You exist relative to me. It’s a relation born of measurement, at least in this universe. It is not a function episemology. There are billions of people I don't know which nevertheless exist relative to me.
Being a non-realist means that the property of being real (existence) is undefined. Relations are not affected by the meaningless property. There is precedent. People have no problem saying a unicorn has a horn on its head despite the lack of existence of the horn, or running a simulation of a car hitting a wall to measure its safety properties despite the lack of existence of the car. The unicorn horn exists relative to the unicorn despite their lack of the meaningless property. I don’t exist to the unicorn since it doesn't measure me. — noAxioms

It comes down to what you mean by "exist". Imaginings exist in the same way non-imagined things exist. They are both real in the sense that they have causal power. The imagining of a unicorn (mental states) can cause a human to use colored ink and paper to form an image of a unicorn on it (physical states). The difference between an known thing and an imagined thing is that one is understood to represent things whose existence is not dependent on a mind and the other's existence is completely dependent upon a mind. An imagined thing is not a representation of anything. It is a thing in and of itself. The word, "unicorn", or a piece of paper with colored ink would be the representation of a unicorn in and of itself.

It’s something like the Rovelli view, except I’ve seen it expressed that it implies a sort of momentary ontology where a system exists only at the moments in which it is measured, and not between, but the moon is quite there (relative to us) when not being looked at. For one thing, it is pretty impossible to not continuously measure the moon, and for another thing, you can’t un-measure a thing, so the moon once measured exists to all humans, even humans that might not exist relative to me say in some other world.

Humans/life forms play no special role in this. It isn’t about epistemology. You always existed relative to me long before either of us posted on any forum. We exist relative to my mug since it too has measured us, despite the fact that the mug doesn’t know it. Any interaction whatsoever is a measurement, so the only way to avoid it is by isolation by distance or Schrodinger’s box and such. — noAxioms

This is the really mind-bending part. In what way does some system exist independent of it being measured? If any interaction is a measurement and humans/lifeforms are not special in this role, then the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement? Are you saying that it is measurements, or relations, all the way down, and are what is real or exists? Any system is a relation between its constituents and the constituents are also systems. It seems like an infinite regress, but it could also be that reality is infinite and eternal.

My big beef against realism is how one explains the reality of whatever one considers real. — noAxioms

Is your beef against realism a real state-of-affairs that can be explained? I understand your explanation (your use of scribbles) to not be the actual beef you have against realism but the explanation of such and that your beef against realism is a real state-of-affairs that I can only be aware of by your use of scribbles, with your scribbles being the effect of your beef with realism and your intent to explain just that. So, am I correct in my assumption that your explanation is of a real state-of-affairs (that you have a beef with realism) that is true despite if you had explained it or not, or even if I believed your explanation or not?

OK, about the 2+2=4 thing: This is probably the shakiest part of my view: Is the sum of (just to pick a non-counting example) 3.600517 and 12.8119 objectively equal to 16.412417 or is it contingent on instantiation of those values somehow somewhere, on say a calculator adding those specific values. — noAxioms

The answer to the question of if values added together objectively equals another value seems to be proved by finding those values in the universe independent of the scribbles we use to represent those values - meaning that values can't be just other scribbles. What is the relationship between the scribbles. 3.600517 and 12.8119 and 16.412417? Why is there a relationship at all? There must be something going on inside the calculator that forms a relationship between them that is more than just the rearranging of scribbles.Why does the calculator always display 16.412417 when pressing specific buttons in a specific order on a calculator?

My goal doesn’t involve anybody or anything actually performing a calculation. That would make the truth of 2+2=4 contingent on the thing doing the adding. — noAxioms

Your goal doesn't perform the calculation. It determines what kind of values and the calculations, or measurements that you will use, as well as how specific you need your measurement to be successful in achieving your goal. The success or failure of your goal is dependent upon those values and calculations being representative of some actual state-of-affairs or not, and not just being some scribbles being rearranged in your head at whim.

On what statement of mine did you conclude something like that? Done correctly, the quotes are signed. — noAxioms

This:

I wasn’t talking about the difference between a cat and something similar to a cat. I’m talking about the boundaries of a specific cat or river or whatever. Which atoms belong to the cat and which do not, and precisely when does that designation change? Physics doesn’t care about it. It is just a language thing. But build a physical device that say cleans a cat and you’ll have to define the boundary to a point so it doesn’t waste it’s time grooming the carrier or something. — noAxioms

Which scribbles belong to you and which belong to me, and why? It seems that physics is what explains how some scribble is yours and which are mine by causation. If it were just a language thing, then I can simply rearrange quotes, and some of your posts would be mine. What is plagiarism?

Doesn't the fact that I can design a physical device that isn't a human being but possesses sensors like a human being that can determine the boundary of a cat in the same way a human can, mean something? It must have something to do with both of us having sensors and what those sensors were designed to sense (a boundary) that exists independently of the representations of those boundaries in the human mind.

Because the part in charge doesn’t believe the ideas that the rational part comes up with. The boss very much believes the lies and the rational part is fine with the goals that come from them. Mostly... — noAxioms

If the rational part is fine with the goals, then the rational part must share the goals because the rational part must realize that the boss and itself are part of the same being that the outcomes of their behaviors affects them both. Then the rational part doesn't seem rational at all if it doesn't at least attempt to overthrow the boss when it determines that the boss is making the wrong decision that will impede their natural and social fitness.

