…..it just means that you'll never think about it. — Echogem222

If it is the case to think just is the employment of the faculty of understanding, then the negation would be necessarily true, in that to not think is to not employ that faculty. So it isn’t so much a lack of understanding, which implies an attempt, but rather, understanding, with respect to this certain thing, is never even brought to bear.
————

we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonable — Echogem222

This could only be justified by changing “nothing creating everything” to nothing to us creating everything. Otherwise, there is something that creates us but nothing creating everything, a blatant contradiction.

Or so it seems…..

But I don't want to go further and impute a dualistic structure to the mind-independent actuality. — Janus

A perfect example of the difficulties with language: to impute dualism to actuality is metaphysically disastrous, re: whatever is just is, Aristotle’s A = A, but when actuality is qualified by “mind-independent”, a dualism is automatically given.

An overly-critical analyst might even go so far as to assert there is no such thing as “actuality” without an intelligence affected by it, the repercussion being non-dualism is impossible, from which follows A = whatever I think it is.
———-

It seems that language is dualistic in its logical structure, its grammar. If that is so, then all of our discourse will be dualistic also. (…) I don't think our mindsets are that far apart. — Janus

Respectfully, I submit that our intelligence is dualist in its logical structure, and language merely represents the expression of its employment, so our mindsets are at least that far apart. Dualistic in logical structure just meant to indicate the rational/empirical grounds for proof, the former being necessary from which follows the possibility of truth, the latter contingent from which follows the possibility of knowledge.

Anyway….historically we’ve noticed between us the pitfalls of OLP, so in that respect, we’re not that far apart.

…..accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others….. — Rob J Kennedy

A set of principles? Given the fundamental nature of principles in general, why would a set of them benefit the opportunities of one person over another?

If it is the case “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a fundamental principle, and each member in a community is subject to that principle, why would I need to relinquish anything in order for any of them partake in it?

No, I would not be willing to give up my job, such that the next guy could claim the income from it. On the other hand, I might be willing to relinquish something in order to facilitate the opportunity for another to be subject to that fundamental principe, ranging from going to war, or merely going to vote.

Hardly a simple question, methinks, insofar as the domain of the query itself is more anthropological/psychological than philosophical, but the response is predicated entirely on a moral disposition, which is altogether philosophical. The ol’ apples/oranges thing.
————-



HA!!! You beat me by scant seconds.

Our own notions of representations will constantly come up against fuzziness and exceptions to rules. All this suggesting that what we think of as representations are redundant to whatever is going on underneath the hood — Apustimelogist

No disagreement from me here. Nevertheless, we don’t know what goes on under the hood, yet we rise to the occassion of making it comprehensible to ourselves, in some form, by some method. Representation is merely a component which fits into one of those methods. Besides, and quite obviously, we do not think in terms of neural activity, even if that is exactly how the brain works, which is perfect justification for a substitute descriptive methodology. To be a rationally adept human is to be discontented with no understanding at all, so we throw stuff at the wall, see what sticks, and whatever does is what we deem as understandable. Hence, speculative metaphysics; been that way since Day One.
—————

a tacit admission that whatever is said from a purely speculative point of view…..cannot possibly be the method the brain…..actually uses.
— Mww

I'm not understanding this. Could you say more? — frank

Maybe what I said just above is sufficient? Enlightenment philosophy in general understood the brain’s overall necessary functionality without knowing hardly a single thing about the brain, so whatever we say about what’s going on between our ears is a fiction with respect to the physical operation of material substances. All Kant wanted to state as a warning to his peers, is to be careful in the construction of those fictions, one of which….his in particular it so happens….is what you already said regarding a built-in a priori framework.

The more I think about it, the less I think representationalism makes sense. — frank

Think about what? Representationalism makes perfect sense metaphysically, which just indicates an logically necessary method describing how our intellect works. But to think about how the brain as a physical substance works, as that by which our intellect is possible, representationalism wouldn’t even be a theoretical condition, hence wouldn’t make any sense to include it in an empirical descriptive method.

In A4/B8 Kant says, “…..(may be avoided if) we are sufficiently cautious in the construction of our fictions, which are not the less fictions on that account.…”, a tacit admission that whatever is said from a purely speculative point of view, sufficient for us to comprehend what it is we do with our intelligence, cannot possibly be the method the brain, in and of itself, actually uses to provide it.

I don't like to assign locations to things like ideas or experiences — Janus

Understood. Concepts. Intuitions. Judgements. Representations. Numbers. Pretty hard to pin down the location in the brain of those thing that don’t even exist in concreto anyway, except as explanatory devices in abstracto.

OK, fine. Experiences don’t exist in the brain, but the things the brain does, whatever that is, that makes it seem like experiences exist in the brain, exist in the brain.
————-

I am no dualist, though, except when it comes to our thinking and judging. — Janus

In for a penny, why not in for a pound? Thinking and judging is just about the entire human conscious intellectual environment anyway, isn’t it?

At least now I have a better idea regarding your mindset, so, thanks for that.

…..it doesn't follow that experience is in the brain. — Janus

The implication being, it is possible experience is not in the brain, which is the same as outside the brain, or in a place where the brain is not. If one maintains that he experiences things in the world, in conjunction with the implication his experiences are not in the brain, and, if he maintains all his experiences belong to him alone, then it is necessarily the case he himself is not in his own brain.

I’m sure you do not hold with that perfectly justified logical deduction, or at least its conclusion. So which is the false premise?

We have a space in which representing occurs (internally)….. — NOS4A2

With respect to the thread topic, re: realism, this space has been called “intuition”, the faculty of empirical representation, in which the matter of things perceived unite with a form “….which lies a priori in the mind…”, which gives rise to “phenomena”, that is, representations in the form of images, which are the first instances of becoming conscious of the particular nature of whatever was initially a mere sensation.

The respect for the thread title here is necessary, insofar as there is another internal space in which representation occurs, wherein perception is not a precursor, thus these must be kept separate for theoretical consistency.

Just, you know….FYI.

Naive realists claim that distal objects and their properties are constituents of our experience and indirect realists claim that they're not. — Michael

Objects and their properties. This implies the objects come fully equipped with whatever constitutes them as they are. While this is certainly true, it is not always the case these constituent properties are perceived, re: phases of the moon, how many feet of a running horse touch the ground at the same time, and so on. Insofar as it is impossible that any object not be completely constituted, and if it is at the same time impossible to perceive the totality of a manifold of constituent parts, it is not contradictory that the human intellectual system itself, imposes those properties. If it is not contradictory that the intellect supplies the missing properties, and given the impossibility of perceiving all possible properties, it is also non-contradictory that the intellect supplies all properties, insofar as there is no established mechanism by which it would be possible to determine which properties were perceived and which were supplied.

The direct realist wants his objects already fully equipped with its identifying properties, the indirect realist wants to assign the properties by which he thinks the object identifiable. If follows that the object along with its properties comprise the experience of the former, while the properties alone comprise the experience of the latter.

Breaking it down a little…..so we got one of each persuasion standing next to each other, watching the moon rise. It is a natural characteristic that the moon appears larger the lower on the horizon it is, from which follows the direct realist must allow the moon physically, naturally, changes its size/mass/volume as it traverses the sky, iff however the moon’s changing properties cum hoc just are the experience of it. The indirect realist, because he only assigns properties to the changing representations of an object post hoc, the object itself does not need the property of change insofar as the object itself never was a component of experience in the first place.

Breaking it down a lot…..the direct realist maintains space and time belong to things as properties of them, no more or less necessary for their experience than any other property, but the indirect realist maintains space and time belong to him alone, are not properties of things at all, but are the conditions absolutely necessary for the experience of them.

Breaking it down completely….the realism of objects is direct in the perception of them, their properties be what they may; the realism of properties is indirect in the experience of them, the object be what it may.

….doesn't seem to account for hallucinations…. — Lionino

In the interest of metaphysical doctrines by which the rules of a given system are determined, hallucinations are merely the exceptions to them. In conjunction then, with the current understandings, in which hallucinations are different from delusions, the former sensory the latter cognitive, it is theoretically consistent and logically sufficient to find something they both have in common, and, is susceptible to error on its own accord.

A good candidate for that, is imagination, an added bonus resident in the fact imagination is that faculty whose function it is to synthesis the conceptions in a relation, from which follows that if imagination combines, say, concepts that do not belong to each in the construction of its sensory phenomena, e.g., flying animals with antlers, hallucinations are given, and if imagination combines concepts in the construction of its cognitions, e.g., to see one mountain is to see them all, delusions are given.

While this is all well and good, there is nothing contained in synthesis itself of which we are conscious. Thus, another faculty is required, such that the errors the system makes are brought to the attention of that which is conscious of them, and this faculty, is judgement, a component of understanding. Here, in judgement, the phenomenon “flying animal with antlers” is just confusing, where the delusion from cognition, is utterly irrational

But even that is not enough, insofar as there must be a means for self-correction, given that both hallucination with its empirical ground or delusion with its logical ground, contradict experience. And that faculty, is the Mighty and Highly Esteemed Judge Advocate General, reason.

But with respect to your misgivings, I submit that the objects of hallucination are just as real as far as the physiology of perception and the necessary subsequent sensations given from them, as those that are not hallucinatory. None of my senses can tell the difference between a hallucination and a not-hallucination. So saying, the possibility of error arises from a glitch in the system downstream from mere perception, at least from a metaphysical point of view.

Which is probably why we have psychologists nowadays, so we can be told what’s wrong with us, rather than accepting the intrinsic fallibility of the system with which Nature….theoretically…..saw fit to burden us, and allowing it the opportunity….theoretically….to fix itself.

See what happens when you say there weren’t any idealists here? One of ‘em inevitably has to pipe up and put forth his brand of stuff, just to prove you wrong. (Grin)

Can you rephrase? — Lionino

Hmmmm…ok, try this: guy stubs his toe on a tree root, cannot then legitimately deny he stubbed his toe on a tree root. He might claim he didn’t in order to save face after removing the leaves from his hair and whatnot, but reason won’t allow him to intelligently disregard the fact there was a time when he was no longer upright, however temporary that condition may have been.

While this a trivial example, the principle which sustains it is nonetheless congruent with that for which experience, hence the perception which is its occassion, is merely possible. Although, there is precedent wherein denial of a sensation follows from the inability to comprehend its cause, but this is improper application of human cognitive methodology. Guy might say he didn’t see the thing because he couldn’t figure out what it was, but this is only half true, in that he is justified in not knowing a thing but that doesn’t relieve him of admitting its being met with his own sensibility.

Dunno if that was any help or not. Might’a just made it worse, for which I offer apologies.

Perceptions are that which affords the immediate consciousness of the real, in a sensation.
— Mww

Which doesn't protect you against the uncertainty of whether those perceptions are really of the outside world or generated by your own mind. — Lionino

If it be granted the senses inform but do not judge, the notion here of protection from mental uncertainty regarding mere perception, is moot.

The physiological certainty on the other hand, manifest as an affect on the sensory apparatuses by real things external to those apparatuses, which just is that affordance, and from which sensations necessarily follow, is given and is thereby incontestable, insofar as the negation or denial of a given, is self-contradictory.

To even suppose the mind generates the very perceptions which occassion the pursuit of knowledge as a cognitive terminus, is to anesthetize the human intellectual system from its empirical predicates, which is tantamount to denying to Nature its proper authority as arbiter of human experience.

What brand of idealists does that?
— Mww

Subjective idealism or phenomenalism perhaps? — Michael

I dunno. But even the Good Bishop, if acknowledged as the foremost subjective idealist, granted to his fellow humans the reality of objects, the existence of non-mental entities.

The pure phenomenalist**, on the other hand, wants to deny, or limit, the real object’s non-mental existence, which is absurd, considering the inescapable affect plane crashes or mosquito bites have on our intelligence.
(** not to be confused with the Kantian sense of intuitive representations called phenomena, which isn’t technically phenomenalism. He gave it a quick once-over gloss with phenomenology, but left such naming as philosophically inconsequential)

It also seems that nobody here believes that our perceptions are the objects (…). But I imagine that is because no idealist has entered the thread yet. — Lionino

So idealists believe our perceptions are the objects? What brand of idealists does that?

