The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Bohm2 »

Atreyu wrote:If everything we really 'know' is merely defining one unknown relatively to another, from whence can we depart in our quest for any objective truths or causes? Is there anything we really know? Is there any 'truth' we can assert about the world independent of ourselves, without defining it by other unknown variables?
I thought Descartes did provide one thing we can "know" with absolute certainty: "I think, I exist". From there on, it's crapshoot. Having said that, I still believe that we can have useful scientific models (not knowledge about the real nature of things) that are useful for the organization of our experience and for the conduct of our lives:
This kind of knowledge is not that which previous dogmatic philosophers had sought, knowledge of the real nature of things. Rather it consists of information about appearances, and hypotheses and predictions about the connections of events and the future course of experience.
Basically, this approach is the one taken by the natural sciences.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Sy Borg »

Surely we can be sure of the existence of most things immediately around us? I've been given no reason to believe that what we perceive - and clearly agree on perceiving, not only with each other but other animals - is completely real. It's the parts of reality we have evolved to perceive, along with those we perceive with technical assistance. Thus, I'd say the issue is not a matter of accuracy but of incompleteness.

As per some earlier posts in the thread, I suspect that the level of incompleteness is more profound than we can imagine at this stage, but I do think we have at least some small handle on actual reality, ie. it's not all illusory.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Lacewing
Premium Member
Posts: 811
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Lacewing »

Greta wrote: I suspect that the level of incompleteness is more profound than we can imagine at this stage, but I do think we have at least some small handle on actual reality, ie. it's not all illusory.
I like that explanation of "incompleteness". And I wonder, even if our experience IS illusory, would it really matter? It's OUR glorious illusion... so why not play it for all it's worth? 8) Perhaps it's the best we can do in these human/earth forms. I keep coming back to the thought that it doesn't matter so much what we think... as who we are because of that. So if a person believes the weirdest things imaginable, it doesn't matter as long as they're a respectful and positive influence who lifts others up (as a result). If, however, they are mean-spirited or destructive or want to climb on top of others to get to the top of an imaginary heap, then it doesn't matter how lofty their ideas appear to be. That's why (I think) beliefs/ideas don't MAKE/define the person. All kinds of different people can create all kinds of different things with all types of beliefs.
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Bohm2 »

Greta wrote:As per some earlier posts in the thread, I suspect that the level of incompleteness is more profound than we can imagine at this stage, but I do think we have at least some small handle on actual reality, ie. it's not all illusory.
The issue with knowledge is the concept of truth. For it to be true there would have to be a one-to-one correspondence between our models and mind-independent reality. But all are best scientific models are still approximations (albeit improving ones). Think about this way:
Our knowledge...even in science and mathematics is not derived by induction, by applying reliable procedures, and so on; it is not grounded or based on ‘good reasons’ in any sense of these notions. Rather, it grows in the mind, on the basis of our biological nature, triggered by appropriate experience, and in a limited way shaped by experience that settles options left open by the innate structure of mind. The result is an elaborate structure of cognitive systems of knowledge and belief, that reflects the very nature of the human mind, a biological organ like others with its scope and limits...If I had been differently constituted, with a different structure of mind-brain...I would come to know and follow different rules (or none) on the basis of the same experience, or I might have constructed different experience from the same physical events in my environment.
(N. Chomsky in Knowledge of Language, p.225)

Our minds like most other biological systems/organs are likely poor solutions to the design-problems posed by nature. They are, "the best solution that evolution could achieve under existing circumstances, but perhaps a clumsy and messy solution." So, we are deceived to think that we can somehow have direct knowledge of how the world really is like. I think that would be a miracle. Thus, 'knowledge' has to be routed in terms of the resources available to our theory-building abilities/mental organs and these are very unlikely to be "pipelines to the truth". Thus,
...so long as the class of accessible concepts is endogenously constrained, there will be thoughts that we are unequipped to think. And, so far, nobody has been able to devise an account of the ontogeny of concepts which does not imply such endogenous constraints. This conclusion may seem less unbearably depressing if one considers that it is one which we unhesitatingly accept for every other species. One would presumably not be impressed by a priori arguments intended to prove (e.g.) that the true science must be accessible to spiders. What is the relation between the class of humanly accessible theories and the class of true theories? It is possible that the intersection of these classes is quite small, that few true theories are accessible. There is no evolutionary argument to the contrary. Nor is there any reason to accept the traditional doctrine, as expressed by Descartes, that human reason is a “universal instrument which can serve for all contingencies.” Rather, it is a specific biological system, with its potentialities and associated limitations. It may turn out to have been a lucky accident that the intersection is not null. There is no particular reason to suppose that the science-forming capacities of humans or their mathematical abilities permit them to conceive of theories approximating the truth in every (or any) domain, or to gain insight into the laws of nature.
Skepticism and Naturalism: Can Philosophical Skepticism be Scientifically Tested?
http://philos.nmsu.edu/files/2014/07/na ... ticism.pdf

