acknowledge the sensation and yet "eludes" the capacity to control it.

Edit: And thus, I thought it relevant to address the physical factor of our consciousness that helps explain the reflexive concept of 'sensing', where the concept, pain, is a subset of sensing.

And, thus, you might better say instead of "I know pain when I am in pain" is "I feedback acknowledgement of pain, as a distinct sensation, when I am suffering it."

[Speakpigeon]

Whoa. Why would I need to define "knowledge"?

For the same reason that we need to define all of our concepts? So that two people attempting to communicate can make sure we are both reasoning with similar concepts?

Sure, for complex concepts, you need to do that. Things like democracy, science and religion. Not for the basic ones like knowledge, just like you don't need to prove you exist in order to exist.
Knowledge is fundamental and cannot be defined. You know it when you know it, and if not, well, too bad, maybe it means you're dead.
These are very, very, very basic truth. I would worry if I were you not to know them by myself.

To avoid misunderstandings where your may be an epistemic foundationalist, whereas I am an epistemic coherentist and so our conceptions of "knowledge" lead to us talking right past each other.

Sure, who cares?
If you don't know what knowledge is, then you're insane and you'll never know. And there's nothing I can do for you.

The idea that I would need to define knowledge is as idiotic and insane as the idea that I would need to define reality in order to exist at all.
You're completely insane.

So you pre-suppose knowledge. Like every dogmatist.

???
You pre-suppose no knowledge...
See?
You're a real idiot.

Here's a conundrum for you. If you have to experience something at least once before you can recognize it.
Why do you think you can recognise knowledge?

Conundrum? Whoa.
Because I experienced it once before, without possibly recognising it.
That you should think it was a "conundrum" shows you're an idiot.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

The illusion is one's subjective reality. And thus, to....

???
Does that means you know it or not?

It depends on your definition of "know", and "illusion". And further, if I trust their judgment, perhaps because I also had a reversed scenario of someone else claiming something real to something that is not-real to my own personal capacity to sense, then I can induce that the concept of "illusion" is a useful description of that relative disagreement of experience. The word "illusion" relatively describes something others have of an experience that is not shared but insisted upon as real to them.

Ok, we don't speak the same language. Me, I speak English:

Illusion
1. a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality: the mirror gives an illusion of depth.
2. a false or misleading perception or belief; delusion: he has the illusion that he is really clever.
3. (Psychology) psychol a perception that is not true to reality, having been altered subjectively in some way in the mind of the perceiver. See also hallucination

I don't see how it would be possible to have any meaningful conversation with someone who speaks a private language.
EB

[Logik]

Because I experienced it once before, without possibly recognising it.
That you should think it was a "conundrum" shows you're an idiot.
EB

Then how did you recognise it for being "knowledge", moron?

Can you describe what knowledge felt like the first time you experienced it?

[Scott Mayers]

I don't see how it would be possible to have any meaningful conversation with someone who speaks a private language.
EB

Yes, maybe I'm not understanding how to speak pigeon?

[Logik]

I don't see how it would be possible to have any meaningful conversation with someone who speaks a private language.

No two people speak the same language.

The point of communication is to calibrate our languages. To develop a shared one.

[Speakpigeon]

Because I experienced it once before, without possibly recognising it.

Then how did you recognise it for being "knowledge", moron?

???
Are you asking me to describe in minute details the biophysics of the neuro-cognitive process?!
Look at you hand and try to answer the same questions as you're asking me to answer.
You're a real moron.

Can you describe what knowledge felt like the first time you experienced it?

I wouldn't remember that and that's entirely irrelevant.
Humans have a cognitive capability and they call it knowledge just like they have a visual capability and they call it vision. What a conundrum!!!
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see how it would be possible to have any meaningful conversation with someone who speaks a private language.
EB

Yes, maybe I'm not understanding how to speak pigeon?

No, you just don't speak English.

Me, I do. Here is what the Oxford English dictionary says on "illusion'':

Illusion
An instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience: ‘stripes embellish the surface to create the illusion of various wood-grain textures’.
1.1 A deceptive appearance or impression: ‘the illusion of family togetherness’.
1.2 A false idea or belief: ‘he had no illusions about the trouble she was in’.

And here is the Collins:

illusions
1. a false idea or belief: "No one really has any illusions about winning the war".
2. something that appears to exist or be a particular thing but does not actually exist or is in reality something else.

And the Cambridge...

illusion
1. an idea or belief that is not true:
He had no illusions about his talents as a singer.
I'm under no illusions about the man I married.
My boss is labouring under the illusion that the project will be completed on time.
2. something that is not really what it seems to be:
A large mirror in a room can create the illusion of space.
The impression of calm in the office is just an illusion.

OK?
EB

[Logik]

Because I experienced it once before, without possibly recognising it.

Then how did you recognise it for being "knowledge", moron?

???
Are you asking me to describe in minute details the biophysics of the neuro-cognitive process?!
Look at you hand and try to answer the same questions as you're asking me to answer.
You're a real moron.

Can you describe what knowledge felt like the first time you experienced it?

I wouldn't remember that and that's entirely irrelevant.
Humans have a cognitive capability and they call it knowledge just like they have a visual capability and they call it vision. What a conundrum!!!
EB

I am asking you none of the things you claim.

I am merely trying to establish how you hold yourself accountable for errors.

How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge? What if an error has led you astray and what you have acquired is bullshit not knowledge.

How do you avoid Recall bias? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_bias )

I am holding you to account to the principle of verificationism.

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

By what empirical mechanism/process do you verify THAT you know p?

If you merely accept it as axiomatic truth THAT you know p - then so be it.

You are a gnostic. The worst kind of dogmatist.

[Speakpigeon]

I don't see how it would be possible to have any meaningful conversation with someone who speaks a private language.

No two people speak the same language.

I certainly speak English and I don't care what you speak.
Every word I use is in line with the definitions provided by English dictionaries. People who do that understand each other.

The point of communication is to calibrate our languages. To develop a shared one

There's already English and it's clearly good enough for what we do here.
Why would I bother to learn your private language?!
It's your problem if you can't explain yourself in English.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I am merely trying to establish how you hold yourself accountable for errors.
How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge? What if an error has led you astray and what you have acquired is bullshit not knowledge.
How do you avoid Recall bias? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_bias )
I am holding you to account to the principle of verificationism.

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

By what empirical mechanism/process do you verify THAT you know p?

I know. You don't.
EB