I’m a card-carryin’, non-apologetic dualist, which makes me half-idealist, and neither that half nor the empirical half believes our perceptions are the objects.

Even if the idealist grants we perceive objects, or, which is the same thing, our perceptions are of objects, he does nothing by such warrant to explicate what perceptions are.

To perceive, to have perceptions, is to be affected by the real;
Perceptions are that which affords the immediate consciousness of the real, in a sensation.

After this physiological groundwork, and for sufficient methodological epistemic justifications, it’s off to the metaphysical rodeo, like it or not.

I don't think "I don't understand" requires either space or time. — Lionino

Certainly not space, but I rather think any philosophical framework mandates time as a fundamental prerequisite for its methodology. Or, maybe I just wouldn’t entertain the possibility that there are those that do not.

The idea of space is not required to say something is "beyond me"…. — Lionino

Agreed, but “beyond me” still qualifies as a certain relation. If there are but two fundamental relational representations, and for relations in which space is not required, all that remains, is time.

A context-driven conceptual dichotomy, nonetheless.

Doesn't that suggest there is a cosmic time? — Bob Ross

I suppose one could be justified in claiming something like, “….There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”, while at the same time, the guy next to him could retort with, ehhhh, so what if there are.

Even if there is such a thing as cosmic time, isn’t that just another conception given from the same intelligence from which all others arise? Why should cosmic time that manifests in certain objective or empirical relations, negate the subjective intuitional form of time in general, which is the condition of every relation?

Gotta admit to the fascinating science, though, all things considered.

I think that what we scientifically know, is a rough estimation of what is really there in-itself. — Bob Ross

I suppose, depending on how logically consistent one wishes to be, but generally I agree with that, which should relieve me of scientific anti-realism. What we scientifically know, then, just indicates a particular method; that which is known about being what it may.

Without taking an anti-realist position, I don't see how you can explain the observable phenomena of 'time dilation', for example, by appeal to "phenomenal", a priori, time. — Bob Ross

All time dilation shows is the relation between sets of conditions with respect to each other. Nothing particularly amazing about it, insofar as time dilation only manifests to that which is outside both relative sets of conditions, so if a guy is contained in one or the other of those, there is no time dilation for him at all, but he intuits relations in time for himself a priori nonetheless.

But regarding your concern, maybe it is that appeal to phenomenal intuitions of time isn’t really necessary to explain the scientific experimental result. Or to explain even the mathematical justification before the scientific experimental result. Maybe it is sufficient to presuppose the intuition within the domain of empirical science, and only appeal to it within the domain of metaphysics, the interest of which being the possibility of knowledge itself.

I don't think that space and time are proper substances…. — Bob Ross

Cool. That’s what I understood by your space and time in a “cosmic” sense.

I think physics demonstrates quite sufficiently that space and time are valid 'entities' in our calculations….. — Bob Ross

True enough, insofar as physics is nothing more than human intelligence at work in the specific domain where the physicist investigates the conditions by which things relate to himself or to each other. If the fundamental relation between things is the where and/or the when of one with respect to the other, space and time are necessary conditions……or in your terms I suppose, valid entities…..in calculating that relation.

……and not in the sense that they are merely our modes of intuition. — Bob Ross

I would argue that they are in that very sense, insofar as the physicist still has to intuit the things** to which his calculations are applicable. He knows a priori one thing is in a different space and a different time than another thing, which would be the most certain when the other thing is himself; his calculations merely determine how much space and time are between one and the other. He also knows a priori one thing can be of two times in one space but never two spaces at one time. None of such a priori intuition is possible without the conceptions to which any and all things must relate, from which follows necessarily that space and time, as those conceptions are represented, and that by which the physicist intuits the relation of things as determinable, must reside in the physicist himself.
(**the theoretical physicist, when concerned only with possible things, still must treat them as if their reality is given, iff he subjects them to the same natural law as he subjects the real things of his experience)

Anyway….for whatever that’s worth.

the task of decomposing thoughts on the axis of time is very troublesome, and I would be interested to know if there was ever a philosopher to undertake this task. — Lionino

“…. The schema of substance is the permanence of the real in time…..
……The schema of possibility is the determination of the representation of a thing at any time….
……The schema of reality is existence in a determined time….
……The schema of necessity is the existence of an object in all time….

