I agree.

I disagree. I am experiencing what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is a knowledge.

I disagree.

so we know our subjective experiences for sure, and hence there is something that we know for sure, and so it is not true that we cannot know about anything for sure. — Banno

I like the way you put it. But the problem here is knowing and experiencing. You have to explain what exactly you meant by know to have a good definition. Subjective experience is there we know it. But isn't really experiencing rather than knowing, even the knowledge is an experience don't you think?

Ok is there a reason why you disagree.

But the problem here is knowing and experiencing. You have to explain what exactly you meant by know to have a good definition. — Abhiram

I was just typing out a response to address this issue: My first instinct was to say "Something exists" or "I feel something", because I believe our experience is prior to any knowledge we might have, even of ourselves. But when does the mere sense experience start to come together to make a model of reality and our identity? Don't we need to have an understanding of self in order to claim knowledge of anything, or maybe knowledge of the concept of knowledge itself?

No , cogito ergo sum, clearly distinguish mind and body
It is idealistic. Mine is subjective experience in any form regardless of any construct or boundaries.

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something. — Corvus

Knowing is a delusion. Belief is all that we have.

He might believe he knows nothing. This is not knowing. It is only belief. So then he believes something.

The word or verb to know is a word that, like many, partakes of perfection too much. It is my assertion that the word know means objectively know, and that is impossible.

Playing word games with a word that has never really meant what people thought it means is not useful.

Of course the colloquial understanding of the verb to know is burdened with the colloquial confusion that 'knowing' is possible. And on we go ...

I think you mistook my statement. I was talking about subjective experiences not sense experience. Those are different things and subjective experience has a broad meaning when it comes to philosophy.

Oh right. Still curious about my questions regardless, and I do think the question of the origins/transformation into knowledge is relevant.

I disagree. I am experiencing what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is a knowledge. — Truth Seeker

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. There is no knowledge that is not only beliefs.

It is not just pedantic foolishness that originates these types of assertions. It is philosophy properly applied. Skepticism is a valid approach. It does not deny anything that is happening. 'Knowing' has never happened in the entire history of time because perfection is not possible. We may only approach perfection or try to aim at it. We have not arrived and theoretically will never arrive.

There are many verbs that contain this same conundrum. There are many situation in reality that should be understood more properly by applying the asymptotic state to their limited approaches. Knowing is just one example.

We operate only from a well of beliefs. Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible.

Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone.

↪Gnomon
Can you show me the calculation, please? — Truth Seeker

The linked article in my post describes the procedure for calculating the statistical probability of a personal belief. Other than objective evidence or blind faith, that may be as close to "certainty" as you can get to logical truth. Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation. :smile:

You have to explain what exactly you meant by know to have a good definition. — Abhiram

Justified true belief?

Subjective experience is there we know it. — Abhiram

Whatever "it" is. Our knowledge is not limited to subjective experience. For example, that you answered my post demonstrates that you know you are a participant in a social organisation that spans the globe...

The mooted hegemony of subjective experience is a philosophical conceit, nothing more.

So you are certain of that formula?

Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible. — Chet Hawkins

And you know this to be so?

Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone. — Lionino

This is said without irony?

:lol:

I don't see it that way

This is said without irony? — Banno

taking a dim view of what he described as the Wittgensteinian “thought police” (owing to the Orwellian tendency on the part of some Wittgensteinians to suppress dissent by constricting the language, dismissing the stuff that they did not like understand as inherently meaningless)

Lakatos?

Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone?

You are clever enough to understand that we must start somewhere...

Lakatos? — Banno

From the quotes thread.

Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone? — Banno

Yes. Therefore something is set in stone. Therefore it is not set in stone that nothing is set in stone. Therefore nothing is set in stone. This is a paradox! Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone.
No. Therefore that is not set in stone. So what is it that is set in stone? It seems no one has clarified it yet. Some might say it is the law of identity, but that one is shrouded in mystery.