No immediate argument, but * rant warning * I do notice that we rationally can see the environmental damage being done, but the parts in charge do not. For all we pride ourselves in being this superior race, we act less intelligent than bacteria in a limited petri dish of nutrients. The bacteria at least don’t see the problem. We do and we (temporarily at least) have all this technology at our disposal, and don’t do anything different than the bacteria. * end rant * — noAxioms

This is not specific to humans. Alpha-males in most species are fine with maintaining the status-quo where they maintain their power and access to resources and mates at the expense of everyone else in the group.

If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on.
— Harry Hindu

It is not that the difference should be ignored but rather that such differences should not be regarded as exclusionary factors for what it means to be human. — Fooloso4

Exactly - to be human. For us to understand that black men and white men can have the same experiences is to understand them both as being human, not black men and white men. We do not have black man and white man experiences. We have human experiences. All humans have different experiences when they are in a place where a majority/minority of of one skin color exists. The fact that there is a majority/minority of skin color in a particular corner of the world is just a basic unavoidable fact. What we can avoid is using those distinctions against someone, which starts with ignoring those distinctions in situations where they do not matter as in hiring someone vs being diagnosed with a disease.

There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.
— Harry Hindu

It has been said that extreme views on opposite ends of the spectrum come close to each other. Rather than a straight line with two poles they are more like the Greek letter Omega:Ω. Both extremes come close together in excluding what is regarded as 'other', even though they do so for very different reasons. — Fooloso4

If the reasons are different, then what is it that is shared by the extremes to say that they are close to each other?

Well, I'm of the view that definitions, like propositions, are subject to the Münchhausen Trilemma:

1. Infinite regress of definitions/proofs
2. Circular definitions/proofs
3. Undefined terms/unproven assumptions.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

Then it seems to me that you believe that ultimately no one is talking about anything. We would simply be making sounds with our mouths and making scribbles on this screen. What makes some scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

It seems to me that your trilemma only describes the mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. Ironing out our definitions and determining whether or not they actually refer to some non-contradictory state-of-affairs resolves those philosophical problems.

point = .

That was easy.

Nor am I suggesting it is, but I can build a model of a car out of cars. these four cars represent the wheels, these two cars are the doors, this car is the engine...and so on. There's no problem with building a model using that which is being modelled. — Isaac

A car is not it's engine. It is a car. Models are typically a smaller scale than what is being modeled and typically less complex. You can't sit in or drive model cars. As such you shouldn't be able to use models of language-use because it wouldn't be an actual language. You would be simply using language, not models of language, and using language is using scribbles and sounds to refer to some state-of-affairs, which could be how someone uses language, or how someone plays chess, or how the sun sets in the sky.

Likewise with "that stone is iron", it's contingent on the human activity of us classifying elements by their proton number. The moment we stop doing that, its status as iron is called into question. — Isaac

...which is a different state-of-affairs than that stone's properties independent of our naming conventions. You're confusing one state-of-affairs with another.

When we see each other through the lens of a well-intentioned but disingenuous ideological lens there is a danger of dehumanizing them. Our differences is what makes us individuals. Problems arise with how one regards and treats others in ways that are harmful on the basis of race or sex. — Fooloso4

We have differences and similarities. It all depends on what you or someone else wants to focus on. If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on. Identity politics includes focusing on your own differences as well as focusing on the differences of others. Both are wrong because they are both forms of racism and sexism.

As to the OP, I think it is misguided and all too easily drifts to the absurd. If "lived experience" or "personal experience" is the determining criteria, then all representation must be limited to autobiography. — Fooloso4

True, but then we'd be focusing on our differences again. We have both differences and similarities. There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated.
— unenlightened
Not really.
— Harry Hindu

No, really! — unenlightened

My point was that it was not complicated, not that there are not mixed race and mixed culture people. I thought that would be obvious had you read the rest of my post.

No it isn't. One does not wish to erase the memory of slavers or colonial exploiters, or of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever. But one wishes to change a culture that lauds them as heroes and role-models. It is fairly clear that a culture that is defined by its oppression of others such as nazism or slavery, cannot coexist with one that defines itself as fair and open. so we object to graffiti swastikas and statues that celebrate slavers. — unenlightened

That's a fair point. But we should also take into account people are products of their time, and the progress that was made since could not have been made if we didn't start somewhere, and that there are other places on the planet that are far more oppressive than the U.S. I also don't think that having a statue of George Washington causes people to be racist, nor do I think that taking it down stops racism.

Acquisition of what amounts to a measurement of an unmeasurable thing is of little concern to me. Not being a realist, I don’t give meaning to realist statements like “there are X many universes”, be X 0, 1, some other number, finite or otherwise. My universe is confined to a limited distance. That’s a relation relative to any given event (physics definition) in my life. — noAxioms

Hmm. It seems strange to say that you are not a realist when you've been engaged with me in this conversation for some time now. Is it your belief that I only exist when you are reading my posts? Is it your belief that I am only a post on an internet philosophy forum and not a real human being even though you have never seen me? Do you only exist when I read your posts?

You're the one that brought other universes into the discussion, no?

Is 2+2=4 a realist statement? Is it conditionally true only if either quantity is real or there are real things that can be quantified, or is it unconditionally true even without there being anything real to count? I can make it a little harder by picking a non-integer since it eliminates the relevance of just counting things. — noAxioms

Now I'm not really sure by what you mean as "realist". I am a direct realist when it comes to the mind and an indirect realist when it comes to the world. Our minds are of the world and about the world, thanks to causation (information).

