Does absolute truth exist?

[Juma]

All you know is that something is experiencing.

That is all there is left of descartes cogito.

We know that there is a material world.

We know that there are brains

We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.

We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.

We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.


This is what we know.

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

You dont know what you are talking about.

If it cannot be wrong then it isnt knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

You dont know what you are talking about.

If it cannot be wrong then it isnt knowledge.

Understanding. I know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All you know is that something is experiencing.
That is all there is left of descartes cogito.
We know that there is a material world.
We know that there are brains
We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.
We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.
We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.
This is what we know.

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

know? I'm sure I am talking about understanding ....... I guess you still don't know that.

So, hello? Like, I was talking to Juma not you?


I know you're using the word "understanding" but Juma used the word "know". See?

And you, you don't understand that understanding entails knowledge, so that using the word "understand" instead of "know" does not save you from ascertaining that you know something when you don't. But clearly you don't want to understand that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

You dont know what you are talking about.

If it cannot be wrong then it isnt knowledge.

Explain this to me.
EB

 

[George S]

Let us use the definition of "knowledge" as justified true belief.
It is possible to know, but not know that one knows. It is possible to not know, and not know that one does not know. Someone may be acquainted with his father and not know that he is his, in fact, his father. "To know" may be "to have knowledge of." "To know" when speaking of people may be "to be acquainted with." "To know" when speaking Biblese may be "to have carnal intercourse." (Avoid accidental equivocation).

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let us use the definition of "knowledge" as justified true belief.

How exactly does this factor into your explanation below?

It is possible to know, but not know that one knows.)

Suppose you are in pain so you know pain. Could you explain in what sense you could not know that you know pain?

Someone may be acquainted with his father and not know that he is his, in fact, his father.

Being acquainted with somebody does not amount to knowing this person. If there is something of this person that you don't know, for example how many iron atoms his body contains now, or whether he has a diamond up his ass, or perhaps he has a human brain rather than that of an intelligent alien, then you don't really don't this person. You may know some aspect of this person, e.g. what he looks like under standard conditions of lighting and gravity, without knowing anything else of him or at least not knowing everything. Then, it would be misleading to pretend you know him. When we say "I know this man", it doesn't mean that I know this man, it just means that you believe you can recognise him. This is as simple as that.

"To know" may be "to have knowledge of." "To know" when speaking of people may be "to be acquainted with."

My example was inspired by Bertrand Russell's paradox of the masked man. At least I think he offered this as a paradox. But I was never convinced, for the reasons explained above.

Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge. However, I haven't read anything from him that was really unambiguous as to what these meant to him. So, I'm not sure that whatever he said is relevant.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

All you know is that something is experiencing.
That is all there is left of descartes cogito.
We know that there is a material world.
We know that there are brains
We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.
We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.
We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.
This is what we know.

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

know? I'm sure I am talking about understanding ....... I guess you still don't know that.

So, hello? Like, I was talking to Juma not you?


I know you're using the word "understanding" but Juma used the word "know". See?

And you, you don't understand that understanding entails knowledge, so that using the word "understand" instead of "know" does not save you from ascertaining that you know something when you don't. But clearly you don't want to understand that.
EB

Again you fail to recognize I understand there is no mind. Who knows, maybe the social circle is a knowing circle. Nah, probably not.

 

[Juma]

Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge.

That is a very good distinction.
I ment know as in proposotional knowledge.
Your pain is a good example of aquaintance.

 

[fromderinside]

When does purely rational argument become meaningless? Perhaps when it is used to count angels on pin heads?

 

[Juma]

When does purely rational argument become meaningless? Perhaps when it is used to count angels on pin heads?

Ah. But the original angel on pin head discussion wasnt meaningless. A bit technical, but nit meaningless.

 

[rousseau]

Here's a question:

Why do we call the feeling of sensation 'experience'. Is it because we have a memory and the ability to learn / adapt?

One could easily swap out the term 'experience' with a less egoistic term.

But maybe the term points to the evolution into ego.

I don't know. Random thoughts.

 

[Juma]

Here's a question:

Why do we call the feeling of sensation 'experience'. Is it because we have a memory and the ability to learn / adapt?

One could easily swap out the term 'experience' with a less egoistic term.

But maybe the term points to the evolution into ego.

I don't know. Random thoughts.

English is not my first language but if I look how I use the corresponding word in the language that is, i realize that they are at least two:"erfarenhet" and "upplevelse".

"Erfarenhet" is about what I have learned by living. The wisdom of life.

"Upplevelse" is about the fact of general observing/feeling/seeing/hearing. About qualia.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here's a question:

Why do we call the feeling of sensation 'experience'. Is it because we have a memory and the ability to learn / adapt?

It's all about connotations. The meanings of the words "sensation", "feeling", perception, etc. presuppose that there is a material world. We needed a term or expression that would assume nothing of the sort. So you have "subjective experience", which has the advantage that you can understand what is meant without looking it up in a dictionary, and "qualia", which has been defined expressly as not assuming anything, and which has the advantage of not suggesting that there is something like a subject. A quale is stand-alone. We can imagine redness being redness without any subject experiencing it.

One could easily swap out the term 'experience' with a less egoistic term.

One should swap out bad English with good English. The term "egoistic" is not only idiotic, it doesn't apply here.

But maybe the term points to the evolution into ego.

These terms pointed to new ideas, and nothing else. That's why we started using them.

Something else would be to try to argue that the philosophy of the subject could only appear (with Descartes and then Kant) as Europe started to move towards more individualistic views and culture. There may be something to it but there is also something against it. And you haven't argued anything anyway.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge.

That is a very good distinction.
I ment know as in proposotional knowledge.
Your pain is a good example of aquaintance.

Are you saying here that you are only now discovering this distinction and that you now understood that pain was a good example of knowledge by acquaintance!? After all this time explaining this to you? Russell wrote about this in 1912. More than a century ago.

Or maybe I didn't understand your spelling and English...
EB

 

[Juma]

That is a very good distinction.
I ment know as in proposotional knowledge.
Your pain is a good example of aquaintance.

Are you saying here that you are only now discovering this distinction and that you now understood that pain was a good example of knowledge by acquaintance!? After all this time explaining this to you?

You didnt talk about aquantance of pain. You spoke of experience of pain.

An agent is not aquantanced with pain just because it experience them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you saying here that you are only now discovering this distinction and that you now understood that pain was a good example of knowledge by acquaintance!? After all this time explaining this to you?

You didnt talk about aquantance of pain. You spoke of experience of pain.

An agent is not aquantanced with pain just because it experience them.

Please explain this to me.


You think you know what Russell meant? You think you can prove your point?

The reality is that it's a matter of interpretation and these are fairly subtle questions. So, you do like you please and good luck.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

When does purely rational argument become meaningless? Perhaps when it is used to count angels on pin heads?

Ah. But the original angel on pin head discussion wasn't meaningless. A bit technical, but nit meaningless.

Argument about points is meaningless when we know those 'points' are actually fields. So when they argue what and how big and how many they should be asking why do we appreciate them as loci in time-space.