You are clever enough to understand that we must start somewhere... — Banno

We can start from wherever we want. Knowledge can be like mathematics or logic where we can choose the axioms we want. But it is only certain axioms that give us good theorems. Some people start with the Christian God, others with PNC (but is it more fundamental than the PEM?), most people with a collection of brute facts ("I just know that gravity is 9.81m/s²!"). If we start with the negative that we don't know, we might stop worrying about being certain about things (as if certainty even exists) and start worrying about being less uncertain in general.

Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible.
— Chet Hawkins
And you know this to be so? — Banno

Clearly, I do not know it. I admit it. Certainty is absurd! I only believe it to be so. And I can and do argue as to why. Effort has been made to validate. That is all anyone can say or has time for.

We can start from wherever we want. — Lionino

Yep.

That's much better than the incoherent claim that we know nothing, or its inane sibling, that there are no true statements. It has a huge pop status, a mark of rebellion, sticking it to the man, talking truth to power, and so on.

But it undermines itself.

Doubt and certainty are twins, you don't get one without the other.

One can't play chess without the certainty that one's opponent will keep their bishop on the same colour.

Certainty is absurd! — Chet Hawkins

Again, why are you so adamant about this?

Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone?
— Banno

Yes. Therefore something is set in stone. Therefore it is not set in stone that nothing is set in stone. Therefore nothing is set in stone. This is a paradox! Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone. — Lionino

I see this kind of attempt at twisting language and meaning so often, and it amazes me that people seem to fall for it. This does not magically mean that something is set in stone, unless I am missing something. It means the opposite. If we consider the following, we can see why: (BTW I am sure many others see this too, but I do very often notice misunderstandings regarding the same positive/negative wordings)
It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone -- positive and negative = negative, meaning there is nothing set in stone
It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone -- negative and positive = negative, meaning there is nothing certain
It is set in stone that something is set in stone --- positive and positive = positive, meaning that something is set in stone.
It is not set in stone that there is nothing set in stone --- negative and negative = positive, meaning that something is set in stone
I mean, am I missing something or is it this simple? Maybe I got it all wrong, and I cannot see how????

Certainty is absurd! — Chet Hawkins

Again, why are you so adamant about this? — Banno

You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty.

You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty. — Beverley

Yep, certainty is a form of belief, not of truth. One can be certain of whatever one choses. Or doubt whatever they like.

What I am pointing to is simply the performative contradiction in folk expressing such certainty in their doubt.

twisting language — Beverley

You mean using logic?

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. — Chet Hawkins

Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional.

Certainty is absurd!
— Chet Hawkins
Again, why are you so adamant about this? — Banno

Well if you are going to cast doubt on something, let that something be certainty. It's my sin I guess. So certain that certainty is wrong! ;)

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins

Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional — RogueAI

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message.

But the possible (lack of) depth of moral agency does not preclude that agency, nor the infinity of choice. The only thing that is happening is the effort required to enact some high minded choice is exponentially higher in a body that is not evolved to support that agency in situ. But it's not impossible ...

I always chafed at that horridly untrue George Eliot quote, "Animals are such agreeable friends—they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms." I think this man knew NO animals. He surely did not know erudite ones like dolphins and border collies.

twisting language
— Beverley
You mean using logic? — Banno

No, I mean that I see it time and time again that someone will quote a positive negative to suggest that the result is positive, such as, it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, meaning that something must be set in stone if only that it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, This is nonsense, and to me, seems like twisting words to throw unnecessary confusion into the conversation. That it not logic.

Certainty in doubt is also a positive negative, meaning it results in a negative... seems pretty straight forward to me, unless I am missing something. (But then I always doubt myself, so I could well be getting something wrong)

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like?

Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like? — RogueAI

Yes, that's what I meant. Fear, anger, and desire. The anger is the being in essence. So instinct is a body or pre-differentiated memory. The body's statement for choice, the starting state, is itself just a previous choice. That is belief from being (anger), implied, waking STATE. Evolution chooses. Therefore it DID believe. It seems to try all routes (desire) but really there is math in every one (fear).