Math and language are approximations of the world and about the world thanks to causation (information). As you pointed out, math problems like dividing by three gives you a an infinite regress answer. Our present goal in the mind determines how many significant digits we use (how close the approximation needs to be) to accomplish that goal. Is the goal to divide the last piece of pie among three people equally, or is the goal getting a spacecraft to Mars?

I see the reality as like an analog signal and our minds are digital interpretations of that analog signal. Our minds need to categorize the world to make sense of it to accomplish even the most basic goals.

Tegmark listed four different ways to do that. His first is the kind I referenced above, a set of finite sized hyperspheres that overlap, separated only by distance. That’s four different ways to define a cat.
I’m the first to admit that defining a word is a human language thing. It isn’t a physics thing at all. What delimits the cat from the not-cat? At exactly what point does the cat and food system become just cat?
In Dr Who, a character had a teleport device strapped to his wrist. Hit the button and you’re suddenly somewhere else. My immediate (no hesitation) reaction to that was to ask how it knew what was you and what wasn’t. In terminator it was a nice define sphere and if your foot was outside that line, it doesn’t go with you. But the wrist device needed to know apparently that the clothes needed to go with you, but not say the post against which you’re leaning, despite the post being closer to the device than many of your body parts. It really bothered me, never mind the whole impossibility of the device in the first place, which I readily accept as a plot device. — noAxioms

So we can't determine whose posts are whose on this forum? I have often thought about it the way you are describing it but I eventually come back to the idea that there must be some kind of distinction between objects that does not only exist in our minds.

Sure there exists similarities in all animals, but there are clear differences too. It depends on what you are comparing. When trying to explain how life evolved there will probably some issues in distinguishing a non-living cell from a living cell, but there is surely a difference between a cat and a fish that does not simply exist in our minds.

It seems to me that similarities and differences exist not as a product of our minds, but as a result of similar or different causes, which are not necessarily mental.

If categories only exist in our minds does that mean that every organism is unique (there is only one of everything) and we can share similarities as a result of common causes, or does that mean that there are no boundaries and there is only one thing (reality, mind, etc.) and there are no individuals? The latter seems to imply solipsism.

I’d have said that abstract is abstract and there is no cat until something names/models it. The word cat is strictly a mental construction. So are atoms if you come right down to it, but at least atom has a physics definition that the cat lacks. I’m not asserting anything here, just giving my thoughts. — noAxioms

Then what are we naming or modeling? There is something that we are naming and the naming refers to the similarities of particular organisms. I don't think the similarities and differences are products of our minds. Categories are useful most of the time and are only challenged when we find things that challenge the boundaries. But those are few and far between, which must mean something. It means that similar causes leave similar effects, but every cause is unique. Similarity and uniqueness are not contradictions. You can share characteristics of others thanks to your similar causes but you are also an individual in space-time accumulating your own life experiences.

The lies have a huge bearing on my ability to survive. So it must be the rational beliefs, far more likely to be true, that have no bearing. I’d say they do, but the rational side isn’t in charge, but instead has a decent advisory role for matters where the boss hasn’t a strong opinion. Fermi paradox solution: Any sufficiently advanced race eventually puts its rational side sufficiently in charge to cease being fit. — noAxioms

If you are able to say that they are lies, then you obviously know what the truth is is yet you are still able to survive. How is that?

It seems to me that the ability to adapt to a wide range of environments is a result of our our rational side (science and technology). Being able to survive in a wide range of environments, and potentially all environments, is about as fit as you can get.

I have to admit that the rational side is like an engineer, not having goals of its own, but rather is something called upon to better meet the goals of its employer, even in cases where the goals are based on known lies. But I’m not sure whose goals you think are not being realized. They’re working on ‘live forever’. — noAxioms

Then the engineer has the goal of meeting the goals of its employer, or of having an income to support themselves and their family, which are not lies, but are actual states-of-affairs in the world. When you lie, you have the goal of misleading others or yourself. To be capable of lying you must know the truth.

You seem to be describing.....
— Harry Hindu

Good that it only seems. — Mww

Seem: to give the impression of being; To appear to be probable or evident.

If it isn't how it seems, then maybe you should explain what you see the difference between belief and knowledge as being, instead of being sarcastic? But if sarcasm is all you have then that is sad, not good.

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me. — Agent Smith

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Yes, we are part of the world, not separate from it. The world affects us and we affect the world. This is simpler than trying to think of us as separate (dualism) from the world (soul vs body, mind vs. brain, physical vs. mental, etc.).

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all. — Agent Smith

I don't see how having undefined terms to get the ball rolling actually gets the ball rolling. It seems to me that our terms have to refer to something or else there essentially is no ground to roll the ball on.

I think that our language-use has become so complex that it seems like the world is more complicated than it actually is. Most philosophical problems are the result of a mis-use of language, or poorly defined terms.

Well, yeah. But you've yet to demonstrate that it doesn't represent what it models, you've only shown that it's possible to model language in other ways (as about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.) — Isaac

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. Is Searle's use of language (his model of language) about language-use? Is language-use a state of affairs? If so, then his model is about a state-of-affairs. If not, then what it Searle saying (modeling)? What is he talking about? Yours and Banno's interpretation of Searle's model defeats itself.

I don't see why. I can model a car with cars, I could build a model of a brick out of bricks... — Isaac

model: an example for imitation or emulation.

A model is not the real thing.