Moreover, consider the history of science and physics, which represents our best, most explanatory/predictive theories. Pretty well all of them turned out to be wrong, or at least, not completely true.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Sy Borg »

Lacewing, I agree. If everything is illusory, then it is real in its own domain. Our issue is relativity, establishing thigs we know for sure. We know many things in terms of phenomena and cause and effect, but the fundamental questions of course are elusive, and as Bohm2 has suggested, they may be not only more elusive than we realise, but more elusive than we can realise.

I am very comfortable with your post, Bohm2 - essentially pointing out how little we may perceive due to both our physical and psychological limitations.

In a visceral sense, my standpoint comes from a thought experiment: imagining what it might be like to have the sensory capabilities of all species. Reality would be overwhelming - the cellular viewpoint of microbes, electoreception, magnetoreception, infrared and ultraviolet light, hearing all small local sound details to distant sounds ... the world would appear to be an absolute cacophony. I expect that the stress of that level of overload would quickly kill us, let alone any question of functionality. This suggests that reality is a relative cacophony of complexity as compared with our perceptions. Each being creates meaning via their sensory limitations and conceptual limitations, both individually and shared. Without limitations, there is no meaning.

If we imagine a blind and deaf person attending the opera, the person would have limited impressions of the experience - touch, vibrations, temperature - but those impressions would still be real. However, without being briefed, the person will miss "the entire point" of the concert, yet they might still find value and purpose within their remaining perceptions. For instance, the person may simply enjoy the company, outing and general vibe. It's also possible that the person may find the sound vibrations physically pleasurable, eg. Evelyn Glennie). It appears that life is like that for all of us in a relative sense. Meanwhile the person's cognition would be coloured by their past, so if their senses were once all intact - it would be quite a different experience than for someone who'd always been deaf and blind.

I suspect that humanity in general has similarly been "missing the point of the show". Theists and atheists argue about their relative hypotheses and speculations that are very possibly all wrong, "missing the forest for the trees", each attending only small aspects of the total reality. As I have noted ad nauseam here, a race a million years more advanced than us would find our models to be primitive and clueless - but not ungrounded.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Lacewing
Premium Member
Posts: 811
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Lacewing »

Greta wrote: ...reality is a relative cacophony of complexity as compared with our perceptions. Each being creates meaning via their sensory limitations and conceptual limitations, both individually and shared. Without limitations, there is no meaning.
That's beautiful! Yes, Greta... I, too, have thought about the overwhelming impact of all that we don't see and hear and sense. That immense range is NOT MEANT for our little mortal forms. And yet we strive so ferociously to "know" it all. It's like trying to see a planet in the Pleiades system while wearing a deep sea helmet. :D My guess is that we do pick up and generate a lot of vibrations we don't even realize... and that messes with us. So that in itself can be challenging to navigate through every day! However, if our minds are building complex structures (as well) rather than allowing space for clarity, we might as well put on our deep sea helmet to demonstrate where we're at. :D
User avatar
TimBandTech
Posts: 78
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 8:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: Kant
Location: Meredith, NH
Contact:

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by TimBandTech »

Treatid wrote:Leog: That is the idea of axioms. It all falls down when you realise that it is impossible to state a set of axioms.

Establishing a starting point from which to build is a noble idea. It gives us a firm basis for everything that follows.

But it is impossible to establish any starting point in an absolute sense.

In practice, we tend to use "I" (the self - Cogito Ergo Sum and all that) as our starting point. This actually works quite well so long as the humans you are talking to have a similar sense of self, and the problem space relates to common experiences.