……It is clear, from all this, that the schema of the category of quantity contains and represents the generation (synthesis) of time itself, in the successive apprehension of an object….
……the schema of quality the synthesis of sensation with the representation of time, or the filling up of time….
……the schema of relation the relation of perceptions to each other in all time (that is, according to a rule of the determination of time)….
……and finally, the schema of modality and its categories, time itself, as the correlative of the determination of an object—whether it does belong to time, and how.

The schemata, therefore, are nothing but à priori determinations of time according to rules, and these, in regard to all possible objects, following the arrangement of the categories, relate to the series in time, the content in time, the order in time, and finally, to the complex or totality in time.…”
(CPR A143-145/B182-185)

Maybe not exactly what you asked for, but does show there was/is a philosopher tasking himself with decomposing that which is thought about, to its necessary relation to time.

I accept that the space and time which are our forms of experience are a priori, but not that space and time do not exist beyond that in reality. — Bob Ross

That’s fine. Until the Enlightenment space and time were considered by the majority of thinkers as constituents of reality, and never as a priori conditions for experience.

If you don’t accept that space and time don’t exist in reality, wouldn’t you want to offer at least an idea on how it might be that they do? Is it even possible to grant to space and time coexistent intuitional a priori and cosmic a posteriori conceptual schemes?

I do consider the concept of space and time, in a phenomenal sense, to be primitive. — Bob Ross

Primitive, yes, but….in a phenomenal sense? What is meant by a phenomenal sense?

Space and time are merely irreducible forms of sensuous intuition, so I’m wondering in what manner could they have a phenomenal sense, when they are not themselves phenomena but merely represent that by which phenomena are given their extension and temporal form in compliance with a sensation.

Would you include the so-called 'primary intuitions' of time and space? — Wayfarer

I would, yes. While they may be pure primitive intuitions with respect to their use, they are pure primitive conceptions as regards their origin.

I think Bob is trying to ascertain the word-resistant concepts we all accept prior to language. — AmadeusD

I’m ok with that; word-resistant just means the concept is difficult to represent for the use of expression, and prior to language just means the concepts have no relation to communication.

But they can’t be word-impregnable, for in such case we couldn’t theorize on their place in a system, assuming there are such things as simple pure conceptions, and there is a system in which they serve a purpose.

That we all accept….mmmm, not so sure about that. Pretty hard to convince Everydayman he uses pure simple primitive unanalyzable conceptions for anything, even harder that he knows what they might be.
————-

I don't even think our faculty of self-reflective reason can define certain concepts — Bob Ross

I must say reason doesn’t define, and I’m hesitant regarding reason being “self-reflective”, mostly cuz I don’t know what that means, but that’s very different story.

I agree that faculty which does define, understanding, lacks the capacity to define primitive concepts, but must represent them post hoc with words in order to describe their place in a speculative system. Within the natural use of that system, the primitive concepts are just kindasorta there nonetheless**, which makes them hard to swallow for he who needs everything to accord with his senses sans mediation.
(**they’re not, but a different story once again)
—————

I can envision a concept which, in principle, could be a priori but isn't simple; because our representative faculties could be acquainted with it. — Bob Ross

Many conceptions can be envisioned conforming to that criteria, but I don’t see a concept that isn’t simple as primitive, and I don’t see a concept with which our representational faculties are acquainted as pure.

I don’t want to take your thread where you had no intention of it going; it is yours to direct in its progression. I merely agree there are pure, primitive, simple conceptions.

I believe you are giving more of an ontological account of why it is absolutely simple — Bob Ross

I dunno. Can the pure and absolutely simple have an ontological accounting? If the primitive and unanalyzable concept is so, insofar as it has no object belonging to it, from whence could an ontological account arise?