Do you know what it feels like not to be a white male?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not know what it feels like to be a white male. — Jackson

Exactly. As if every white male has the same experiences, and as if every black man has the same experiences and needs that are different than white males. ZzzoneiroCosm is a racist and sexist - stereotyping people based on their skin color and sex.

If black actors can be cast as white characters, then why not the reverse? It seems that shared experience only works in one direction.

"Group solipsism" is a contradiction in terms.

Solipsism is the philosophical position that only one mind exists. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, yeah the group mind, as in group-think.

Its why anti-free-speech snowflakes are leaving Twitter in droves. They cannot cope with opposing viewpoints. Their viewpoint can be the only viewpoint, and any others must be "misinformation" :scream:

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson

Everyone should be able to say what they want as long as reason is free to filter it. A competition of ideas with reason being the judge is how progress is made, not by silencing any opposing viewpoint. Why do you think science has progressed as rapidly as it has compared to religions? Religions only seem to progress when science forces them to.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated. — unenlightened

Not really. When we see each other simply as fellow humans, instead of focusing on our differences of race and sex where it isn't appropriate (category error), it becomes very simple. Why can't we all be like dogs? Dog breeds exhibit the diversity of the gene pool. Dogs of different breeds breed with no quarrels. The don't seem to notice the differences amongst themselves.

Alas it is the result of your thinking, not mine. I do not think cultural differences should be erased - you do.

and The Chinese communist Party agrees with you. — unenlightened

Then tearing down statues of a particular culture isn't trying to erase a particular culture?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests/

Does this mean that Nazi and Communist cultures should be free to express themselves?

No, cultural difference should not be erased, nor should they be the focus of your identity. People change religions, adopt the customs of other cultures, so the culture you grew up in and your ancestry does not necessarily define you. You are a human-being first, not a black man, or an white woman. Those are only PARTS of what it means to be a human-being, not the entirety of what it is to be a human-being. By focusing on those parts you only end up diminishing yourself.

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms? — Agent Smith

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you.

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against — Agent Smith

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points.

Just wanted to say thanks for the dialog. You’re one of the single digit of posters whose feedback I’d not lightly dismiss, even if I’m in total disagreement with a few of them. — noAxioms

Thank you. I appreciate that. I can say that same about you. :up:

Your profile says you're Indonesian, not an "American white guy". — noAxioms

My profile actually says that my location is Indonesian fields, not necessarily that I am Indonesian, but then don't believe everything that you read on a person's profile. :wink:

That would be a meaningless question if the sum of two and two is not objectively meaningful. You’re asking an objective question there, not one related to a particular set of laws.
You said that 2+2=4 is true in our universe, which I’ll call U0. So U0 → 2+2=4
But I’m going for a relation in the other direction: 2+2=4 → U0, U1, etc.
If mathematical law holds objectively and not just relative to our universe, then I can explain the existence relative to us of our universe. That’s why I’m interested in it being objectively true. It has been a weak point in my argument.

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe?
I suppose in the universe where 2+2=7, there would objectively be 7 universes, but we’d count only 4. That sounds like a contradiction since it is an objective quantity being discussed, not a quantity of anything that is part of one universe or another. That’s fair evidence that 2+2 objectively is 4, but I’ve not enough of a formal mathematical background to assess the validity of that argument. — noAxioms

For it to be objective, it would have to be true regardless of what is true in each universe. It would be true outside of all the universes. If there is only one universe, then there isn't a problem.

Like I said, it doesn't make any sense to say that we can count universes - which is an act that we can only do if we put ourselves outside of all universes - while in a particular universe counting works a different way. It's like saying that in one universe there is only one universe, when there are actually many. How would you acquire the truth if not by leaving this universe and going to another? The truth that there is only one universe isn't true within a particular universe. It can only be true if you are outside of all universes.

I admit that this is all challenging my ideas of objectivity vs. subjectivity and my ability to communicate how I am trying to conceive them. But I think that ultimately we need to go back to what I said before that counting itself seems dependent upon (mental) categories prior to what is being counted. You can only count cats if you have a "cat" category that individual members are a part of. If you have no "cat" category, then there is only one of each individual animal. The same can be said of universes. What qualifies a universe to be a universe, or part of the category, "universe"? It seems that needs to be answered before we can even begin to wonder if there is more than one in the first place. So the question is, do (mental) categories exist independent of minds? Are categories objective features of reality?

I obviously hold multiple self-contradictory beliefs. As I said, the lies make you fit, and I’d not survive the day without them. — noAxioms

For me, it is the ironing out of the self-contradictory beliefs that make me fit. All knowledge must be integrated. It's more likely that your self-contradictory beliefs have no bearing on your goal to survive, which is why you can hold them and still survive. When you actually apply those beliefs to goals that they have an impact on, then you will find that your goals cannot be realized.

Yes, warm fuzzies so you can sleep. Most people rationalize the lies rather than rationally analyze them, but most people don’t give a philosophy forum a second thought.
I’ve watched my mother rewrite her memories as a method of holding on to the warm fuzzies. It’s harder to see yourself do it, but it’s a necessary coping mechanism. Humans are excellent at rationalizing, but incredibly poor at rational thought. I struggle to be otherwise, and maybe even fool myself into thinking I’m on some kind of right track, but deeper down I realize that’s probably a rationalized conclusion. Go figure. — noAxioms

That's the thing that we need to iron out. Is our goal to feel warm fuzzies and cope with the reality of life, or is to acquire true knowledge of reality? When we are discussing what is the case independent of ourselves, then bringing your emotional state into the discussion isn't useful at all.