This common (implicit or explicit) use of the self as the assumed starting point has supported the illusion that it is possible to establish a definite fixed starting point. But that is all it is - an illusion. Axioms have never existed. Mathematics is not supported or justified by axioms.
Treatid, I wish you would stop abusing the axiomatic method. It would actually lend credence to your philosophy if you would grow to the point of realizing that the flexibility of axioms is their benefit in terms of an open system in which we are free to adjust those axioms and study the consequences. The fact remains that most of these adjustments will be incoherent, and the ones which hold up should be of interest if they carry some correspondence with observation.

That said, I see that Lee Smolin is also fixated on the relational priority that you voice regularly. I think Smolin is worth studying, but you probably already know that. I am thinking about the relational awareness, but I think it may still yield some familiar things. For instance the relation of two to one.

In terms of the drift of this thread, I believe that there are some constraints on humans which may be frustrating the process of enlightenment. We are caught in a progression and it suffices for each individual to pursue a small contribution rather than solving the whole. I do think it is wise to be wary of the accumulation of information as well, and to work close to that axiomatic level which Treatid bashes is a neat way to try for the bottom of the pile, where a modification could have side effects at the top of the pile. Language is a serious problem, but we are caught here as humans with the current vocabulary, and likely genetic limitations in terms of what we are capable of constructing.

Mostly humans are good at manipulating materials, and I recommend this as a practice which of course suits that relational theory. Coming to the theoretical from there is more pleasurable than getting bogged down in the quagmires. The experimental physicists are doing some extraordinary things. These details expose that the human's ambient environment is a special case only. For instance at cold temperatures strange things happen, but this characterization as 'strange' can only be in terms of our ambient understanding.

I suspect even claims that we can perceive three dimensions cleanly is problematic. We know that the amount of image processing going on in our minds to build our internal representation of our surroundings is substantial. We see two two dimensional projections, and while we do have some depth perception we do not see beyond a tree, yet many other things lay there along that sector beyond that tree.

Mathematics is supposed to help us get beyond these frustrations. The modern divorce of philosophy from mathematics and from physics is inaccurate. The number of breaks that are being accommodated in the current system are substantial and if we were to graph the thing it would not be a healthy tree, and yet its branches keep growing. The poor philosophers have really been put out on a limb of their own. Well, some of the limbs will die off. Perhaps there is a new tree about to sprout along a rootstock of the old tree. Let it grow!
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Mgrinder »

Atreyu wrote: And we can also say that 'energy' is really 'matter', that it is the peculiar way we experience and cognize matter which we cannot experience tangibly as 'stuff'. But this is really like saying that x=y, and y=x, without knowing the value of either and merely leaves us with a more detailed and 'technical' description of the unknown. We still don't know what anything really is independent of ourselves. This same idea can also be applied to the idea of 'spirit' and 'matter', or the relationship of one force to another. If we don't know what 'matter' or 'spirit' is, nor do we know what any of the forces involved really are, then we have again merely said x=y and y=x. Or even x=y=z and z=y=x. We still have no objective truth whatsoever. 'Matter' is that in which 'energy'' and 'motion' proceed, and 'energy' and 'motion' are those changes which we perceive occurring in 'matter'. This is the problem as elucidated long ago by Kant, but he never provided the solution for it. And it has yet to be satisfactorily solved.
Do we know absolutely nothing about matter, or do we know a few things about matter, and probably have a lot to learn? Do we know absolutely nothing about energy, or do we know a bit, and probably have a lot to learn? DO we know absolutely nothing about space, or a bit? And so on.

So do we have a bit of objective knowledge, or "no objective truth whatsoever", as you say?
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Atreyu »

Mgrinder wrote:Do we know absolutely nothing about matter, or do we know a few things about matter, and probably have a lot to learn? Do we know absolutely nothing about energy, or do we know a bit, and probably have a lot to learn? DO we know absolutely nothing about space, or a bit? And so on.

So do we have a bit of objective knowledge, or "no objective truth whatsoever", as you say?
We have none whatsoever. Everything we say we "know" about matter are just other unknowns. If you don't believe me, just try defining these properties of matter: density, mass, velocity, size, color, texture, temperature.

They are all defined relatively with each other. Let's try to define each, and I will italicize the attributes which can only be defined using other unknowns.

Density is the space between molecules or atoms.

Mass is the strength of a physical body's gravitational attraction to other bodies, its resistance to being accelerated by a force.

Velocity is the rate of change of the displacement, the difference between the final and initial position of an object.

