The January Philosophy Book of the Month 2019 is The Runaway Species. Discuss The Runaway Species now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.) Discuss The Fourth Age now.

There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by JamesOfSeattle » February 6th, 2019, 1:05 am

I think the OP is essentially corerect. For what it’s worth, here is how I would say it.

Knowledge is information organized for a purpose. Knowledge in the form of genes is generally for the purpose of creating mechanisms that perform various functions in living things.

Thought is a function of certain mechanisms in the brain. A single thought is an interpretation of a specific signal by a specific mechanism. Some signals are instinctive, like sensory signals for colors, objects, faces. You could call such experiences first-order thoughts. The OP would call these genetic, as they are enabled by the genes which created the various mechanisms involved. But there are also mechanisms which allow us to combine incoming signals to create new concepts, and then these new concepts can be available to the interpreting mechanism to change how it interprets incoming signals. These new concepts when so arranged would be acquired, or second-order, knowledge.

Given the above, I think it is arguable, if not safe, to say that most “thoughts”, i.e., interpretations of signals, involve sensory signals, as opposed to those signals being interpreted via second-order knowledge.

*

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2989
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Burning ghost » February 6th, 2019, 1:57 am

James -

No, it’s wrong. The use of the term “knowledge” is misleading. Plus the adherence to nature or nurture dichotomy is outdated. DNA is neither only part of the environment or part of the organism. It is a simplistic to view DNA as nature only.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1511
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Consul » February 6th, 2019, 10:11 am

JamesOfSeattle wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 12:23 am
I don’t feel strongly about this, but an argument can be made that water is wet. The connotation of something being wet is that is has a liquid sticking to it, and if you touched it, you would become wet because the liquid would stick to you. In that sense a puddle of water is wet. Contrast that with say, a puddle of mercury.
But making wet is still different from being wet.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1511
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Consul » February 6th, 2019, 10:23 am

cavacava wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 12:15 am
Isn't 'wet' a lot like 'red', if you have not experienced it for whatever reason, you don't really know what it is like to be wet or to see red.
If "red" doesn't refer to some physically describable spectrum of wavelengths of light but to phenomenal redness (red-as-experienced), then you cannot really know what that is unless you've had subjective red-impressions yourself. But since "wet" simply means "covered or soaked with water", you needn't have touched any wet things in order to be able to know what wetness is.
Or is there a difference between "physical wetness" (= being covered or soaked with water) and "phenomenal wetness" (feeling wet) that corresponds to the difference between "physical red" and "phenomenal red"? If "phenomenal wetness" refers to the kind of tactile sensation you have when you touch something wet, then, of course, you cannot really know what that is unless you've had tactile sensations of this kind.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1511
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Consul » February 6th, 2019, 10:50 am

"Wetness is a complex of pressure and temperature. It is possible, under experimental conditions, to evoke the perception of wetness from perfectly dry things, — flour, lycopodium powder, cotton wool, discs of metal; and it is possible, on the other hand, to wet the skin with water and to evoke the perception of a dry pressure or a dry temperature. Not the moistening of the skin, but the fitting distribution of pressure and temperature sensations, gives rise to the perception of wetness. Other modes of distribution of the same sensations produce the perception of dryness."

(Titchener, Edward B. A Text-Book of Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1911. p. 172)

If nonwet things can feel wet, then phenomenal wetness is dissociable from physical wetness. But if "wetness is a complex of pressure and temperature", it's not a basic tactile sensation.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
meaningful_products
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: January 25th, 2019, 4:17 am

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by meaningful_products » February 7th, 2019, 12:39 am

Consul wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 10:50 am
"Wetness is a complex of pressure and temperature. It is possible, under experimental conditions, to evoke the perception of wetness from perfectly dry things, — flour, lycopodium powder, cotton wool, discs of metal; and it is possible, on the other hand, to wet the skin with water and to evoke the perception of a dry pressure or a dry temperature. Not the moistening of the skin, but the fitting distribution of pressure and temperature sensations, gives rise to the perception of wetness. Other modes of distribution of the same sensations produce the perception of dryness."

(Titchener, Edward B. A Text-Book of Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1911. p. 172)

If nonwet things can feel wet, then phenomenal wetness is dissociable from physical wetness. But if "wetness is a complex of pressure and temperature", it's not a basic tactile sensation.
Most, if not all, impressions are complex. For instance, every time you perceive the color green, its always a little bit different in your vision. Even if you look at the same green object two or more times consecutively, the subatomic particles have already moved so you never see the same thing.

User avatar
cavacava
Posts: 55
Joined: October 12th, 2018, 11:10 am

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by cavacava » February 7th, 2019, 2:06 pm

Consul wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 10:23 am
cavacava wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 12:15 am
Isn't 'wet' a lot like 'red', if you have not experienced it for whatever reason, you don't really know what it is like to be wet or to see red.
If "red" doesn't refer to some physically describable spectrum of wavelengths of light but to phenomenal redness (red-as-experienced), then you cannot really know what that is unless you've had subjective red-impressions yourself. But since "wet" simply means "covered or soaked with water", you needn't have touched any wet things in order to be able to know what wetness is.
Or is there a difference between "physical wetness" (= being covered or soaked with water) and "phenomenal wetness" (feeling wet) that corresponds to the difference between "physical red" and "phenomenal red"? If "phenomenal wetness" refers to the kind of tactile sensation you have when you touch something wet, then, of course, you cannot really know what that is unless you've had tactile sensations of this kind.
Perhaps then the differences in knowledge are traceable to the differences in the manner in which things are known, like by way of the Scientific versus Manifest Image.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1511
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Consul » February 9th, 2019, 12:03 am

Wmhoerr wrote:
February 1st, 2019, 2:37 pm
The hunger desire comes before birth.
No animal desires to be hungry.
Wmhoerr wrote:
February 1st, 2019, 2:37 pm
A baby that cries KNOWS that it is hungry. It does not need to learn it. The baby has knowledge that came befofe birth.
A baby knows what it's like to be/feel hungry, i.e. to have certain (unpleasant) stomach sensations; but this doesn't mean that it knows that it's hungry in the sense of being reflectively aware of its hunger.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: There appears to be Two Types of Knowledge

Post by Belindi » February 9th, 2019, 7:28 am

Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/know ... indescrip/

Post Reply