Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[Age]

[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?

My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.

This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.

Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.

So, what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of this last sentence?

You KNOW the One Truth that you can be ABSOLUTELY SURE OF?

THE ANSWER, by the way, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO WORK OUT, or SOLVE, and KNOW, FOR SURE.

[Age]

My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.

This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.

Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.

So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?

YES. AND, to WORK OUT and KNOW, FOR SURE, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, is DONE through One VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS. That is; if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED.

[PeteOlcott]

[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?

My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.

This here is Wrong and Incorrect because of the use of the 'appear' word here.

Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

A statement IS 'True' IF PROOF for 'that statement' IS KNOWN.

If PROOF for a statement IS NOT YET KNOW, then 'that statement' COULD BE 'true'. That is; if PROOF for 'that statement' being 'False' IS NOT KNOWN.

In other words, ANY statement can only be Truly JUSTIFIED WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

'BELIEF' of or for absolutely ANY 'thing' is completely REDUNDANT here, and is BEST left OUT OF 'the equation', altogether.

If we really are brains in vats then the belief that physical reality exists is false.
None-the-less {cats} <are> {animals} in the axiomatic model of the world.

[Age]

This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.

Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.

So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?

1) that's a very incomplete response to, I think, only one part of what I wrote.

BUT 'it' was JUST A QUESTION ASKED, for CLARIFICATION I would hope. Now, if the ANSWER to this QUESTION was ALL that was being SORT HERE, then how, EXACTLY, could this response be so-called INCOMPLETE?

Now, you were ASKED THIS QUESTION, so let us SEE if you ACTUALLY ANSWER 'it'.

2) you didn't engage with the arguments.

JUST MAYBE 'they' were SEEKING CLARIFICATION BEFORE 'they' ENGAGEMENT with the so-called 'arguments'.

By the way, if ANY so-called 'argument' is NOT sound AND valid, then there is NO NEED for ENGAGEMENT, as the USELESS of the so-called 'argument' SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

If you think the above somehow disproves or calls into questions some part of what I wrote, make it clear which part and why.

Oh, if you are NOT YET ABLE TO SEE what THE QUESTION IS POINTING TO here, then 'it' is ASKING you ABOUT, to you, if WHATEVER 'you', human beings, have SAID or CLAIMED PREVIOUSLY, then 'it' COULD BE Wrong?

I can't see how it has anything at all to do with the tv living room scenario, but let me know.
3) let's look at your example - you are acting as if I am asserting that 2+3=5 is always wrong.

I NEVER SAW what you are SEEING and SAYING here.

What I SAW being ASSERTED was; it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone, INCLUDING 'you', "iwannaplato", have been deceived. Which, to me, is VERY, VERY different from what you are SEEING.

Read that again. In your counterargument you are acting like I am saying that is always wrong. NOTHING I said even implies this. This is a very common confusion. If I say you can't be sure of X. It does NOT mean I am saying X is false.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, well to some of us anyway, CONFUSION can SET IN, EVER SO SIMPLY, EASILY, and QUICKLY.

To me, anyway, that one is NOT 'acting' AT ALL like 'you' are SEEING here "iwannaplato". And, if it turns out that 'that one' was NOT 'acting' like 'that' AT ALL, then WHY do you IMAGINE that 'this' is what you ARE SEEING here?

I was talking about a specific instance where one thinks one knows that that is correct. You are the one who brought up brain in a vat scenarios. In such a scenario EVEN regarding a simple equation we might think we are right and be wrong. We could be wrong in a dream and not realize we are in a dream.
In single instances or in altered states or perhaps in general in a brain in a vat.

What you ARE and WERE TALKING ABOUT IS and WAS VERY OBVIOUS.

AND, if you want A RESPONSE to 'this', you KNOW 'the one' you ARE WANTING and LOOKING FOR here, then I suggest you JUST ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION posed and ASKED TO you above here, FIRST.

But another point you ignored EVEN IF we grant analytical truths, that's not much knowledge about life, the world, etc. None of that would be knowledge.

Now WHY would so-called 'analytical truths' not be much knowledge about life, the world, et cetera, and WHY would NONE of 'that' be 'knowledge'?

Firstly, what is 'that', EXACTLY, here?

Secondly, what would 'that' be if 'it' is, supposedly, NOT knowledge?

Thirdly, why can you NOT have 'analytical truths' about 'life' nor 'the world'?

There were other points you did not respond to.

Do you respond to ANY point AT ALL that I MAKE?

If no, then WHY POINT OUT that "others" do NOT respond to the points you MAKE?

[Age]

So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?

1) that's a very incomplete response to, I think, only one part of what I wrote.
2) you didn't engage with the arguments. If you think the above somehow disproves or calls into questions some part of what I wrote, make it clear which part and why. I can't see how it has anything at all to do with the tv living room scenario, but let me know.
3) let's look at your example - you are acting as if I am asserting that 2+3=5 is always wrong. Read that again. In your counterargument you are acting like I am saying that is always wrong. NOTHING I said even implies this. This is a very common confusion. If I say you can't be sure of X. It does NOT mean I am saying X is false.

I was talking about a specific instance where one thinks one knows that that is correct. You are the one who brought up brain in a vat scenarios. In such a scenario EVEN regarding a simple equation we might think we are right and be wrong. We could be wrong in a dream and not realize we are in a dream.
In single instances or in altered states or perhaps in general in a brain in a vat.

But another point you ignored EVEN IF we grant analytical truths, that's not much knowledge about life, the world, etc. None of that would be knowledge.

There were other points you did not respond to.

I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind.

THEN JUST define 'the (so-called) nature of knowledge', PRECISELY.

How HARD is 'it' REALLY?

ALSO, I suggest BEFORE EVER heading down some path of doing some 'thing' 'as the basis for the architecture for some so-called "AI mind", that you PAINT and/or OBTAIN a Truly Accurate Picture of WHAT, EXACTLY, is 'this so-called AI mind', FIRST.

See, for example, if I was to ASK you, 'What is an AI mind, EXACTLY?', the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS: you would NOT have ANY REAL IDEA NOR CLUE, correct?

If this is True, then WHY even BOTHER 'trying to' define some 'thing' as a so-called 'basis for the architecture of'?

It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.

I suggest INSTEAD of just EXPRESSING what SEEMS, to you, you JUST ASK a CLARIFYING QUESTION, and WAIT, in place of.

[Age]

I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

And some people, BACK THEN, WONDERED WHY DISAGREEMENT existed.

Where is your precise definition of the nature of precision?

'it' WILL NEVER COME-TO-EXIST whenever "pete olcott" is just 'TRYING TO', precisely, bring 'it' TO LIGHT.

ONLY WHEN "pete olcott" STOPS 'trying' and STARTS DOING will 'it' COME-TO-LIGHT and BE SEEN.

Without such a definition as basis - how will you know if any definition of knowledge is precise enough?

GREAT QUESTION. Now we WAIT to SEE what EVENTUATES, from here.

The whole idea of proving that your formal system posesses the properties and qualities you claim it posesses is entirely lost on you.

[PeteOlcott]

THEN JUST define 'the (so-called) nature of knowledge', PRECISELY.

Actual knowledge is a semantic tautology containing within the axiomatic system
of the model of the world. Knowledge is expressed as sound deductive inference.

The correspondence between (what at least appears to be) physical sensations
and this model of the world is at best conjecture that at least seems to be very
reliable.

[Iwannaplato]

I think that we can be 100% perfectly certain that cats are animals and not ten story office buildings on the basis that {cats}, {animals}, {ten story office buildings} are simply place holders for a stipulated set of properties. Because these things are true by definition they can't possibly be false. In other words the model of the world is an axiomatic system of semantic tautologies. I count this as the body of analytic truth. The coherence model of truth applies to this body.

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Depending on one's intentions for the AI, it's a pretty limite set of knowledge, or?

[PeteOlcott]

I think that we can be 100% perfectly certain that cats are animals and not ten story office buildings on the basis that {cats}, {animals}, {ten story office buildings} are simply place holders for a stipulated set of properties. Because these things are true by definition they can't possibly be false. In other words the model of the world is an axiomatic system of semantic tautologies. I count this as the body of analytic truth. The coherence model of truth applies to this body.

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Depending on one's intentions for the AI, it's a pretty limite set of knowledge, or?

It is everything known to man that can be expressed using language

[Iwannaplato]

I think that we can be 100% perfectly certain that cats are animals and not ten story office buildings on the basis that {cats}, {animals}, {ten story office buildings} are simply place holders for a stipulated set of properties. Because these things are true by definition they can't possibly be false. In other words the model of the world is an axiomatic system of semantic tautologies. I count this as the body of analytic truth. The coherence model of truth applies to this body.

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Depending on one's intentions for the AI, it's a pretty limite set of knowledge, or?

It is everything known to man that can be expressed using language

Not empirical conclusions. The AI can't draw any conclusions about the world directly. It has no situation dependant knowledge. Pretty much all the things we use at work, play, problem solving.

It can more or less define things and check if definitions make sense or paraphrases make sense. That's about it.

But what's the purpose of the AI in question? What are its intended functions?

[PeteOlcott]

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Depending on one's intentions for the AI, it's a pretty limite set of knowledge, or?

It is everything known to man that can be expressed using language

Not empirical conclusions. The AI can't draw any conclusions about the world directly. It has no situation dependant knowledge. Pretty much all the things we use at work, play, problem solving.

It can more or less define things and check if definitions make sense or paraphrases make sense. That's about it.

But what's the purpose of the AI in question? What are its intended functions?

Situation dependent knowledge is provided as input.
It is to become capable of anything that a human
mind can do at the expert level of each field.

I am not getting notified when you post.

[Iwannaplato]

Situation dependent knowledge is provided as input.
It is to become capable of anything that a human
mind can do at the expert level of each field.

Wouldn't this need the ability to use empirical conclusions? and also to draw them?

I am not getting notified when you post.

Odd. I'm quoting from your posts to create responses like I always do. Unless everyone else has kept quiet about my messing up for years about this, It must be a glitch exception.

[PeteOlcott]

Situation dependent knowledge is provided as input.
It is to become capable of anything that a human
mind can do at the expert level of each field.

Wouldn't this need the ability to use empirical conclusions? and also to draw them?

I am not getting notified when you post.

Odd. I'm quoting from your posts to create responses like I always do. Unless everyone else has kept quiet about my messing up for years about this, It must be a glitch exception.

That it all in its axiomatic model of the world.

[Age]

I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.

I believe that knowledge exists, though I don't expect 100% certainty for it.

What IS 'knowledge', to you, EXACTLY?

I think we need to acknowledge the potential for fallibility with most things, especially empirically arrived at conclusions, however there can still be a useful distinction between knowledge and other beliefs. IOW we have rigorous, if not infallible, criteria. Yes, sometimes we may end up considering something to be knowledge that later turns out not to be the case.

Well talk about STUPIDITY in 'its' HIGHEST FORM and at 'its' HIGHEST LEVEL.

But that is what the adult human being was REALLY like, back in those OLDEN DAYS.

But it still allows us to work with some beliefs and not others. This is much how science works.

And this is the MAIN REASON WHY so-called "science" ends up being SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

My issue with your first definition was that it leaves out, for example, pretty much all of science. Now that's fine, if that's works for you and you make it all clear. I think it is useful, for example, to consider many conclusions in science to be knowledge. I think that's a useful way of working, even if it is not perfectly infallible. There are other things I would include within knowledge despite the criteria not managing to rule out any possible error, misinterpretation or falsehood. I think that's also realistic.

Otherwise I don't think there's much left over. And I don't think your seeing the TV in your living room example works as completely infallible knowledge. And for a few reasons. If you want an AI that does math and can deduce certain conclusions using word definitions, well fine, keep it really restrictive. I think even with analytical conclusions errors are still possible in instances, but there's not reason an AI couldn't be built with that limited skill set.

Also I think there's a problem with the example of the person seeing their TV. Now, me personally, if I think I am sitting in my living room seeing my TV, I will treat that as certain - perhaps I'll wake up or something, but I'm also confident of my ability to differentiate dream from waking. That said it's not really knowledge in the sense of community knowledge.