Size is the length, width, height, diameter, perimeter, area, or volume of any object.

Color is visual perceptual property of various spectrums of light as they interact with our eyes.

Texture is the nature of a surface as defined by the characteristics of lay, surface, roughness, and waviness.

Temperature is a measurement of the internal vibrations of the molecules of any given substance.

Now let us consider all the italicized terms used in our definitions - space, molecules, atoms, bodies, gravity, resistance, objects, light, surface, force, displacement, eyes, vibrations, lay, surface, roughness, waviness, substance. Until we have defined them, we really can't say that we've defined anything. And in defining these terms we will once again use other terms which must be defined, or even the same terms in a different context. For example, if we say, "Well, a substance is anything composed of matter", or "A substance is something, anything that actually exists", we have again used terms that either need defining, or else are defined by each other.

Everything we "know" is defined by other things we allegedly "know", but when we "step back" and look at the entire inventory of our terms, we see that we really don't know what any of them actually are, in and of themselves. And true "knowing" is knowing what something is in and of itself. But this vicious circle of saying that "x=y and y=x" normally satisfies us. Using this method, we can pretend that we know something about "x" or "y", and very convincingly at that, until we realize that we do not know hidden quantities, i.e. we do not know what the value of either is. Knowing what "x" and "y" are in and of themselves would enable us to say something like "x=5, therefore y=5", or "x and y are 5". But once we realize that we do not know this we see this "mental gymnastics" for what it really is - a very clever and sophisticated way to fool ourselves into thinking that we really know something objectively, i.e. as it is outside of the boundaries of our subjective way of perceiving and cognizing it.....
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Mgrinder »

Atreyu wrote:
Mgrinder wrote:Do we know absolutely nothing about matter, or do we know a few things about matter, and probably have a lot to learn? Do we know absolutely nothing about energy, or do we know a bit, and probably have a lot to learn? DO we know absolutely nothing about space, or a bit? And so on.

So do we have a bit of objective knowledge, or "no objective truth whatsoever", as you say?
We have none whatsoever. Everything we say we "know" about matter are just other unknowns. If you don't believe me, just try defining these properties of matter: density, mass, velocity, size, color, texture, temperature.

They are all defined relatively with each other. Let's try to define each, and I will italicize the attributes which can only be defined using other unknowns.

Density is the space between molecules or atoms.

Mass is the strength of a physical body's gravitational attraction to other bodies, its resistance to being accelerated by a force.

Velocity is the rate of change of the displacement, the difference between the final and initial position of an object.

Size is the length, width, height, diameter, perimeter, area, or volume of any object.

Color is visual perceptual property of various spectrums of light as they interact with our eyes.

Texture is the nature of a surface as defined by the characteristics of lay, surface, roughness, and waviness.

Temperature is a measurement of the internal vibrations of the molecules of any given substance.

Now let us consider all the italicized terms used in our definitions - space, molecules, atoms, bodies, gravity, resistance, objects, light, surface, force, displacement, eyes, vibrations, lay, surface, roughness, waviness, substance. Until we have defined them, we really can't say that we've defined anything. And in defining these terms we will once again use other terms which must be defined, or even the same terms in a different context. For example, if we say, "Well, a substance is anything composed of matter", or "A substance is something, anything that actually exists", we have again used terms that either need defining, or else are defined by each other.
I don't deny much of what you just wrote, though I would define some things a bit more accurately. I agree we do indeed define these things relative to each other. I am in agreement.

However, I can't define "number", but I know what one is. I can't define "experience", but I know what one is. I can't define "space" either, but it seems to me I know a bit about it, nevertheless. Just because you can't define something in terms of something else doesn't mean you don't know anything about it. It just means it's fundamental. It defines other things.

In fact, if you didn't know anything about it whatsoever, how could you define it in terms of other things that you also don't know anything else about whatsoever? If you knew nothing about them whatsoever, wouldn't they all seem like exactly the same unknown thing? I mean, you know nothing about them, so how could you possibly relate them to each other? They're totally and absolutely unknown.

The fact is, we can identify length, we can identify mass, and so on. We know how to measure them. When we measure length, we don' t mistakenly measure mass. So we know at least that much about them. If we couldn't identify them, then we couldn't define them in terms of other things.

