All Knowledge Grounded on a Specific FSK

[Veritas Aequitas]

All fields of Knowledge are Grounded on a Specific embodied human-based F-S-Knowledge or F-S-Cognition.
This OP refer only to the FSK or FSC thus excluding the pertinent F-S-Realization of Realization.

Most posters mocked [insult, put-down] my concept of the FSC/FSK but they are ignorant that they are implicitly grounding on whatever their philosophical claims [non-frivolous] on some sort of FSC/FSK.

I checked with AI on the topic:

That's a very insightful question! It's true that most, if not all, philosophers are likely influenced by some kind of implicit Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK).

Here's why:
•Building on Existing Knowledge: Philosophy is a conversation that stretches back centuries. Even the most radical ideas from a philosopher usually build upon or react to existing ideas and systems of thought. This existing knowledge becomes the implicit framework for their new ideas.

•Shaping Questions and Answers: The FSK shapes what questions a philosopher considers important and how they go about answering them. For example, a philosopher raised in a highly religious society might be more likely to ask questions about the nature of God, while someone raised in a scientific environment might focus on the nature of reality.

Communication and Understanding: To be understood, a philosopher needs to use concepts and frameworks that their audience is at least somewhat familiar with. Even if they challenge existing ideas, they still need a common ground to communicate their thoughts.

.. there are some nuances to consider:
Questioning the Framework: Some philosophers explicitly critique existing frameworks and propose entirely new ones. For example, Descartes famously doubted everything to establish a new foundation for knowledge.

Shifting Frameworks: Philosophical movements can lead to significant shifts in the dominant FSK. Thinkers like Kant and Kuhn highlight how entire fields can change their underlying frameworks over time.

So, while every philosopher likely operates within some FSK, it's also part of their job to question, refine, or even overturn these frameworks.
Their work can be a process of both using and challenging the dominant systems of knowledge.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

AI provided some philosophers who refer to Framework and System is some ways:

Immanuel Kant: Kant didn't use the term "framework" explicitly, but his concept of transcendental categories functions similarly. These categories are preconceptions we bring to experience, shaping how we understand the world. For example, the category of causality helps us understand events as having causes and effects.

Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn used the term paradigm to describe a shared framework of assumptions, concepts, and methods within a scientific field. This paradigm shapes what scientists consider valid knowledge and how they interpret the world.

Michel Foucault: Foucault used the term episteme to describe a historical framework that shapes how knowledge is produced in a particular era. This framework includes assumptions about what counts as knowledge, the methods used to acquire knowledge, and the types of knowledge considered valuable.

Nelson Goodman: Goodman used the term worldmaking to describe how conceptual schemes** shape our understanding of the world. These schemes are not simply reflections of reality but actively shape how we categorize and interpret experience.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016): Putnam explored the concept of conceptual relativism, which suggests that our understanding of truth and reality is shaped by our conceptual frameworks. He argued that different cultures may have incommensurable frameworks, meaning they cannot be directly compared for truth value.

Reference to Carnap and Feyman also mentioned the grounding based on Framework:

Carnap
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/carnap/#Fram
"The frameworks on which Carnap worked after this were less specific to particular epistemological problems, and more abstract and general.
In his view, the specification of a framework was a prerequisite for any rational reconstruction of rational discourse whatsoever."
It only made sense to speak of something “existing” relative to a framework (i.e., one could only speak of “existence” as internal to a framework), he said, not in any general sense (external to any framework whatever).

Feyman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Hawkins' Model Dependent Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Any one know of any other who directly or indirectly refer to 'Framework' in their philosophy?

[FlashDangerpants]

All fields of Knowledge are Grounded on a Specific embodied human-based F-S-Knowledge or F-S-Cognition.

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical, so I dounb anybody cares when you say that we can only perform the knowing of things from within a framework of how we know stuff. That much is basically tautologous. If you stop at cognition, probably nobody cares about your KFC theory.

It's only when you start misusing those frameworks that you piss people off.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think you really understand how AIs work now.

I asked a couple of AIs if the skateboarder slang term 'flow' could be an effective way of describing how different fields of inquiry arrive at knowledge.

Here's a typical answer:

Certainly! Just as skateboarders have their unique **flow** when riding, each field of inquiry possesses its own distinctive **flow**. Let's explore how this concept applies to different domains:

1. **Science**:
- **Flow**: In scientific research, the flow refers to the systematic process of investigation. Scientists follow a structured path, from formulating hypotheses to conducting experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. The flow of scientific inquiry involves rigorous observation, experimentation, and peer review.

2. **Philosophy**:
- **Flow**: Philosophical inquiry has its own rhythm. Philosophers engage in critical thinking, questioning assumptions, and exploring fundamental concepts. The flow of philosophical discourse includes dialectical reasoning, examining ethical dilemmas, and pondering metaphysical questions.