&

The Greeks liked to divide knowledge into knowledge of and knowledge that. Russell called it knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Either way, the dichotomy reduces to knowledge before submission to the cognitive system and knowledge as a result of the system. Like..... I know I just got bit, but I don’t know what bit me. That I got bit is not something the least a priori knowledge, for it is an affect of some kind on the senses, and if I don’t know what bit me, that can’t be a priori because it isn’t anything.

Regardless, if one thinks knowledge to be a relative condition of certainty, that is only possible by being justified by something. — Mww

You seem to be describing the difference between belief and knowledge, not different kinds of knowledge. Beliefs seem to be those interpretations of sensory data from a single sense, while knowledge seems to include justification from all the senses. How do you know that you were bitten if you don't know what bit you? After all, it could be that you stepped in a claw-trap. You interpreted a single sensory perception (tactile) based on previous experiences of being bit, rather than confirming with your eyes what the source of the tactile sensation is. When you use your eyes, you are getting real-time information about the circumstances, not from the past in the form of memories or past experiences.

Now our eyes can "lie" to us too. Initial visual observations can lead us to believe that water is on the ground (mirage) when there isn't. It isn't until we make more observations, like moving towards the "pool of water" and observing it disappear that we go from justifying based on prior (and possibly outdated) experiences (information) to justifying based on current experiences (information). So by accumulating more observations over time, can we say that we have acquired justification for what it is that we claim that we know. So the difference seems to be the degree of justification. Ideas based on preliminary observations that have not been confirmed using real-time information of other senses qualify as beliefs. Ideas based on the information acquired by more than one sense, and over a period of time, and is confirmed with current observations, is what qualifies as knowledge.

Essentially, the difference between beliefs and knowledge is that beliefs are justified by either empiricism or rationalism alone, while knowledge is justified by using both together.

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir? — Agent Smith

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is.

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?
— Harry Hindu

Between models, utility, within models, it depends on the model. Usually they have criteria for correctness within them.

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?
— Harry Hindu

I find it useful, so no. I strongly suspect it wouldn't have made it this far is everybody thought it was useless, but in academia, stranger things have happened...
— Isaac

:brow:
Hmmm. I would have thought that, being a model, it would be wrong in that it does not represent what is being modeled, therefore it becomes useless as such. In what way can Searle's model of language be used so that we may test how well the model represents the actual state-of-affairs?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac — Isaac

Searle is modeling language using language? Is an actual car a model of a car, or is it just a car? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.
— Harry Hindu

It's not a matter of 'understanding that...'. You're just presenting a different model, and it's not for you to say what I, or others, find useful. — Isaac

So you wouldn't be interested in knowing why your models are not useful to others? If they are not useful to others, then why would it be useful to you? Use is a manifestation of our goals. So if it is useful to you, but not useful to others, then you and others must have different goals, and therefore you would be talking past others.

Philosophy is irrelevant then, so I disagree. It actually matters a lot to me. OK, it being true in this universe is enough for a priori knowledge, but I’m interested in it being objectively true. — noAxioms

That would be a disappointment, but barring an example, I suspect otherwise. — noAxioms

If there is more than one universe then are we not already acknowledging that there are a number of universes, and that there might be different universes where there are two universes in which 2+4=4 and 2 in which 2+2=7, but there are 2+2=4 total universes?

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe? So it seems that 2+2=4 isn't dependent on the property of some particular universe, but is dependent on there being more than one of anything (including all universes). Even if there are only two universes, then 1+1=2 would be true regardless of what is true in either universe.

You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed. — noAxioms

Because you are assuming that there is an I that is separate from the individual (dualism). The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all.

I said I (the self) could no more be a bug than it could be me. I denied its existence. There is nothing ‘being’ me.
The point of the example was to illustrate that everybody knows what Paul Simon meant by those lyrics. People have a dualistic instinct, a lie that is pretty much impossible to disbelieve.
Without it, the lyrics don’t make any sense since X is X (a tautology) and cannot be Y. But it makes sense to suggest the experiencer of X were to experience Y instead. — noAxioms

Dualism is not an instinct. Babies are born solipsists. Most animals are solipsists. Solipsism is instinctual. After a period of mental development, babies become realists in realizing object permanence (that objects continue to exist even when not being observed or thought about).

Dualism is indoctrinated at an early age with the introduction of religion (soul vs body). The notion that you can exist independently of your body is a delusion created as way to deal with the knowledge of your death.

Yes, given dualism, there are a lot more non-human things to be (bugs being one example) and thus odds of winning the ‘human lottery’ are suspiciously low. Some get out of this via anthropocentric assertions, that humans are special this way. Questioning the lie is often not an option. — noAxioms

There is no lottery. There is no luck. Things happen for a reason (prior causes or pre-existing conditions). If something else happened instead then you wouldn't be here asking these questions. Someone else would be.

Even that makes no sense. How can say a cat be a dog? A thing is what it is and cannot meaningfully be something else. — noAxioms

That was my point. Either way you put the question, it's a silly question given that we know that you are the outcome of a particular sex act between two specific people and the subsequent development (life experiences) without which you wouldn't exist at all, not that you'd be something else - as if that were ever possible. It isn't.