Hence, it seems to me that we know a bit about them, not everything, but a bit...
Atreyu wrote: Everything we "know" is defined by other things we allegedly "know", but when we "step back" and look at the entire inventory of our terms, we see that we really don't know what any of them actually are, in and of themselves. And true "knowing" is knowing what something is in and of itself. But this vicious circle of saying that "x=y and y=x" normally satisfies us. Using this method, we can pretend that we know something about "x" or "y", and very convincingly at that, until we realize that we do not know hidden quantities, i.e. we do not know what the value of either is. Knowing what "x" and "y" are in and of themselves would enable us to say something like "x=5, therefore y=5", or "x and y are 5". But once we realize that we do not know this we see this "mental gymnastics" for what it really is - a very clever and sophisticated way to fool ourselves into thinking that we really know something objectively, i.e. as it is outside of the boundaries of our subjective way of perceiving and cognizing it.....
I agree we don't know everything about them. However, I have no idea what "in and of themselves" really means, and neither does anyone else, so I have to say "it beats me." However, it does seem reasonable that we have some, but certainly not total knowledge of these things, in and of themselves. Otherwise we couldn't identify them.
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Aristocles »

So, we can admit endogenous constraints, yet make claims to that which is unthinkable. We can imagine absolute cacophony and describe the details of such limitations. We make distinctions of knowledge that does not appear to be total knowledge, etc. Is saying we can know nothing a form of oxymoron?

We respond with incredible details requiring seeming countless logical calculations to even come close to relating with one another in this thread. In so doing, we can even see the fallibility of our assumptions.

This all appears to presuppose knowledge, some aspects coming closer than others. Descartes hits closer to the source with suggesting we can at least think. I would like to take it a step further, just as this thread demonstrates.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Atreyu »

Mgrinder wrote: I agree we don't know everything about them. However, I have no idea what "in and of themselves" really means, and neither does anyone else, so I have to say "it beats me." However, it does seem reasonable that we have some, but certainly not total knowledge of these things, in and of themselves. Otherwise we couldn't identify them.
"In and of itself" means what it is regardless of how we "interface" with it psychically. It's the property or properties of something which would exist even if human beings did not. The properties of something which do not depend on the peculiarities of the receiving apparatus - as if the thing in question sort of "stood alone", all by itself (assuming that this would be possible).

So everything we say we "know" about anything is really a statement of what we know about how our psychic apparatus "interfaces" with it, or "grasps" it. And this implies that true knowing entails a sort of "stepping outside of oneself" - somehow "seeing" the object without using one's eyes (or any of the ordinary senses), or being able to think about it (conceive it) without using the ordinary mind....
Gordon975
Posts: 101
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Gordon975 »

Inanimate objects stone, metal chemicals of all types exist and are real and just exist now have existed an instant before now in some form and will exist an instant after now in some form, in other words will always have a future and a past that is predicable and true but that a living thing can only perceive as existing now.

Each thing that lives must have enough knowledge of its environment that it has evolved in to enable its existence within it to be successful.

Living creatures without memory have no concept of past or of future and live their existence just to survive now as a life form and will not always have a past the instant before now, exist now, but may not exist the instant after now.

Creatures with memory can have a concept of past and future and it is at this point at which they can begin to have a concept that something is or is not true and can believe they have knowledge.

Creatures with memory but without the ability of a complex means to describe their perceived thoughts do not know they will die.

It follows from this argument that Creatures with memory and with a complex means to describe their perceived thoughts know they will die.

It is at the point where a species of animal evolves a complex means to describe perceived thoughts that doubt and debate can arise about the validity of perceived truth. Perhaps the most important one of these perceived truths is that every living thing dies. The concept that the existence of intellect must end is important when the life form involved evolves from the point where its mind is designed to preserve the life of the living creature as a whole to the point where it is just about the preservation of the creatures perceived self intellect. A creature whose evolution reaches this point will have an intellect that knows one day it will cease to exist while at the same time believing this to be impossible.

For a thing that lives, knowledge therefore can only be a certainty at the now point in time all other knowledge is speculation. It is possible to accept with certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 now, because we exist now and we believe it to be true. It is not possible to know with certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 was true before now or will be true after now because we cannot exist in either place and can only use memory to believe that it might have been true and our imagination to surmise that it will be true.

