Yes.

No, why would that be the case? There's something called planning.

I'm going to go with "no."

Say that you've never literally written the word "cat" in a sentence before, and your goal is to do so the next time you're writing a post. If you have or gain knowledge regarding what "cat" refers to, and you know how to spell it, then you know that you can successfully use it in a sentence the next time you write a post. It's not going to be up in the air whether you'll succeed. There would have to be something very weird going on to not succeed.

Planning is guessing, as David Heinemeier Hansson used to say.

I think it depends on whether or not you've done the task before, and how complex it is. I agree with the spirit of the claim but would be compelled to vote No, because I don't think it's impossible, but just most often impossible or close to impossible.

The future is always uncertain, so while I may know the way to San Jose, getting there may be another story, which is not over until I get there.

You'd have to know you weren't going to have a heart attack, and that the mad axeman wasn't creeping up behind you, and that you weren't going to move your own goalposts halfway through.

But most of us philosophers are perfectly sure we can drive to work in the morning, and cook dinner in the evening, and some of us don't even call it guessing. The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.

Everything anyone ever does, they have sufficient knowledge to do, but not always before they do it.

But most of us philosophers are perfectly sure we can drive to work in the morning, and cook dinner in the evening, and some of us don't even call it guessing. The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.

Which guide would you rather have, a guide who knows the way to the Walmart or a guide who has a true opinion about its location?

For such affairs, a dog is more convenient than a philosopher. A dog has more sense than to wonder if it possibly knows enough to get where it's going, and won't trouble me with the question either.

I once had a dog...Sidney, a terrier, a little yappy thing, that was dumber than shit but still loveable.

YES - you are absolutely right. All the people who said otherwise, aren't thinking straight.

I don't think common people think of going to the supermarket as a goal. They rather think buying a bigger house in 10 years as a goal, or saving enough for a car, or starting a business, etc. Most of the time it is impossible to know for sure if you can achieve such a goal. That's why you just have to try, and keep on trying until you get there.

The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money. — unenlightened

Fock meah, since when do you get Walmart in UK? But I'd have to question this - you can refuse to go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept your money - it's called home delivery 8-)

As far as the statement "impossible to know" can be trotted out and applied to anything, sure, we have no ultimate certitude.

But, say I set out to solve a basic math problem, and before hand I demonstrate sufficient knowledge of mathematical theorems which completely contain and describe the given problem in question. It's entirely reasonable to say that I have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the goal of solving the math problem.

The more complex the goal, the more unknowns, the harder it is to be reasonably sure of success, so of course your supposition does fairly apply to many cases, just not all of them.

Yes, because it is possible that on the way to accomplish your goal you will be confronted by somebody that refuses to allow you to pass unless you can tell them your name, your goal and the air-speed velocity of a fully-laden swallow.

It is impossible to know if the amount of knowledge you have is sufficient to accomplish a goal, without attempting it. — MonfortS26

Yes, I think you're right because you are asking whether it's possible to know that you know. But this implies that you must also know that you know that you know, as well as know that you know that you know that you know, ad infinitum. So the claim to know that you know can never be justified due to infinite regress.

Wait, some people are reading it as a question whether one will succeed at the goal. That's not what he asked. He asked if you can know that some specific knowledge is sufficient to reach a particular goal. Knowledge can be sufficient to reach a goal whether you reach it or not ("not" perhaps because you die or the world disappears or whatever scenario we want to imagine).

There is knowing and there is knowing that you know. You can know how to write the word, "cat". But then how do you know you know how to write the word, "cat"? - by actually writing it. You can know the letters that are part of the word, "cat", and the order that they must be written, but to write the word, you have to know how to hold a pencil and how to move your hand in such a way, which requires fine motor skills, to spell the word on paper and you don't know that you can actually do that until you do it.

There is knowing and there is confirming your knowledge by using it. Things change, like the spelling and use of words, and when that happens, your knowledge is no longer accurate. This is why we constantly check our knowledge by using it and then updating our knowledge when things don't go as predicted when applying our knowledge.

How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?

You can know how to write the word, "cat". But then how do you know you know how to write the word, "cat"? - — Harry Hindu

Why would you be assuming that we're talking about a situation where someone doesn't know how to write in general?

How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?

Language, we talk with our self a lot.

Knowing how to write, "dog" doesn't mean you know how to write, "cat". It requires different movements and if you never made those movements before, then you don't know you can do it until you do it.

Talking is different than writing. Moving your mouth and tongue isn't the same as moving your hands. There are people that can speak better than they write and vice versa.

Knowing how to write, "dog" doesn't mean you know how to write, "cat". It requires different movements and if you never made those movements before, then you don't know you can do it until you do it. — Harry Hindu

So you'd be assuming that we must be talking about a situation where someone only knows how to write some letters of the alphabet? C'mon, man, don't be stupid. It can't be that every single person on this board is a moron.

Talking is different than writing. Moving your mouth and tongue isn't the same as moving your hands. There are people that can speak better than they write and vice versa.

Sorry I don't see how this follows from:

How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?

and this

Language, we talk with our self a lot.

Thanks

The question isn't rhetorical, so there wasn't really a point being made. How about answering the question?

Yeah, like when you're in grade school learning how to write your letters and put them together in words. Adults tend to take their knowledge for granted. There was a point in your life that this situation applies, and this is an important part of the process - of learning - of applying your knowledge over time, testing it where at this point in your life, you've done it so many times, you take it for granted how you do it.

But I'd obviously not be talking about someone in elementary school who doesn't even know how to write (or type) each letter yet.

I answered your question. I think self awareness is the result of the inner dialogue we each have with ourselves. The grammar of language is as much a part of thought as it is in whatever is written or otherwise expressed.

Then you're not really getting at the meat of the OP. Do you disagree that you owe your knowing how to write, "cat" to the countless times you've done it before this moment in your life?

Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil.

Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil and then tell your hand to move in such a way in order to do it.

Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil. — Harry Hindu

Obviously you have to know how to form or type the letters. The point is that you can know how to do that, know how to spell the word, etc. without having actually written the word before, and that's sufficient to know that you can do it (barring the world ending beforehand and other nonsense like that).

I already pointed out that we can know the letters that are part of the word, and the order in which they appear, but to know how to write it, requires more knowledge. Practice makes perfect.

but to know how to write it, requires more knowledge. — Harry Hindu

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.