I am curious as to how many people hold a similar view — Bob Ross

Are there pure and unanalyzable concepts? Put me in the affirmative/similar view column, re: the categories of transcendental philosophy.

“Pure and absolutely simple” insofar as they ground every real object, hence every empirical cognition, but have no object of their own.

Speculative metaphysics to be sure, but is that sufficient to disqualify the view?

Interesting dialogue.

I picture ol’ Rene, nodding in knowing agreement with his notion of “…. discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason…”.

Well, you’re just too smart for me.

I'm not insulting you. Are you perceiving it like an insult? — flannel jesus

I judge it to be an insult to proper philosophy.

…."do you still beat your wife?" It's nothing like that. — flannel jesus

It’s exactly like that, insofar as if I say yes, I believe a query has been made, than my knowledge of it appears predetermined and I’ve contradicted myself, and if I say no I don’t believe the query has been made leaves open the catastrophic descension into that pitiful sophism, you can’t know what you don’t believe.

Are we done here?

I said I know a thing. Why would you ask if I believe the very same thing I said I know?

The only way to answer you question is if I’d said I believe a statement had been presented, which I could than have answered in the affirmative.

“Do you still beat your wife”-type entrapment is “…beneath the dignity of philosophy…”

Oh. Well, damn. So if you have the power to tell me what I must have believed, does that mean you know what it is that I must have believed? What do you believe in order to know what to tell me I must believe? Please don’t tell me you must believe the same things I must; that just ain’t gonna fly.

If you just mean it only makes sense to you that in order for me to know something I must first believe something but you’re not sure what it is I have to believe, or it really doesn’t matter what it is I have to believe, then you have no warrant whatsoever to claim I need to believe anything.

I suppose it’s only fitting, given those conditions, that because I know my mother raised me I have no choice but to believe I had a mother that I know raised me.

I believe I’m not imagining….. Why not just, you know…not imagine? If I believe I’m not imagining, what tells me I am or I am not? That I believe I’m not imagining does not in itself negate the possibility that I am. Quite the Keystone Cops drill you got goin’ on there, bud. Thankfully, Mother Nature saw fit to make human cognition rather more efficient than that.

Or….I believe She did, I mean.

I can’t think of an example of knowledge of a statement requiring belief of a statement, no.

Obviously I experienced, hence now possess the knowledge, that to me a query has been presented. What can you tell me about what I had to believe in order for me to know about that experience?

do you have any illustrative examples? — flannel jesus

Examples that I disagree with the claim that knowledge requires belief? How would I illustrate, given something I know, that there necessarily exists in conjunction with and antecedent to it, something I believe?

My claim was that knowledge is existentially dependent on belief(knowledge requires belief). — creativesoul

I understand your claim, but disagree that knowledge requires belief.

Your rejection is based upon a conception of experience that cannot include language acquisition. Your responses thus far have been full of strawmen and red herring. — creativesoul

So lemme get this straight. We’re talking belief/knowledge, you bring in experience/language….yet I’m the one committing strawman/red herring dialectical inconsistencies?

It must be that your position is more complex and penetrating than I realized.

So be it.

Who's made those claims anyway? — creativesoul

Somebody was talking to. You should know; you commented right after, a day ago.

Do you think someone has made the argument that all belief is necessary for bike riding? — creativesoul

Nope. I know the thread topic major premise has the form, “Knowledge is only belief”. I know from reading the discourse, that someone said all knowledge requires belief, both of which I for sure, and apparently, reject.
————-

Bike riding - as we know it - is existentially dependent on the belief of the original bike makers. "Belief is not necessary for bike riding" is proven false. — creativesoul

Categorical error: one subject’s beliefs are irrelevant with respect to another subject’s skill acquisition. Whatever the dude believed about the possibility of a bike disappears upon its successful manufacture.
—————-

The bike emerged onto the world stage through the belief of the original bike makers. — creativesoul

True enough, but irrelevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc informal fallacy, when attached to my knowledge of bike riding.

