Are you saying that we can't have thought without action, I would probably agree with that, but action is not thought.

Then that would be saying that knowing how to spell the word makes it appear on the paper, which is absurd.

Which is my point. You know how to think it, but how to do it requires coordination with the body.

Then that would be saying that knowing how to spell the word makes it appear on the paper, which is absurd. — Harry Hindu

The question asked if you can know that you have a sufficient amount of knowledge to accomplish a goal. Not if having the knowledge automatically accomplishes it.

K good. Language seems coordinated by its grammar in thought and in our acts of communication...how's that.

Exactly. Yet that is how you answered the question because you fail to admit that you don't know that you can do something until you actually do it - at least once. Putting the letters in the correct order on some imaginary paper in your mind isn't the same thing as actually writing it on real paper with your hands.

Again, thinking it isn't the same as doing it. You know you can think it, but can you do it? Imagining yourself doing something isn't the same as doing it. If it were then the actions take place simply by thinking about it. But that isn't the way it is. For you to manipulate anything out in the world requires more thought - thoughts about manipulating your body to cause the manipulation of other things - like pencils and balls. I could just think about moving the pencil, but that doesn't make the pencil move. Are you saying that you have the power of telekinesis?

All thinking involves action, and I think our actions are structured along the lines of how we think.

To say these are not the same may be true, but it also may be the case that it is false. It all comes out to which provides a better explanation pragmatically.

You know you can think it, but can you do it? Imagining yourself doing something isn't the same as doing it. If it were then the actions take place simply by thinking about it. But that isn't the way it is. For you to manipulate anything out in the world requires more thought - thoughts about manipulating your body to cause the manipulation of other things - like pencils and balls. I could just think about moving the pencil, but that doesn't make the pencil move. Are you saying that you have the power of telekinesis?

You added this before I saw it (I think :D ) No, I thought we agreed that thought and action are inexorably enmeshed didn't we, now you want to bifurcate them?

Thinking a little more about this. Perhaps not all thoughts end up in physical actions but rather are actions of thought....thoughts that are parts of our internal dialogue with our self, similarly, perhaps not all actions end up as part of our conscious awareness. In either case, I don't think they are separable.

All thinking involves action, and I think our actions are structured along the lines of how we think.

To say these are not the same may be true, but it also may be the case that it is false. It all comes out to which provides a better explanation pragmatically. — Cavacava

Thinking is an action, yes, but running is a different action. So is writing, speaking, etc. - actions that require more than just your brain acting.

Have you never seen young babies discovering their bodies? They investigate their arms, hands, and legs, and you can observe them trying to control their movements. You didn't come into this world automatically knowing how to use your body, to walk, throw a ball, writing or speaking, etc.

If you can automatically do things just by thinking about it, then what is practice? What does that word mean to you?

You added this before I saw it (I think :D ) No, I thought we agreed that thought and action are inexorably enmeshed didn't we, now you want to bifurcate them? — Cavacava

I never agreed that they were the same. When did you think I did? I have always been arguing that thinking is a different action than say running, throwing a ball, or writing.

It is easy to imagine yourself doing something you never did before. It is much harder to actually do it. Are you disagreeing with this? If it weren't true, you'd be able to dribble and shoot a basketball just like Kyrie Irving just by watching him dribble and shoot, and then imagining yourself doing it just like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNwncxJzGE
Now, actually try to dribble and shoot a basketball just like that.

If you can automatically do things just by thinking about it, then what is practice? What does that word mean to you?

No, we learn and we apply what we have learned, thoughts that make sense, [if I push that crank the dolly will appear] that can be realized in action.

I must have mixed up threads, but in any case, action and thought are not separable at this point in our lives. Perhaps the neonatal consciousness is separate from bodily control which it must learn, but that way of experiencing the world is lost with maturity. Actually, this supports my supposition that thought and action are inexorable, it took years for us to learn how to coordinate thinking and action and we all did it automatically, it is a natural biological function.

It is easy to imagine yourself doing something you never did before. It is much harder to actually do it. Are you disagreeing with this? If it weren't true, you'd be able to dribble and shoot a basketball just like Kyrie Irving just by watching him dribble and shoot, and then imagining yourself doing it just like that.

Conceivability does not equal probability, yet I can imaginatively put myself in Kyrie's place, feel his move to the basket, share his upset at a bad call, this sharing of experience is what life's all about.

Put me and Kyrie at the half-court marker and guarantee me a prize if I sink a basket before him, sure the odds are he will win, but it is conceivable and possible that I get a swish on my 1st toss.

Exactly. Yet that is how you answered the question because you fail to admit that you don't know that you can do something until you actually do it - at least once. Putting the letters in the correct order on some imaginary paper in your mind isn't the same thing as actually writing it on real paper with your hands. — Harry Hindu

If you know how to write a "c" an "a" and a "t" you know that you can write them in that order, even if you never did it before.

That part is no different than knowing that you can sight read some music that has C A and G major chords in it and that's it. You don't have to have played that exact song before. You know the chords, you have the skills to sight read, you can sight read the new-to-you tune.

I wasn't detailing every single thing it requires, though. That would be ridiculously missing the point. The point is that we can never have written it, but know that what we know is sufficient to write it. — Terrapin Station

This is obviously true. I know that I can write out any prescribed combination of letters or words, prior to ever having written that prescribed combination.

On the other hand I know through past experience of having written and combined all the letters to write countless different words, that I know all the letters of the alphabet, how to write them, and how to combine them.

I object to your statement—partially. Consider the most extravagant form of rationality and logic—mathematics. Once you've taken a few courses, you should feel confident in your ability to complete problems associated with what you have studied. Let me make this more clear, take this example: 5x + 2 = 22. After taking algebra, you will know how to solve this problem (x = 4). Even if it's your first time seeing the problem. Therefore, even though you had to be instructed on how to solve problems of a similar format before you could solve the one above, you still knew you had enough knowledge to complete it.
Although if we consider my stance in a different angle, perhaps taking a math test, you don't know (you shouldn't at least, if you're a good person) the questions that will be on the exam until you've taken it. Therefore you have to take the exam to test your knowledge.

Subject-based.

No, because knowhow can, and often is, sufficient to cover sufficiently similar tasks, even if they've never been attempted. Attempting and accomplishing such tasks confirms what was already known. Examples of this have already been given. Everyone who voted "Yes" got it wrong.

Anyone who voted yes, I bet that I can reply to your replies to this comment. €50, have we got a deal?