This reasoning might seem pedantic but leads us to the beliefs about where we have come from and where we are going. The only certain fact that a member of the human species knows is that they exist now. It is pure speculation to believe that we were or were not created in the image of a god or that our soul may go to heaven or to hell when we die or indeed that we as a species evolved from monkeys and we may discuss argue and debate this but because nothing exists outside of the present it is impossible to prove either true or false with complete certainty, anything we believe is only a certainty now and a truth now. What an individual life form believes to be true now will be true for that creature at that time but may not be true in the future and may not have been true in the past.

In other words for a living thing whatever knowledge it perceives to exist now to be true or false may not before now or after now be so.

It is only when intellect is removed from speculation about knowledge of what may be the future or may have been the past that certainty about the truth of knowledge can exist and this is clearly impossible except at the now point in time.

What is known exists for each member of a species of animal with intellect only at the instant they know it and is always true for them if they believe it true and is always false for them if they believe it false. All knowledge apart from that which we perceive now is just speculation.

So the answer to the question "Is there anything we really know?" is that for an animal with intellect, " yes", but what is known is only known now but can never be known with certainly before or after now. All knowledge relies on belief and that belief relies on an intellectual animal believing that apart from now there was a time before now and that there will be a time after now.

Knowledge is not what we know or about the truth of what we know but what we think we know and what we believe true.
User avatar
Percarus
Posts: 162
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:34 am
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Perth - Australia
Contact:

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by Percarus »

Atreyu wrote:...Something[/u] has to be recognized as known. Otherwise we will always define one unknown by means of another (x=y, y=z), and any 'truths' we arrive at will merely be relatively 'true', merely the relation of one of our assumptions to another. ...

I liked the way the term 'axiom' was mentioned for justification of some points in some posts. To delve further let me first define what an 'axiom' is by dictionary definition:
n. noun
  1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.
  2. An established rule, principle, or law.
  3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Being a postulate of a starting point in reasoning, the axiom it is quite often an error in analysis to perceive all concepts derived from it as a matter encompassed by the nature of dualities. What I am proposing here for the foundation of all knowledge as being a concept of tri-axioms (as an example) or infinito-axioms, and by that I mean that no idea could have originated forth without a connectivity to another idea. That is, if considering knowledge as a bio-organic as a symbiotic entity, one part cannot exist or let alone be defined without the order. This can be seen as a concept relating degrees of separation/freedom in the sense that at one point in defining a particular concept then ultimately it shall rely on a different concept that in turn would be essential for its own definition a co-relation to the original concept – that is if all of the concepts don't directly relate to each other to start off with.

Image

Mayhap for humans it then becomes an inherited trait that the only way we can make sense of the world is by indeed relating one thing to another, and the very fact we are incapable of relating everything on a per-infinitum basis attributes to us our ignorance of sheer knowledge itself so as to only account for our level of lore on a basis of relative ignorance of the ultimate truth; and that is that we cannot even begin to completely even assert our own selves!

Given a plausible existence of multi-verses there may be indeed upper limits that even omni-intelligence in our existence may not even be able to ascertain; but regardless, due to a symbiotic relatedness in axioms then ultimately such multi-verses could be linked with a starting point/manufacturer of such universes, a grand creator sort of speak, even if that in itself is attributed by a concept of absolute nothingness with no sentient means to reason the knowledge it has a infinito-symbiotic relationship with on the mere basis that everything is connected by the raw fabric of space, or spacetime as some may prefer to name.

[yid=PUZkRdYcK3Y][/yid]

Lacewing wrote:...I like that explanation of "incompleteness". And I wonder, even if our experience IS illusory, would it really matter? ...

I guess it would not matter if our experience is illusionary except for the fact that then truthful eudaimonia may then be a concept that would be unattainable by anyone; not to say that eudaimonia would not exist for some, but just that it would be a delusionary illusion erroneously accepted as truth to the self whom in turn may have only started with (for example) a quad-axiomatic sense of the self.

Lacewing wrote:...That's why (I think) beliefs/ideas don't MAKE/define the person. All kinds of different people can create all kinds of different things with all types of beliefs.

Indeed... We as humans most likely are limited not by one axiom but probably to a limited amount of axioms that enable us to categorise the self. With the progress of transhumanism we may in effect expand (or contract) the number of axioms for our core understanding of knowledge.

Bohm2 wrote:...Thus, 'knowledge' has to be routed in terms of the resources available to our theory-building abilities/mental organs and these are very unlikely to be "pipelines to the truth". ...