Impossible to ride a bike that you do not believe is there. — creativesoul

Whatever bike I consider riding must be right there in front of me. Otherwise all I’m doing is considering the possibility of what a bike ride would be like. I grant it is impossible to ride a bike that isn’t right in front of me, but in such case there is no need to believe it isn’t there if I already know there’s nothing there to ride.

Any sympathy forthcoming here? Maybe a slight tip of the pointy hat?

All of this reads like an argument reductio ad absurdum. Is it? — ucarr

Maybe, but more like an appeal to extremes, I would think. I mean…beyond imagination? How can we go beyond imagination except by using it?

Ok, fine. Absurdum it is.

We're over-reaching when we imagine a fleshy mass of connected hemispheres has a scope of imagination beyond what protein-based matter has the capacity to conceive. — ucarr

Yet, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly what appears to be the case. If we are what the brain does, and we have a rather unlimited imagination, we can only be that way iff the brain has a matching unlimited capacity for what it does, such that we can then do what we do because of it.

If abstract thought is connected to the brain, then the limitations inherent in the material_physical dimensions of the brain: cells, synapses, electric current, gravity etc. exert controlling limits on what the content of abstract thought can be. — ucarr

If the human can think whatever he wants, where is the controlling limits by the brain on the content of his thought? All that’s left is to say the brain’s limits prescribe the kind of thinker a human is, the content of his thoughts be what they may.

But I feel ya. The brain informs of all our knowledge, but doesn’t give us even an inkling of the knowledge of how it informs of the knowledge we have. It’s like the brain keeps to itself its own inner workings, while at the same time permitting the ability for us to know anything else, all else being given.

To exalt the mind's perception of reality beyond limitations of the brain amounts to driving the express lane to fallacy without knowing it. — ucarr

Because we don’t know enough of how the brain works, by what warrant can we say we’ve over-reached the brain’s capacity for knowing things? I think we do know when we’re approaching fallacies, in that Nature will tells us regarding real things (never step in front of a fast-mover), and logic will inform us regarding other-then-real things (A /= B).

Hey. Once again, for no particular reason while agreeing in a rhetorical fashion…..

I question whether all knowledge does require belief. — Janus

If such were the case, it reduces to belief being a necessary condition for knowledge. If it is true the only source for knowledge is experience, and there is no possibility of experiencing that which one merely believes, wouldn’t it follow that one cannot condition the other?

Pretty dumb, methinks, to merely believe I know how to ride a bike while I’m actually doing it, and conversely, even dumber to claim to know I can ride a bike by merely believing I’ve been on one and in control of it.

Maybe I believe I can’t know how to ride a bike cuz I’m a hopeless klutz who believes he shouldn’t use a hammer given the historical precedent of experiencing serious bodily injury. But then, out of sheer well-being necessity, I find myself riding a bike in order to escape the neighbor’s mutt. If knowledge requires belief, and the belief is negative the knowledge must also be negative thereby how to ride a bike should not have been known to me, and under sufficiently strong negative belief that I can’t know how, I shouldn’t have even bothered to try. Yet given that riding a bike….which I’m now doing….presupposes at least the awareness of the mechanics and principles by which bike riding is accomplished, re: I’m peddling upright in a progressive series of times, it is the case what I believe about bike riding (I can’t know how) has nothing whatsoever to do with my coming to know how to do it (YEA!! Look it me, here I am bike riding).

So did I switch beliefs and come to believe I can know how to ride a bike? Like that little engine that could? Seems kinds silly to me, to take the time to believe something at the same time I’m discovering it for myself in conjunction with the extant experience that bikes are inherently ride-able. Even if IthinkIcanIthinkIcanIthinkIcan is running through my brain, am I navigating positively because of that alone, or am I concentrating on the objects of certain mechanics and principles necessary for transportation via bicycle? Do I really need to believe in the authority of those principles in order to use them, especially considering the fact I’m only interested in their objects I use and not the principles themselves I merely think as given?

Wonder why Nike, instead taglining with “Just do it”, didn’t instead go with “Believe you can know how to do it then just do it”?