The latter has to do with things where we can check the justification and draw conclusions that get added to the knowledge of the community. I mean, at least usually.

Of course one can define knowledge as one wants. I don't know what your goals for the AI are, so that would affect criteria. But, for example, if the AI is going to navigate, physicall environments, it's need some kind of fallible but very effective set of heuristics. Fallible because it make misinterpret shadows and forms and depth of field and so on. If it is analyzing camera data, again unless you want it to throw out pretty much every conclusion, it's going to need a conception of knowledge that is potentially fallible. If it is working with language in communication with humans, again, potentially fallible. Semantics is not like the rules of chess, the meanings of words are to some degree fuzzily defined.

If the AI is going to do math problems, fine.

It's been a while since I looked at Gettier problems but it seems to me those deal with conclusions in empirical situtions not analytical types of conclusions. So, if you are going to restrict knowledge to just analytical then Gettier isn't relevant. It's not like those problems are solved, the whole realm of conclusions is taken off the table.

[Age]

I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.

I believe that knowledge exists, though I don't expect 100% certainty for it. I think we need to acknowledge the potential for fallibility with most things, especially empirically arrived at conclusions, however there can still be a useful distinction between knowledge and other beliefs. IOW we have rigorous, if not infallible, criteria. Yes, sometimes we may end up considering something to be knowledge that later turns out not to be the case. But it still allows us to work with some beliefs and not others. This is much how science works.

My issue with your first definition was that it leaves out, for example, pretty much all of science. Now that's fine, if that's works for you and you make it all clear. I think it is useful, for example, to consider many conclusions in science to be knowledge. I think that's a useful way of working, even if it is not perfectly infallible. There are other things I would include within knowledge despite the criteria not managing to rule out any possible error, misinterpretation or falsehood. I think that's also realistic.

Otherwise I don't think there's much left over. And I don't think your seeing the TV in your living room example works as completely infallible knowledge. And for a few reasons. If you want an AI that does math and can deduce certain conclusions using word definitions, well fine, keep it really restrictive. I think even with analytical conclusions errors are still possible in instances, but there's not reason an AI couldn't be built with that limited skill set.

Also I think there's a problem with the example of the person seeing their TV. Now, me personally, if I think I am sitting in my living room seeing my TV, I will treat that as certain - perhaps I'll wake up or something, but I'm also confident of my ability to differentiate dream from waking. That said it's not really knowledge in the sense of community knowledge.

The latter has to do with things where we can check the justification and draw conclusions that get added to the knowledge of the community. I mean, at least usually.

Of course one can define knowledge as one wants. I don't know what your goals for the AI are, so that would affect criteria. But, for example, if the AI is going to navigate, physicall environments, it's need some kind of fallible but very effective set of heuristics. Fallible because it make misinterpret shadows and forms and depth of field and so on. If it is analyzing camera data, again unless you want it to throw out pretty much every conclusion, it's going to need a conception of knowledge that is potentially fallible. If it is working with language in communication with humans, again, potentially fallible. Semantics is not like the rules of chess, the meanings of words are to some degree fuzzily defined.

If the AI is going to do math problems, fine.

It's been a while since I looked at Gettier problems but it seems to me those deal with conclusions in empirical situtions not analytical types of conclusions. So, if you are going to restrict knowledge to just analytical then Gettier isn't relevant. It's not like those problems are solved, the whole realm of conclusions is taken off the table.

I think that we can be 100% perfectly certain that cats are animals and not ten story office buildings on the basis that {cats}, {animals}, {ten story office buildings} are simply place holders for a stipulated set of properties. Because these things are true by definition they can't possibly be false. In other words the model of the world is an axiomatic system of semantic tautologies. I count this as the body of analytic truth. The coherence model of truth applies to this body.

When it comes to the correspondence from (what at least appears to be) physical sensations and this model of the world it is possible that fallibility enters.

Will you provide ANY examples?

This is the (misnamed as synthetic) body of empirical truth.