Thanks for your elaboration, however; I think this conceptualisation is too broad.When I say introspection is inevitable, I mean that it is an essential feature of any kind of conscious thinking. — James Laughlin
Yeah, Mother Nature has deemed it good to imbue us with a sensory overload protection mechanism on the one hand, and an internal trash collecting mechanism on the other. — Mww
I'm sorry some of this is just really subtle because it's easy to assume an 'introspection' involves a factual claim about your inner life 'e.g. 'I am feeling tired'. I think the moment you begin to try concluding something about your inner life is the moment fallibility becomes possible. Otherwise, I agree you cannot be wrong with what you are plainly observing presuming you aren't trying to make sense of it or categorize it as a type of experience.If realizing means labeling, that's not what I'm talking about. As I said previously - No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment. Now we can add no labeling and, I suppose, no recognizing. An episode of the Simpsons comes to mind when they go to Australia. — T Clark
I'm sorry some of this is just really subtle because it's easy to assume an 'introspection' involves a factual claim about your inner life 'e.g. 'I am feeling tired'. I think the moment you begin to try concluding something about your inner life is the moment fallibility becomes possible. — aporiap
We are humans, we are fallible. But can one gain knowledge via introspection? yes. Can people improve their use of introspection? I think they can. I also think one uses introspection in all sorts of other methods, even if these seem outward focused and rational. We are always checking in internally and intuitively during any trying to gain knowledge process. — Coben
I don't think knowledge is necessarily a social phenomenon. . .
All in all, I don't think you and I are far apart — T Clark
Two psychologists meet:
How am I?
You're fine, how am I?
Some of us are so radical as not only to rely on our own introspection, but also on that of others. — unenlightened
Also, what I know from introspection can be social. This thread is good evidence for that.
To see a world of things is to already have categorized the world into objects, which involves a fallible process of reasoning, even though it's non linguistic. — aporiap
I don't think we are far apart with respect to what I might term hyper-rationalists -- I take that to be the target of your thread. — Moliere
There's a lot of silly talk about what knowing means (justified true belief theory as the prime example) that I find evaporates when I look at how it really works while I'm thinking. It struck me how often I talk about my experience of how mental processes work in my posts. From responses I've gotten, that appears to be alien to a lot of people on the forum and, I assume, in general. — T Clark
As to where to go from here, I think I've gotten out of it what I wanted. — T Clark
So, which of these two forks sound more interesting to explore, to you? Characterizing knowledge, or intersubjective introspection? — Moliere
I'll take both at once. One cannot talk about knowledge without using introspection, because knowledge is interior. I can know shit without introspection, but I cannot know that I know shit.
And you know that I know that I know, because I just told you, and vice versa, and there's the intersubjective, which is how we decide what knowing is in the first place. — unenlightened
Under this parsing I agree that I cannot know that I know things, — Moliere
And I think I'd like to say that knowledge is not internal — Moliere
Rather, knowledge is what we build together by acting -- so belief is clearly involved, but knowledge is a social product whereby we act together. — Moliere
What do you mean?
Knowledge may be stored in books, fossils, etc, but books nor fossils don't know shit. — unenlightened
Well I'd start from the usual meaning of JTB rather than try and persuade folks that they mean something else, unless you want to be an internal eliminatist or something. We use knowledge to build bridges but we build them out of something more substantial. — unenlightened
Language allows states of mind to become abstractions that can function as elements of thought - the word "thought" there becomes an element in the thought that contains it. This is what allows for introspection. — unenlightened
Language is the only tool by which we can share our interior space with another while still retaining it as ours and respecting them as theirs. Abstractions, on the other hand, allow us to subsume the other under the guise of knowledge, under categories which turn the other into a sort of tool to be used. But if there is no knowledge of the internal, then all we have left with is our knowledge of language which allows sharing, but not categorizing. — Moliere
Again, you say [if] "there is no knowledge of the internal", but how could you possibly know that - how could you talk at all about the internal, having no knowledge of it? — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.