That’s why your physical appearance is what it is, which wasn’t the question. The question asks why you look out of Harry’s eyes and not the eyes of another. The question makes no sense outside of a dualistic context since under monism it is tautological that a creature looks out of its own eyes (exceptions to robots with bluetooth). — noAxioms

Well, yes, which is why I said you need to abandon dualism if you want to avoid asking silly questions that simply don't take into account what we know today in modern times when religion and it's dualistic thinking is on the decline and replaced with scientific theories of biology, genetics and evolution.

I was just reporting my understanding of how the tests were performed. If you'd like more detail, I'm sure it's published somewhere. — T Clark

It seems to me that your understanding isn't an understanding at all if you are unable to communicate it without contradicting yourself. It seems as if you are the one that needs to search for the publications and read them if you want to make an argument against anything that I've said (like experience is quantifiable).

Of course he's talking about language use in the world. I could classify my books by author, subject, publication date, or binding colour. The choice is entirely mine, but the classification remains of the actual books and in each case I can be wrong about a particular book's placement within the scheme. — Isaac

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Searle is not saying "this is how it must be", he's giving a (hopefully useful) account. A counterargument would be that it wasn't useful, not that alternative accounts are also plausible. — Isaac

Then Searle is not talking about language-use in the world. Hes talking about his own feelings about language-use.

So is this thread about language-use or Searle's feelings or views of language use? Is there any relationship between the two?

If scribble-use was not useful then the scribble-use is meaningless.

Assertives, such as statements, descriptions, assertions.
Directives, such as orders, commands, requests.
Commissives, such as promises, vows, pledges.
Expressives, such as apologies, thanks, congratulations.
Declarations, in which we make something the case by declaring it to be the case. — Banno

Directives are saying something about the state of affairs of the wants and needs of the person using sonecscribbles or sounds.

Commissives are saying something about a future state of affairs where the user of the scribbles or sounds will be helpful.

Expressives are similarcto directives in that they are scribbles that refer one's feelings of guilt, gratitude, and happiness for someone's success - all states of affairs in the world.

Directives are like assertions in asserting what is the case in the world, which can be mental or physical states.

Minds and their states are not separate from the world and can be talked about just like every other state of the world.

Every speech act is public, that goes without saying (leaving aside self talk). The distinction is, what is the domain of this rule? Where does it happen? Declarations happen in the world: a naming assigns a name to a being or object. Suppositions on the other hand, happen purely in the mind, of the listener and speaker. — hypericin

Minds, listeners and speakers are not in the world?

It seems to me that every speech act is an assertion because every speech act about some state of affairs, which include mental states like feelings, wants and needs.

Dualistic thinking is what creates the unneccsessary complexity of Banno's own assertions that there is some difference in how scribbles and utterances are used ither than asserting something to be the case. All language use asserts something to be the case.

I think there's a sense in which they're assertions too. All stories might be preceded by the unspoken "in the story...", and so it becomes a declaration about a fictitious story. It is false that 'in the Lord of the Rings' Aragorn takes the ring to Mordor. — Isaac

Just as every command can be preceded by, "I want...". A command refers to the demanding party's wants. The person being commanded can refuse the command, so the actual command couldnt have been used to make someone do something. Its use only displays what the person making the command wants.

Babies have been shown to respond to novelty. Seeing something new interests them and they will look at it longer than something they've seen before. The baby sits in it's mothers lap and the psychologist puts a single item in front of it. The baby will look at it. Then it is repeated until the baby becomes less interested as measured by the amount of time it will look at the item. Then the baby is shown more than one of the same item and it again will show increased interest by looking longer. This is repeated more times with different numbers of items. — T Clark

If babies are shown to respond to novelty, then why would they show more interest in multiple objects that look the same? It seems to me that they would show interest in unique things, not things that are the same.

What would happen if you showed the baby three red balls and one blue ball and a blue cube? How do you know if they would be interested in the quantity of balls or the quantity of the color blue? What if they ignored the balls and focused on the blue cube - being the novel thing in the whole group of things being shown to the baby?

It seems to me that a better experiment could have been performed to show if babies are aware of quantities. It seems to me that we would need to know how the baby forms categories, as in there being a quantity of balls or a quantity of the color red or blue.

Well, I'm questioning if the sum of two and two is objectively four (a priori truth), and I need to stretch pretty far to do this. The god isn't the point. The point is the possibility somewhere different where that sum is seven or something, or better, a universe utterly devoid of 'quantity', thus reducing 'two' to a meaningless thing where any sum of two and two is at best not even wrong. That's still a stretch. 2+2=4 is sort of a symbol of a priori knowledge, even if humans would probably not figure it out without experience. — noAxioms

As I said, the sum of two and two is true in this universe. Whether it is not true somewhere else is irrelevant. Something else would be true in the other universe, like 2+2≠ 4, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true in this universe. We're talking about two different universes, and just like some knowledge of me (I am a white American male) cannot apply to you, or be true about you (you might not be a white American male), the same thing that may be true for one universe may not be true in another, but this has nothing to do with whether or not it is true in this universe.

"Oh, I wish that I could be Richard Cory" -- Paul Simon
The 'I' in that line is the self, and 'Richard Cory' is an individual. The line only makes sense if they're different things, and the self wants to 'be' a different individual than the impoverished employee in the factory. The related question is: "Why am I me?". It seems baffling. There's so many other things you could be like a bug or perhaps even a dust mote. There's so many more of those other things, so why am I not only a human (top of most food chains), but one with the leisure to be pondering philosophy on a forum during the 2nd gilded age of Earth. What sort of lottery have I won? — noAxioms

:brow: Seriously? You really think that there was ever a chance that you could have been a bug? Are you claiming that there is a soul that is separate from the body in that your soul could have been put in a different body? I think that you problem is dualism. As I said, your problem can be resolved by abandoning dualistic thinking. Your Paul Simon quote isn't saying anything other than "I wish that I could be a different I".

