A Cognitive Psychologist would call ineffable knowledge: tacit knowledge, a type of empirical knowledge.

Using only Philosophy (logical investigation) in a discussion pertaining to the human mind, while ignoring the relevant Sciences (empirical investigation) is akin to constructing a building with only a hammer.

You may end up with a few cohesive components, but the construct will be unsound.

In a previous post, @TheMadFool pointed out that, as you say, introspection is not a type of knowledge. I agreed that it made more sense to say it is a good way of gaining knowledge. — T Clark

Empirical knowledge, yes. Observation is another good way of gaining empirical knowledge. Both introspection (self-report) and observation have been used by Psychologists as a way of gaining empirical knowledge of the human mind.

I do use reason, but people here don't usually doubt the value of it, while it seems to me that introspection is often distrusted. — T Clark

I agree.
Observation can be verified by others. Introspection cannot. Each tool has its proper use. Other problem-solving tools (besides introspection, observation, and reason) include:
Heuristics
Analysis
Creative Thinking
Mind Wandering
Empathy

Sources of information have credibility. You believe some more than others. — T Clark

Mental events are sources of information (the result of intrinsic mental communication, or communication within a mind), hence; a type of organism function. So, I think assigning a property of credibility (believable or trustworthy condition) to a mental event is a category error.

Of course it is.

Psychobabble.

I have argued above that one cannot reason without introspecting. So I think that introspection is a part of reasoning. — Coben

Can one reason from observation independent of introspection?

Thing is, about being old and all....I already have answers to both those questions. But it seems my answers aren’t in accord with current thinking. So because I got two questions rather than an answer to my one, I haven’t learned anything. — Mww

I asked you one question in answer to one of yours, here (in case you forgot). As far as "learning anything", I guess it's true what they say about old dogs. So we are done for now.

You can't really reason without examining experience and memories of experience and your own reactions to the parts of your reasoning. — Coben

Does reflection necessarily lead to reasoning?
If not, reflection and reasoning are different types of mental events.
Could reflection lead to other types of mental events (e.g., categorisation) independent of reason?

Sorry, but I’m old.....with all that implies......so I have to ask: has there come into vogue a school of Western philosophy that holds the act of introspection to be categorically distinct from the act of reason? — Mww

How is reason (the construction of an argument) related to these types of reflection (examinations of experience)?

1) An introspection: I had a certain emotion when something happened to something I am concerned about.
2) An observation: I saw the cat run across the road.

Is introspection a valid type of knowledge — T Clark

No.
Introspection is a type of reflection, which is a type of problem-solving, not a type of knowledge.

There's more to it than that - should we depend less on introspection than on ratiocination? — T Clark

Why not depend on both?
Seems to me they are different types of problem-solving tools.
Introspection examines mental events.
Reason creates and/or develops arguments.

If so, how do they compare in terms of their credibility? — T Clark

Mental faculties don't have credibility, people do.

You presuppose much.

You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent.

Who said anything about the Monarch refusing royal assent?

Correct.
And what happens if there is no royal assent for the extension bill?

Stay tuned.

And how is Royal Assent obtained in the UK?

That would be a bill, not a law.

It is grossly irresponsible that Johnson is talking about not following the law. — Amity

Which law?

The answer to my question is found in your third link.

What's your point concerning Brexit ? — Amity

What is Jeremy Corbyn's current condition for agreeing a general election?

How is Royal Assent obtained in the UK?
Hint: Is it Parliament, or the Queen's Government, which makes laws?

I don’t think Einstein had a malicious bone in his body, the discovery of atomic weapons caused him enormous grief, but I think he would see it as an unintended consequence of his discoveries. — Wayfarer

This is funny for two reasons:
1) Einstein and Szilard wrote FDR, recommending nuclear weapons research.
2) As a consequence, the atomic bomb was engineered (not discovered).

"The Dark Ages Were Actually Good. What Can That Teach Us?"
The Atlantic, October 2019 Issue

"...the Roman empire made modern development possible by going away and never coming back."
Walter Scheidel, Escape From Rome

Minimisation leads to historical revisionism.
Rome never went away; some aspects fell dormant, then started growing again.

Modern collapse may entail:
Trade Disruption
Food Shortages
Hyperinflation
Devaluation
Civil Unrest
Militarisation

So, let the good times roll.

Whatever gets you thru the night.

I think the collection hangs separately, not together.

7. A musical ensemble playing the same standards, and someone plays one note wrong, and everyone else instinctively works it in. and the song is different now and here is jazz. — csalisbury

Ignorant view of jazz.
Better view: cooperative improvisation.

In that case, check out The Physics Forum.

Time is an actuality.

I believed that the possibilities for creativity were endless, but I don't think this is the case now. — Jhn4

Instead of limiting creativity to original combinations or transformations of actuality, it may be more interesting to explore possibilities.

Cheers. That takes the discussion in several more interesting directions.

So how does semantic information tell us that the past is different from the future? — Metaphysician Undercover

Check out Concept Learning.

Could you explain what you mean by "semantic information"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Semantic information is the process of decoding a meaningful message by a mind, and the resultant decoded meaningful message (knowledge).

The process of decoding a semantic message involves:
Awareness
Reflection
Nominalisation
Categorisation
Conceptualisation

Decoding a semantic message has factual (experiential) and/or logical (metacognitive) aspects.

We cannot definition-ally distinguish past-contingent propositions from future-contingent propositions on the basis of experiential content, unless we are prepared to bite the bullet and call a certain appearance "the past", such as the contents of a memory or photograph. But once we reject this as a mistake, as did Ayer, we realize we are then unable to provide an experiential distinction between past and future, even while we continue to insist on it. — sime

I would be interested in knowing more about Ayer's rejection of memory as a means of distinguishing between past and future. Could you elaborate, or cite a reference?