3. **History**:
- **Flow**: Historians navigate the currents of time. They study past events, analyze primary sources, and construct narratives. The flow of historical inquiry involves piecing together fragments, interpreting context, and understanding the evolution of societies and civilizations.

4. **Art and Creativity**:
- **Flow**: Artists, writers, and musicians experience creative flow. It's the state of being fully immersed in the process, where ideas flow effortlessly. The artistic flow involves inspiration, experimentation, and expressing emotions through various mediums.

5. **Mathematics**:
- **Flow**: Mathematicians follow logical sequences. The flow of mathematical inquiry includes problem-solving, proofs, and discovering patterns. It's a dance between logic and intuition, where elegance and precision intersect.

Remember, each field's flow shapes how practitioners approach their work, discover insights, and contribute to human knowledge.

That said, I don't think there's any problem with the idea of FSK as a term for thinking about the methodology, epistemology, models and approaches in a certain field of inquiry. I've defended the idea in general. There are many ways different people refer to that set of facets of fields of inquiry.

It's the way you use the term. Reifying what are often batches of process and not at all unified (the science FSK, would actually be many FSKs some of them contradicting the others) or the moral FSK when there are many FSKs or many flows, I should say. It often ends up as if you are using FSK as an appeal to your own authority, rather than using a batching term to simplify communciation.

And now that it's FSC, we are moving into as many FSCs as there are individuals. Feynman and Einstein did not have the same FSC. Nor would any two physicists, even in the same subsection of physics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All fields of Knowledge are Grounded on a Specific embodied human-based F-S-Knowledge or F-S-Cognition.

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"
Rorty would not agree with that?

Kant is more realistic;
according Kant, at the common and conventional sense level, "the activity of knowing things" and "the things that are being known" are not identical,
but at another more refined meta-level, "the things that are being known" are generated or constructed by the meta-knower.
As such there is no foundational "things that are being known" [metaphysical ontological thing of Descartes, Locke, Hume and other realists] that is absolutely independent of the knower.

so I dounb anybody cares when you say that we can only perform the knowing of things from within a framework of how we know stuff. That much is basically tautologous. If you stop at cognition, probably nobody cares about your KFC theory.

It's only when you start misusing those frameworks that you piss people off.

With the FSC, the question is where did things arise from to be cognized.
Prior to the FSC, there is the F-S-Realization-of-Reality process which you are ignorant off or blind to.

I have never discussed beyond the FSC those frameworks without justifications.

[FlashDangerpants]

All fields of Knowledge are Grounded on a Specific embodied human-based F-S-Knowledge or F-S-Cognition.

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think you really understand how AIs work now.

I asked a couple of AIs if the skateboarder slang term 'flow' could be an effective way of describing how different fields of inquiry arrive at knowledge.

Here's a typical answer:

Certainly! Just as skateboarders have their unique **flow** when riding, each field of inquiry possesses its own distinctive **flow**. Let's explore how this concept applies to different domains:

1. **Science**:
- **Flow**: In scientific research, the flow refers to the systematic process of investigation. Scientists follow a structured path, from formulating hypotheses to conducting experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. The flow of scientific inquiry involves rigorous observation, experimentation, and peer review.

2. **Philosophy**:
- **Flow**: Philosophical inquiry has its own rhythm. Philosophers engage in critical thinking, questioning assumptions, and exploring fundamental concepts. The flow of philosophical discourse includes dialectical reasoning, examining ethical dilemmas, and pondering metaphysical questions.

3. **History**:
- **Flow**: Historians navigate the currents of time. They study past events, analyze primary sources, and construct narratives. The flow of historical inquiry involves piecing together fragments, interpreting context, and understanding the evolution of societies and civilizations.

4. **Art and Creativity**:
- **Flow**: Artists, writers, and musicians experience creative flow. It's the state of being fully immersed in the process, where ideas flow effortlessly. The artistic flow involves inspiration, experimentation, and expressing emotions through various mediums.

5. **Mathematics**:
- **Flow**: Mathematicians follow logical sequences. The flow of mathematical inquiry includes problem-solving, proofs, and discovering patterns. It's a dance between logic and intuition, where elegance and precision intersect.

Remember, each field's flow shapes how practitioners approach their work, discover insights, and contribute to human knowledge.

That said, I don't think there's any problem with the idea of FSK as a term for thinking about the methodology, epistemology, models and approaches in a certain field of inquiry. I've defended the idea in general. There are many ways different people refer to that set of facets of fields of inquiry.