Why am I me? Because a unique arrangement of half of my mother's genes and a unique arrangement of half of my father's genes were fused together to make the unique me. We are all unique outcomes of different halves of our mother's and father's genes.

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity
— Harry Hindu

They are aware of quantities of things. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, — Harry Hindu

Right, which is to say that conscious experience/awareness of things are quantifiable - but only by first establishing a category for things first. You must have a category of trees before you can attribute more than one thing as being part of the category of trees.

You seem to be implying that quantities of things is something that is mind-independent that minds are made aware of via the senses.

As I said, quantities of things are dependent upon there being mental categories that quantities of things would be a part of. Are (mental) categories mind-independent? If not, then quantities are not something mind-independent that one can be aware of, rather they are an integral part of the experience, hence conscious experiences are quantifiable, or members of a mental category are quantifiable.

Once upon a time there was a man named Frank. In all appearance Frank was like any man, often wearing jeans and a raggedy old t-shirt he bought at Brittany Spears concert back in 1998, and in the manner of any dude would frequently scratch his balls, in public. But inside, behind the shallow facade performed for the public eye, Frank was gentle, sensitive, and downright emo to the core. People who got to know him, really know him, would say the that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this figuratively, of course.

One day while downing brewskies with his buds in the man cave, Frank felt a sharp pain in his chest. His unhealthy mannish lifestyle had finally caught up with him and he was having a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and, long story short, eventually got a heart transplant. The donor was young woman that was killed in a motorcycle accident the day before. After the transplant, people who got to know Frank, really know him, would say that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this literally, of course. — praxis

:roll: So is a heart part of what makes one a man or a woman, or is it some other part of the body? What makes some heart the heart of a woman or a man? Is it something about the heart, or something about the rest of the body?

The bishop always stays on the same coloured squares.
This laptop belongs to me
Zelenskyy is Ukraine's President.

These statements are true. Yet they are true not in virtue of a "state of affairs" in the world;

They are true because of the role that each plays in a wider activity: chess; property; and Ukrainian government. — Banno

Chess, ownership of property and the Ukrainian government are not states of affairs in the world?

Outside of those social activities, these facts have no life. Outside of those social activities, they do not become false, so much as nonsense.

We might call the activities institutions, and hence call our target statements institutional facts. — Banno

Then we agree that there are natural facts and facts invented by humans. As the inventor of certain states-of-affairs like democracy, we determine the nature of those states-of-affairs and the relationship between those states-of-affairs and the scribbles we use to refer to them. Different languages use different scribbles and sounds to refer to the same state-of-affairs - natural or social (I could argue that social states-of-affairs are natural states-of-affairs but that is for another thread).

And they are deontic. Each implies an obligation. Someone might move the bishop along a row, but it would no longer be a Bishop. To play Chess you are obliged to move only diagonally. I can do as I wish with my laptop, in a way that is distinct from you doing what you wish with my laptop. An officer in the service of the Ukrainian government is obliged to follow instructions from Zelenskyy in a way that they are not so obligated by any other Ukrainian. — Banno

Not following the rules of playing chess means that playing chess is no longer the state-of-affairs. The same can be said about someone stealing your laptop and revolting against the Ukrainian president - all states-of-affairs.

The presumption here will be that we do things with words. Words are not just names used to passively se tout how things are. We make statements, we ask questions, we give commands - much more than just saying something, our utterances are acts.

Consider:
"I now pronounce you husband and wife"
"I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth"
"I give and bequeath my watch to my brother"
"I bet you a fiver it rains tomorrow"

These are not mere descriptions. They are what Austin called performative utterances. Each makes something the case; that the couple are married, the ship named, the ownership of the watch passed on and the bet offered, if not accepted.

Notice that such utterances are not either true or false; if they misfire, it is in some other way than by truth value. — Banno

Uses and acts are manifestations of our goals. What is our goal in using scribbles and sounds? What is our goal in acting in ways that produce scribbles and sounds? If your goal is not to refer to some state-of-affairs then what are you saying?

You have to account for the short-cuts that we make with language use. Giving commands is basically a reference to someone's wants and needs (their goals). A command isn't about the person being commanded, but about the one making the command, as the one being commanded can ignore the command.

.

OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'? — noAxioms

Using an omnipotent god as an example is quite a stretch as the phrase, "omnipotent god" brings a whole host of other problems into the mix.

I just don't see how some string of scribbles could be true if the scribbles were not representative of some real state-of-affairs that exists somewhere and somewhen. I guess it comes down to how you define "truth".

Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion. — noAxioms

Yes, but if a species doesn't reproduce which requires individuals within a species to do just that, then the species dies out. Reproducing isn't just the sex and the birth. It requires the raising of the young to a reproductive age, or else you haven't reproduced even at the level of species because if all the offspring of a new generation die then the existence of the species is threatened.

Sure, less competition for mates does help a species, and is also a benefit to individuals as they can find mates without having to expend much energy in doing so, as well as those that are not breeding contribute to the rearing of the next generation like educating or paying your taxes that goes to education. So it seems to me that any benefit to the species is also a benefit to the individuals that make up the species, or else what do you mean by "species" if not individuals of a particular gene pool?

I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself. — noAxioms

What is the difference between an individual and a self? Do individuals exist? If so, and they are synonymous with selves, then selves exist. I don't see what the lie is that you are referring to.

The hard problem of consciousness is resolved by abandoning dualism and physicalism.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable,
— Harry Hindu

What I wrote and what you wrote don't seem to me to be the same thing. — T Clark

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity if not that their experience is quantifiable. Are they born knowing the symbols used to represent some quantity? It seems to me that you need to establish mental categories or else there will only be one of everything.

Forgive me, I got tired of endlessly repeating the same point, that a discussion between gender and sex is natural and quite common. — praxis

Forgive me, but I fail to see where you actually made any point, much less repeated one. If you'd like to continue, educate me on your points by answering my questions: is physiology a necessary part, if not the only part, of one's gender? What is the difference between the literal and non-literal meaning of "man"/"woman"?

So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something. — ssu

To get a library card? I think it has more to do with the author(s) of the application are simply virtue signaling.

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! — praxis

Only fucking words? What about non-fucking words?

You are making unnecessary distinctions and at the same time being purposely obtuse to the necessary distinctions, as in the difference between non-literal meanings and literal meanings.

Is your example of the use of the term, "man", in the literal or non-literal sense? What is the difference in being a man in the literal sense vs the non-literal sense? Just to avoid any confusion, I'm aiming at the literal sense of the term, "man". So if you agree that your example is a non-literal use, then your example isn't useful in defining "man" in the literal sense. In other words, we are talking past each other.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, like I said, and from there we develop symbols for communicating these quantifiable experiences.

I actually question everything, even 2+2=4. Is it objectively true, or is it perhaps only a property of the physics or mathematics of say this universe, and doesn't work in another one? I cannot think of a reasonable counterexample, but that very issue seems to be one of the weakest links in my goal of finding a self-consistent view of how things are. — noAxioms

It would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category.

On the surface, how about "reproduction is beneficial"? It certainly doesn't benefit the individual. There are plenty of humans living more comfortable lives by becoming voluntarily sterile, but for the most part, reproduction is quite instinctual which is why the above goal can rarely be achieved via just abstinence. — noAxioms

Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about. What makes reproduction not beneficial to an individual? Wouldn't that depend on the goal we're talking about?

At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial. — noAxioms

Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?

I find that intuitions are almost never based on reason, but rather instinct or experience. Many of those intuitions are not true, but don't confuse truth with beneficial. — noAxioms

It seems to me that the invention of mathematics would not have been conceivable if experience itself was not in some way quantifiable.

For something to be beneficial, or useful, there must be some element of truth involved, or else how can there more or less efficient ways of using something - like intuitions? Instincts evolved because there are aspects of the world that stay consistent. It seems like sexual reproduction and consciousness evolved as ways of adapting to changes within those consistencies, as in the way that children question the previous generations' axioms and filtering instinctual behaviors.

The problem is that when people claim that something can be useful but not true, they are confusing our lack of knowledge of truths that are not relevant to what is being used with truths that we do know that are being used. Just because we may not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything, or that what we do know, instinctually or consciously, isn't true enough to be useful for the goal at hand - which typically isn't having a theory of everything.

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed. — Hanover

No. It's a nod towards favoritism. There are many ideas that have no evidence. So why choose to believe in one idea with no evidence over another if not for some emotional attachment?

That's all well and good if some idea makes you feel good. The problem is that when you participate in a discussion about the true nature of the universe and it's causes, your emotional attachments to some explanation isn't useful. In a discussion about what is true, it is a category error, or at least off-topic, to inject your feelings into it.

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online. — Gnomon

No. I have pointed out the similarities between a trans-person's claims and the claims of others diagnosed with delusional disorders. You have yet to make any argument against that and instead are insisting on throwing about thinly veiled ad hominems and pleading to authority.

I don't know where you get your information, — Gnomon

Logical thinking.

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man. — praxis

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement. — praxis

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering.

This type of knowledge is described many ways, among them a priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense. — T Clark

Let's take 2+2=4. What type of knowledge is knowing 2+2=4? How do you know that 2+2=4?

It seems that knowing that 2+2=4 is an experience of visuals or a voice in your head.

Is knowing 2+2=4 just you saying in your mind, "two plus two equals four"? I don't think so. This is just knowing how to say it - not knowing what it means or refers to. We all know that children can imitate language use without knowing what it means.

Is knowing 2+2=4 knowing how to arrange the symbols, 2, 2, 4, + and = in the right order? I don't think so. Knowing how to arrange symbols in the correct order is not knowing what the symbols are about.

Is knowing that 2+2=4 knowing what 2+2=4 is about, or how to use or apply to real-life experiences, or a representation of real-life experiences of quantifying and counting experienced objects? It seems that knowing that 2+2=4 is experiencing two of something and another two of something becoming four of something. In other words, 2+2=4 is only meaningful if it can be applied to, or representative of, experience of counting real-world things which are not numbers themselves, just as words are not meaningful if not applied to real-world things that are not words themselves.

Reasoning is only useful if it is about something, or can be applied to real-world experiences.

I find that intuitions are almost never based on reason, but rather instinct or experience. — noAxioms

It seems to me that reasoning itself is instinctual and only realized through experience. How do you know you're being reasonable vs. unreasonable if not by some experience? What are you reasoning about? What form does you're reasoning take if not some experience of reasoning?