It seems to me that experience (which happens in the present) is more than capable of distinguishing between before and after (e.g., cause and effect), and designating the measurable change: time (per Aristotle).

In other words, we can't say that there's not the phenomenon of of an oasis in the desert if that occurs as an illusion. — Terrapin Station

If it "occurs as an illusion" (a conscious perception resulting in the misinterpretation of reality), the oasis is not a fact, it is a mirage. And in that case, it would be delusional to believe the mirage is an oasis.

Illusions, imagery, hallucinations, psuedohallucinations, and dreams are types of misperception, hence; not objective (fact-based).

Surely it is self-evident that there is a difference between future and past. However, we cannot really claim to experience the future, and though we say we've experienced the past, it is not as the past that we've experienced it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

So the question is what type of knowledge allows us to say that there is a difference between future and past... — Metaphysician Undercover

Empirical (experiential) knowledge (factual semantic information).

...or is there really no difference between them and what appears as extremely self-evident is just a deep delusion? — Metaphysician Undercover

The concept of time (including: past, present, future, beginning, end, instant/moment, simultaneity, serial, parallel, etc.) is embedded in language as mental modelling system, hence; human thought. It is part of the Human Umwelt.

Finite time (unidirectional duration) is measurable and divisible. It is a self-evident fact (perceived particular).

Awareness is both objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-based).

Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank

Delusion is believing something contrary to fact. Case in point:

Believing that an "is" (fact) can be separated from an "ought" (value) when awareness is both objective (fact-based) and subjective (value-based).

So how we treat other animals, for example, is not concerned with morality? — Pattern-chaser

Sure it is.
If I kill an animal (other than a human being), cook it, and feed it to my family (satisfying their fundamental need for sustenance), that is a good (moral) event.

Would I be correct in restating your definitions as follows?
1. Morality (I presume as a system) is the classification of events as moral or immoral as far as they do or do not satisfy fundamental human needs respectively. The state of being moral then, is any state that coincides with the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. — Pathogen

Inasmuch as a system is an integrated set of objects and/or events, I wouldn't refer to morality(1) as a system. Otherwise, I agree with these rephrasings.

2. Spirituality is observed as a personal condition. Spirit is the ethical character of a person. — Pathogen

My definition of spirituality makes no mention of observation, however; criterial evidence in terms of observed behaviour establishes that spirituality (hence, spirit) exists.

I agree with the rephrasing of spirit's definition, understanding that:
1) Ethical means of, or pertaining to ethics, and
2) Character is the aggregate features or traits of (in this case) a person, and
3) A person is an individual human being.

Am I then correct that you would consider spirituality a measure of one's moral or immoral character? — Pathogen

Yes.

I would like some clarification on what you consider a fundamental human need though... — Pathogen

Fundamental human needs are universal requisites for good (beneficial) mental and corporeal health (condition which entails vigour and productivity).

Here is a good summary.

Let's look at what I initially found to be a particularly confusing part of delineating the difference between spirituality and morality--the concepts of good and evil. I would assert that these ideas are not equivalent to morality or immorality, and whether they truly exist or are merely superstitions they belong within the domain of spiritual beliefs. — Pathogen

I agree that good and evil are not equivalent to morality and immorality. They may be synonymous with moral and immoral.

When a psychological (mental) event occurs (e.g., having a superstition or spiritual belief), criterial evidence in terms of observed behaviour establishes its existence.

Concepts such as law or government, which are directly involved in the process of a system of rewards and punishments in society, are morally inclined. — Pathogen

I would say that laws and governments have an ethical (moral or immoral) quality.

Therefore regardless of whether a law which has been passed is considered to be good or evil by the people under it, it would be moral to carry it out if it did not contradict the basis of what has been determined to be moral. — Pathogen

I agree.

There seems to be a difference between morality and spirituality. — Pathogen

Morality(1) is primarily understood to be a classification of events as either moral or immoral (of, or pertaining to, the satisfaction of fundamental human needs, or not). Otherwise, morality(2) is a moral condition (one which satisfies a fundamental human need).

Whereas, spirituality is a spiritual (of, or pertaining to, spirit) condition.
Spirit being the ethical (moral or immoral) character of a person.

It's consensus and theoretical models that determine what's hallucination and what isn't. — leo

Actually, it's fact which makes that determination.
Believing otherwise is delusion.

So how can we ever decisively conclude what is hallucination and what isn't? — leo

"A hallucination, in the broadest sense of the word, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space. The latter definition distinguishes hallucinations from the related phenomena of dreaming, which does not involve wakefulness; illusion, which involves distorted or misinterpreted real perception; imagery, which does not mimic real perception and is under voluntary control; and pseudohallucination, which does not mimic real perception, but is not under voluntary control."

Leo P. W. Chiu (1989). "Differential Diagnosis and Management of Hallucinations" (PDF). Journal of the Hong Kong Medical Association 41 (3): 292–7.

Perception is one instance of an interaction between body and mind. It is the mental effect of sensation (stimulation-response). Stimulation is the reception and transduction of exogenous and/or endogenous stimuli (transmitted mass-energy). Response is the propagation of action potentials in excitable cells.

Expanding on Chiu's definition, a hallucination is a conscious perception having qualities of environment or corporeal state, but no corresponding (exogenous and/or endogenous) stimulus.

A hallucination is real (actual) for the person experiencing it (i.e., a subjective, not objective or intersubjective, experience).