It's the way you use the term. Reifying what are often batches of process and not at all unified (the science FSK, would actually be many FSKs some of them contradicting the others) or the moral FSK when there are many FSKs or many flows, I should say. It often ends up as if you are using FSK as an appeal to your own authority, rather than using a batching term to simplify communciation.

And now that it's FSC, we are moving into as many FSCs as there are individuals. Feynman and Einstein did not have the same FSC. Nor would any two physicists, even in the same subsection of physics.

Your 'flow' example is irrelevant.
Again your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
In addition you did not read what I wrote thoroughly.

I have stated,
whatever is reality, facts, truths, knowledge, existence and objective is conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSK extended to a FSRC.

And now that it's FSC, we are moving into as many FSCs as there are individuals. Feynman and Einstein did not have the same FSC. Nor would any two physicists, even in the same subsection of physics.

Wrong again.
What is FSRC is not related to individual[s] but to an organized collective of humans.
Within the science-Physics FSRC, there are the Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM FSRC which are specific.
It is not about the individuals adopting any of the FSRC, but the constitution of the FSRC itself.

[Iwannaplato]

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

And the keys persist through time in that pocket. Or, if it is true that they aren't there yet suddenly reappear in that pocket when a detective or thief searches the dead person's pocket, why do they return? Why if we asked ten people to go into the room of where Harry's dead body is lying, would they each, alone find keys, rather than no keys but some condoms or change or a knife. What leads to this seeming consistency and persistence if we are all creating our reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

I have asked before what is the real objective fact about the car keys.
This is an impossibility for that fact to exist by itself, i.e. a noumenal or thing-in-itself which is foundational.
Yours may not be like the Platonic thing existing is a certain realm but nevertheless is its still a thing-in-itself of sort.
As such, you are merely postulating, speculating and assuming it is there, then matching or mirroring what the image [as perceived] in your mind with that assumed thing.
As such, you are contradicting this with your acceptance of Rorty's no mirroring.

How do you reconcile the above contradiction?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

And the keys persist through time in that pocket. Or, if it is true that they aren't there yet suddenly reappear in that pocket when a detective or thief searches the dead person's pocket, why do they return? Why if we asked ten people to go into the room of where Harry's dead body is lying, would they each, alone find keys, rather than no keys but some condoms or change or a knife. What leads to this seeming consistency and persistence if we are all creating our reality?

Again your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

That key is composed of billions of molecules, atoms and quarks which move in and out through the universe in every nano-second.
Humans are subject to time in nano-seconds in space and time.
Therefore a key is a different key in different nano-second within a different change is space and time.
So how can every human being perceive the same real micro key in real time?

What we see as the same seemingly consistency and persistence key as solid within space and time is merely on the macro scale which is crude.
Note the nearest star example, humans would have been able to see the same star for centuries, but are you sure there is a real star in real time?

In addition there is no mind independent objective fact because humans are the co-creator of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,

In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"

Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.

Note my response to IWP above.

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

Note my nearest star example.
Is there an objective fact about the nearest star? which may just be an illusion in real time?

[FlashDangerpants]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

That is absolute bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

[That key is composed of billions of molecules, atoms and quarks which move in and out through the universe in every nano-second.
Humans are subject to time in nano-seconds in space and time.
Therefore a key is a different key in different nano-second within a different change is space and time.
So how can every human being perceive the same real micro key in real time?

For this I refer you to the stuff we discussed about Wittgenstein. Or to the Carnap video in which Kane B did discuss that the same object can be part of multiple frameworks and that there is no proper way to say that one is descriptively superior to all others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Normal everyday concepts must be qualified to a FSRC before it make any sense.

That is absolute bullshit.

You are too arrogant based on ignorance.

Note this:
Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
viewtopic.php?t=41912

[Veritas Aequitas]

[That key is composed of billions of molecules, atoms and quarks which move in and out through the universe in every nano-second.
Humans are subject to time in nano-seconds in space and time.
Therefore a key is a different key in different nano-second within a different change is space and time.
So how can every human being perceive the same real micro key in real time?

For this I refer you to the stuff we discussed about Wittgenstein. Or to the Carnap video in which Kane B did discuss that the same object can be part of multiple frameworks and that there is no proper way to say that one is descriptively superior to all others.

You initially refer to the same key not a question of which is more superior.
I highlighted there is no such things as a real same key in terms of matter, space and time.

As per Kane B, even an astrological framework is valid if there is the practical use we want.

But were are doing a rational discussion here as such there is no room for conflicting frameworks.
In this case we have to rely on,
"if our goal is to develop a unified systematic theory of the world then we want to have reasonable beliefs about which Frameworks will achieve that we don't just guess."
In this case a micro based scientific framework is much more realistic than a conventional macro-based one.