Well, yeah, I guess so, our resources could in turn be attributable to falsehoods of the conception of reality and to that every effect we all could be living a lie – but at least it is a lie with purpose as we attribute purpose as being, lest one be a nihilist.

Greta wrote:...In a visceral sense, my standpoint comes from a thought experiment: imagining what it might be like to have the sensory capabilities of all species. Reality would be overwhelming - the cellular viewpoint of microbes, electoreception, magnetoreception, infrared and ultraviolet light, hearing all small local sound details to distant sounds ... the world would appear to be an absolute cacophony. ...

If we did have the sensory capabilities of all species we would be ad-infinitum to just one axiom, the ultimate, which by very own pseudo definition of infinitum would lead to nothingness. We would possess the capability to merge our understanding en par to a pantheistic being; we would cease to be lest we could regulate our sensory perceptions so as not to experience them all at once – in this case we would be gods.

Atreyu wrote:...We have none whatsoever. Everything we say we "know" about matter are just other unknowns. If you don't believe me, just try defining these properties of matter: density, mass, velocity, size, color, texture, temperature.

They are all defined relatively with each other. Let's try to define each, and I will italicize the attributes which can only be defined using other unknowns. ...

I guess then that truth knowing involves the very aspect of 'not knowing'. As Thomas Gray would say it, "Ignorance is Bliss".

Gordon975 wrote:Inanimate objects stone, metal chemicals of all types exist and are real and just exist now have existed an instant before now in some form and will exist an instant after now in some form, in other words will always have a future and a past that is predicable and true but that a living thing can only perceive as existing now. ...

I would argue that the very nature of an object existing warrants a sense of consciousness in Being, thus warranting an axiom through physical manifestence in relations to another object or simply an abstracted relation by the separation of distance by being affiliated through an abstract spatial paramater. Concepts and ideas (ie: the abstract) ultimately relate everything and that is why in contrast to life (as ascertained in a different thread) I deem to be infinite concepts by which only an omnichronotic entity can encapsulate in its entirety as a set of amalgamated axioms.

Gordon975 wrote:...So the answer to the question "Is there anything we really know?" is that for an animal with intellect, " yes", but what is known is only known now but can never be known with certainly before or after now. All knowledge relies on belief and that belief relies on an intellectual animal believing that apart from now there was a time before now and that there will be a time after now.

Knowledge is not what we know or about the truth of what we know but what we think we know and what we believe true.

I beg to differ; I do not believe that what is known can never be known before or after now, with the exemptive factor being a being that destroys its own imprint in time with each passing moment and whose nature cannot be predicted since it is completely random. The axiom of Being attributes connectivity to the 'whole' for a certain imagined algorithm. But indeed all 'human' knowledge relies on belief, but that same belief can be ascertained by the entropic imprint that can be postulated/extrapolated either backwards or forwards in time given sufficiently enough parameters for determination and adequate reasoning.

Image

-- Updated May 12th, 2015, 8:08 am to add the following --

Damn, forgot to proof read it properly again... Sorry 'Atreyu' for dishonouring your top quotation with coding error. :-(

-- Updated May 12th, 2015, 8:23 am to add the following --

The sentence, "That is, if considering knowledge as a bio-organic as a symbiotic entity, one part cannot exist or let alone be defined without the order.", should be read as 'other' instead of order. Sorry for letting any of the readers of any of my blogs down as of recent with typos. I have been typing very late at night and too early in the morning. I will get better as I get adjusted to this much better, and improved, philosophy forum in contrast to competing ones. :-)
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The foundation of our knowledge. What do we REALLY KNOW?

Post by LuckyR »

This thread reminds me of speaking to a 3 year old whose entire input to the conversation is: "why?"

You should put on your jacket. Why? Because it is cold outside. Why? Because it is winter. Why? Because of the axis of the earth being off of 90 degrees to its plane of revolution around the sun. Why? Some speculate that the earth was knocked off of a 90 degree axis by a collision with a large asteroid. Why? Well, the shape of the Indian ocean floor seems to be that of an impact crater. Why? Just put your damn coat on!

Well the 3 year old proved that they are smarter than their uncle. Really? Merely lifting the veil on one level of knowledge infinitely until the limit of current understanding breaks down then declaring "Ah hah!! There is no basis for the rest of the pyramid of knowledge above it" is a bit simplistic.
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021