How Can I Know Anything at All?
Peace,
Today I was reading a recent issue of Philosophy Now, and this was the question of the month. A key question that comes up in the exploration of the nature of knowledge.
I'm interested to see others add on here. How can you know (perceive with certainty) anything at all? Does knowlege-as-certainty exist or just knowledge-as-reliable-fact?
peace
I'd have to say "no". After I smoked Salvia, the shit dropped me off in another dimension. So I had to ask "How do I know anything is real?" Couldn't find a good answer.
And what shall we toast?
Madness! Combustion! Liberty and the end of all law! The invisible international! The toast is anarchy!
aaah snaps.... peace to brother tostones, we used to build back in the day.
this is a very interesting thread.
my view:
everything that me and you know has been known before. i mean most of the intellectual information we contain has been derived from some sort of source. therefore, what i know has already been known before.
another point of view - everything that is to be known is already contained within life and human beings are welcomed to extract from life as much as possible. what we get from the source (nature) is science. knowledge is existential in almost a sentient, consciouss manner.
yet another point of view - there is a difference between knowledge and information. to me, knowledge is original thought and information is indirect thought. therefore, the only time that human beings actually know something is when right then we get to experience/know it or out of our divine ability to create an original thought.
i believe absolute knowledge exists. it exists right to the side of informational knowledge because one does not exist without the other. the difference? absolute knowledge cannot sometimes be seen, that is not the case with informational knowledge which is almost strictly based on seeing.
peace
first of all, good topic starter and an intriguing take by civilison.Originally Posted by Civilison
i suppose that most of what we know has been known before is a valid observation. That the Earth is round is an observation shared by individuals for a very long time, subtracting the era where people may have believed otherwise. However, what about innovations or new discoveries? what particular source may have known about a new finding or for this particular matter, who may have known about the "new knowledge" before?
i like this thought. a question perhaps would be, is "everything to be known" just mere information to be extracted or raw knowledge. I suppose knowledge and information need a profound explanation before these two words are used in order to hinder unjustified interchanging of the two.another point of view - everything that is to be known is already contained within life and human beings are welcomed to extract from life as much as possible. what we get from the source (nature) is science. knowledge is existential in almost a sentient, consciouss manner.
Is Information rough/raw diamonds and Knowledge the cut and post-processed gems or jewels for that matter?
you have touched upon the previous question. information being indirect thought is plausible, how about information just being mere fragments of data without any given thought at all. your theory on knowledge works well with info being mere data.yet another point of view - there is a difference between knowledge and information. to me, knowledge is original thought and information is indirect thought. therefore, the only time that human beings actually know something is when right then we get to experience/know it or out of our divine ability to create an original thought.
i agree fully. id like to add to your last point by saying that it is strictly based on our senses, wouldnt you say?i believe absolute knowledge exists. it exists right to the side of informational knowledge because one does not exist without the other. the difference? absolute knowledge cannot sometimes be seen, that is not the case with informational knowledge which is almost strictly based on seeing.
peace
P.E.A.C.E
peace rai
building strong man... much respect!
yeah, new knowledge is new knowledge only if it is seen from a perspective of someone that was unacquainted with that particular knowledge source whether it is data or an object or a writing or whatever. but, looked from a more holistic/universal perspective, new knowledge is just an extraction from a universe that contains everything within itself but consciously chooses to only manifest certain phases or cycles at a time.However, what about innovations or new discoveries? what particular source may have known about a new finding or for this particular matter, who may have known about the "new knowledge" before?
i believe the human mind can comprehend the absolute/all knowledge at once but at different eras in the evolution of man ever since many thousand years ago, different things are known to man at that time of existence. but what if the evolution of the earth is whole and not partial like we see it. what i mean is back in the day when the ancients ruled (egyptians, indush cush, south america ect.) it was a different time of evolution of humanity and the earth and space at the same time. now we are at a different stage and what might be new knowledge to someone now or then might be different from now or then...
therefore... from the perspective of evolution of everything known to us now, it is hard to say what new knowledge really is.
both information and raw knowledge. kinda like this:is "everything to be known" just mere information to be extracted or raw knowledge.
you buy a book and you read it. your brain processes the words/data that you perceived. through that process you are able to further analyze/think about what you read and processed. that would be like information.
now imagine going out to the park or being in an incredible place on the planet and i'm sure wherever you stay at there are spots of natural amazement.
at that moment your brain processes whole reality. you see pictures/images and soak in the whole reality. that's a different processing of information. raw knowledge that must be further broken down by both your conscious self and your involuntary brain functions.
but when you read a book your brain still processes the images and shapes of letters, sentences etc...
so i guess information is a different kind of knowledge, a different level of manifestation of knowledge. a variation of knowledge.
the reason why this is such a dificult topic to discuss is because to know is really a very mysterious thing.
like before you go to bed and you think to your personal self before you pass out to the dream world. at that moment of thought you know too but in a different way - you know your deep, inner self. this knowledge is perceived by your third eye.
information is processed by your brain but then you can pass it on to the third eye so it is seen as a whole.
this works, without a doubt.information just being mere fragments of data without any given thought at all.
yeah man, i guess that's what i was trying to say.it is strictly based on our senses, wouldnt you say?
PEACE!
just because it has a leaf doesn't mean u can smoke it
peace
"graphics are just well displayed information"
We have five senses and a brain and that's all "we" is. We can't know.
You can't know only perceive. ONE.
ill thread..
all you can know is how you feel, everything else is secondhand.
You know what you know, anything else is idea on information. I don't take it to serious.
the more you explore this question, you run into a dilemma from 2 angles
- by dilemma, i dont mean something bad - i just mean logical paradoxes
first of all - you run into the problem where you have to define your terms
secondly - it becomes apparent that conclusions can be drawn from a number of different angles
from a certain angle - it is just as difficult to determine how there could be things that you dont know
this is your universe after all
being able to explain it is a different story
all the points have been made
Ah, good thread so far....Tostones...almost forgot about you.
Well when I first read about this, I thought of an argumentative point of view that is similar instead of pure knowledge its arguments that lead to conclusions. Hence I view knowledge as conclusions.. with these classic examples:
Deduction - Arguments that lead with certainty to a conclusion i.e. the famous "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal." That example is certain enough for me unless you want to dig EXTREMELY deep.
Induction - A premise leads with probability to a conclusion i.e. "The Sun always rises in the morning so the sun will rise tomorrow morning". So of course there is an extremely good chance the sun doesn't explode or whatever happens.
In other words it is true that most arguments people make are inductive.....as well as most knowledge people gain are reliable facts. Similar models.
maybe because life is a finite existence of infinite things.
the infinite might be contained within the finite. this is where the problem arises.
i think...
That's profound. There is a lot to consider about what you said, i agree totally!
infinite= knowledge?
and knowledge is to be found and evaluated by the finite= existance... I.E.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks