Discussion What is actual knowledge ?

[ceus]

Hello my fellow wanderers :)
I've [introduced myself in the Suicide/Story thread for those who want a bit more background ->

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/hello-there-you-wonderful-people.103645/#post-1779868.

Im sure many of you often wondered: Why ?
Why this, that... why act in such and such way... why believe in something... why love over hate?

Well there are two possible answers.

1. Because, so and so...
2. I don't know.

BUT in my experience both just lead to more questions.
I mean for 2. it's obvious I'd say. You don't know, so let's find out!
For 1. it's a bit more complicated... but let me explain:
Every time you got an answer for something it was either from yourself or an outside source. What- whoever that may be, books, your parent, a teacher or the wisest philosopher of all time.
But in the end have you actually thought about it ? Have you undoubtetly proven the answers to yourself ?
Let's say the answer was "Cause science say's so!". Do you even know what science is ?
Did you even read the paper ? Where you able to put in in context ? Does science even deliver knowledge or mere educated guesses based on some parameters (p value etc.) ?
Why is inductive or deductive logic reasonable/reliable or not ?

Every answer I've ever received in my life entailed atleast one more question. They even have an expression for that in philosophy: -> 'Infinite regress'.
Me personally... I don't have a fu***** clue about what is actually right or wrong. What I should do. What to base my decisions on.

And yeah you could say in everyday life this is semi-important and I would agree. We are guided by human nature and survival needs. And there is a deep sense of having understood atleast the basics. Yes this keeps you alive. But over and over again I meet the limits of this instinctual behavior.
I ask myself... what even is knowledge ? Where the heck do I start understanding the world. If I think does it take time ? If so do I base my chain of reason on memories ? What tells me they are truthful. I mean actual truthful ? Should I stay or should I go ?
How do I shake off this overwhelming sense of disorientation ?
This wondering kinda gives me purpose. Stumbling around like a newborn in a world it does not understand. But it's also paralyzing. Especially since with the years I've grown so confused on where I even begin to decipher all this.

So let's get to the heart of the question.

Does somebody have a good starting point. Of course philosophy of logic/mind/epistemology and axiomatic systems would be the classical answer.
But on one hand there is the problem of paradox with classical logic systems.
Liar's paradox, self-reference Russel's Paradox and many many more which are hard to include in a non contradictory system.

And then the is the origin problem axiomatic assumptions themselves. They are self contained, thus circular.
But I have to start somewhere don't I ?

Are human minds even capable of understanding existance ?
If not, should we die trying to solve the ultimate conundrums none the less ?
Or should we live in ignorance or faith ?

What do you thinks about it ?



For further reading:
If you want to read more about paradoxes Wikipedia is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Self-reference
If you want a piece of playful literature about paradoxes I recommend the book: Sleight of Mind: 75 ingenious paradoxes
General Booklist:
An introduction into the theory of knowledge: by Noah Lemos
An introduction into the theory of logic: by Daniel Cohnitz and Luis Estrada-González
many more, PM me if you need input :)

 

[flightless bird]

what even is knowledge ?

Memorized facts, or a learned technique.

Are human minds even capable of understanding existance ?

No two human minds are identical. And not all humans are capable.

If you want to read more about paradoxes ...

Paradoxes don't exist in nature. They are abstract notions created by language.

 

[Pluto]

Belief refers to an idea that somebody agrees with.
Knowledge refers to ideas that we intensely believe in.
Facts are ideas that we are completely confident about.

Upon inspection, all is baseless and hollow. Only the statement I know that I know nothing sums up the futility of the situation.

It doesn't mean that there's no use in seeking truth. It means that the human intellect is not the best tool for achieving the profound insight you are seeking.

 

[ceus]

Memorized facts, or a learned technique.


No two human minds are identical. And not all humans are capable.


Paradoxes don't exist in nature. They are abstract notions created by language.

First of all thank you for your engagement.

But regarding your statements I have multiple open questions/objections:

1. Knowledge constists of Memorized facts or a learned technique.
-> I would like to dissect this into to parts:
1.1 Memorized facts
-> tbh this is nothing more than a semantic extension of the question. What are facts is the self-evident follow up question. It neither answers the question in a meaningful way nor extends it substantially.
The definiton of information as facts is arrived at through:
1.1.2 Personal or non personal inferecene based on empirical or qualitative experience resulting in a coherent thesis based on all parametical data involved
-> neither the completeness of the data nor the integrity of the conclusional chains is guaranteed

2. Learned technique
-> is merely the execution of a certain set of actions to reliably achieve a certain outcome
e.g. moving the body in a certain way while holding a guitar will result in a specific sequence of pitches
2.1 This instance of your deftiniton of knowledge ignores the dilemma of chronology
-> the reliabity of the result is dependent on a understanding of it which can only be arrived at through interpretation of mental/conscious phenomena as true and elligable of deduction, which is in turn dependent on a multitude of assumptions about the human mind and existance
2.2 As for the previously stated objections they implicate the presence of axioms which can or were not proven (by you)

The distinction of human minds into capable of being conscious of the nature of truth and not is, even if probably accurate, not a general statement about a fundamental capability to do so. Proof for or against it was not provided, merely stated.

Paradoxes were and are being resolved frequently as a result of analysis of their underlaying semantic structure. Furthermore they are (as you stated) contained to the perimeter of human communication (may include current mathematics).
Yet this is on one hand evidence to suggest the limitations of human understanding of reality as they are incoherent and on the other is their absence in nature not proven. The absence of awareness of their presence may be, again, due to our limited data and understanding.
Still a interesting point I will contemplate about.

Belief refers to an idea that somebody agrees with.
Knowledge refers to ideas that we intensely believe in.
Facts are ideas that we are completely confident about.

Upon inspection, all is baseless and hollow. Only the statement I know that I know nothing sums up the futility of the situation.

It doesn't mean that there's no use in seeking truth. It means that the human intellect is not the best tool for achieving the profound insight you are seeking.

Thank you for the reply <3
Im not even though this classical statement resonates deeply with me it is itself paradoxical and confusing to me (as the name Socratic Paradox might imply^-^) ...
Even though I have to disagree with the definition of knowledge as an intense belief. That's why my seeking has not bore fruit so far I'd imagine.
Still an interesting take!
Personally I am experimenting with stuff like vipassana meditation and psychodelics as alternate ways of truthseeking. So far to no avail.
Have a wonderful day :)

 

[Pluto]

Personally I am experimenting with stuff like vipassana meditation and psychodelics as alternate ways of truthseeking. So far to no avail.

Ah, very good! That's what I was getting at. In that case, I would define true knowledge along the lines of "a direct experience of your own true nature".

You know that you exist, which is not merely an intellectual belief, but a self-evident experience. This does not mean that sense perceptions are true; what appears in front of you could be an illusion of some sort. Nor does it validate ideas about yourself (your past history, age, nationality, etc.) since these things are just thoughts appearing before you.

In the same way that you know you exist, people with the aforementioned knowledge report with absolute certainty (not a belief) having never being born, and not being subject to death. They describe not being the body, nor being separate from anyone or anything else. This knowledge is more real than the normal sense that the world is real, and is not intellectual.

In addition to what you are already doing, the question, "Who am I?" is the key to orienting towards your true nature and exposing what is untrue.

 

[flightless bird]

First of all thank you for your engagement.

You're welcome.

But regarding your statements I have multiple open questions/objections:

1. Knowledge constists of Memorized facts or a learned technique.
-> I would like to dissect this into to parts:
1.1 Memorized facts
-> tbh this is nothing more than a semantic extension of the question. What are facts is the self-evident follow up question. It neither answers the question in a meaningful way nor extends it substantially.
The definiton of information as facts is arrived at through:
1.1.2 Personal or non personal inferecene based on empirical or qualitative experience resulting in a coherent thesis based on all parametical data involved
-> neither the completeness of the data nor the integrity of the conclusional chains is guaranteed

2. Learned technique
-> is merely the execution of a certain set of actions to reliably achieve a certain outcome
e.g. moving the body in a certain way while holding a guitar will result in a specific sequence of pitches
2.1 This instance of your deftiniton of knowledge ignores the dilemma of chronology
-> the reliabity of the result is dependent on a understanding of it which can only be arrived at through interpretation of mental/conscious phenomena as true and elligable of deduction, which is in turn dependent on a multitude of assumptions about the human mind and existance
2.2 As for the previously stated objections they implicate the presence of axioms which can or were not proven (by you)

I think you are overcomplicating things here.

If I close the window, I know that the cold air won't get in. This is practical knowledge and there is nothing more it. All knowledge is based on sensual experience and we categorize them into concepts in accordance with our lives/languages.

The distinction of human minds into capable of being conscious of the nature of truth and not is, even if probably accurate, not a general statement about a fundamental capability to do so. Proof for or against it was not provided, merely stated.

Actually the statement hints at the impossibility of a "fundamental" anything, so we need to think in terms of potentialities and actualities.

Paradoxes were and are being resolved frequently as a result of analysis of their underlaying semantic structure. Furthermore they are (as you stated) contained to the perimeter of human communication (may include current mathematics).
Yet this is on one hand evidence to suggest the limitations of human understanding of reality as they are incoherent and on the other is their absence in nature not proven. The absence of awareness of their presence may be, again, due to our limited data and understanding.
Still a interesting point I will contemplate about.

They are not present -which is an empirical fact- and they will never be. Nature is a simple machine that functions on the principles of pressure and balance. There is nothing more to it than physical necessities. So it is correct and logically sound to state that "paradoxes only exist in language".

 

[Meaninglessness]

Knowledge is information and ideas. But most rules and models are only made up by humans.

 

[Moribunz]

I personally believe, knowledge is just picking up a pattern and understanding it. Something this physical world gives us and we pick it up. But I do not think knowledge is anything but something we created in order to survive. I think knowledge is more than instinct. Maybe even strands from our own mental awareness. Awareness of our existence, I think made us this way. You can not base your answers off anything but whats in front of you. I really feel like there is no actual right and wrong because, there can not be. How could anything be right or wrong if morality is just made up. For us. hmmm idk how to explain the way I think. I feel like I can only consider things right or wrong when I put them on a line of OTHER peoples thoughts and morals. I am so annoyed that I can not explain this. Nothing has meaning to me at all. Right and wrong can only be right or wrong when its black and white, anything deeper than that has no real meaning.

 

[dancer-in-adaydream]

perspective and real facts

 

[unnormal9]

Power and money.
Knowledge avails you not.
Wish I known that earlier, but my own past delusions prevented me.

 

[Stylite]

You don't need to know everything to know something.

 

[ceus]

You don't need to know everything to know something.

Disagree. In a connected existence all things have implications. We can't even estimate the extend of our own ignorance. We can't know how things we don't know affect what we seem to know.

 

[SexyIncél]

Does somebody have a good starting point. Of course philosophy of logic/mind/epistemology and axiomatic systems would be the classical answer.
But on one hand there is the problem of paradox with classical logic systems.
Liar's paradox, self-reference Russel's Paradox and many many more which are hard to include in a non contradictory system.

And then the is the origin problem axiomatic assumptions themselves. They are self contained, thus circular.
But I have to start somewhere don't I ?

Are human minds even capable of understanding existance ?
If not, should we die trying to solve the ultimate conundrums none the less ?
Or should we live in ignorance or faith ?

You might like critical realism. (Those two words are shoved together for a quirky historical reason; it's not calling itself a particularly critical form of realism)

A good intro is Collier's book. And here's workshop videos

It's a "realist" philosophy. A framework that's more realist than others holds:

• there's an objective reality out there — whether or not we talking animals can ever know it
• our understandings of it are fallible

There may be a couple more things, like:

• we go beyond appearances — there's underlying structures/mechanisms/powers that generate what appears. Many of which are invisible, like friendship or the first law of thermodynamics
• those underlying structures can even seem to contradict appearances. (For example, some entities are capable of lies & illusions. Also, Galileo & Newton discovered counter-intuitive theories — Newton tried disproving his spooky-action-at-a-distance gravity during the rest of his life

So not only is reality about things that exist despite our beliefs ("be realistic!"), but there's things we can't directly perceive — and even things gleefully lying to us! We're kind of screwed if we insist on absolute knowledge

Ok, so our understandings ("epistemology") are wonky. To see the invisible, we create theories. Since (as you say) everything's connected, natural scientists "experiment" — construct artificial spaces where we try to nullify mechanisms that might interfere with the mechanism we're trying to perceive

And even our perceptions aren't trivial. We build all sorts of contraptions to capture facts given to us as data

And this may not be a bad thing. Maybe it's helpful in re-enchanting the universe

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Does knowledge have to be true for it to be knowledge?

I personally think the answer is no, though it would not be unreasonable to disagree.

Knowledge comes from within, information comes from the outside. Knowledge is what our mind synthesizes from the information it receives from the outside. It may not represent absolute truth, or even anything close to it, but it is what the mind has concluded.


If knowledge must be truth for it to be knowledge, then yeah, you're right. Humans cannot have knowledge. There is nothing we can know with absolute certainty because we can only observe the world through what our limited senses tell us. For all we're able to perceive, we could just be some code in a simulation or a brain formed of quantum fluctuations within a long dead universe. We simply cannot know.

 

[ceus]

Does knowledge have to be true for it to be knowledge?

I personally think the answer is no, though it would not be unreasonable to disagree.

Knowledge comes from within, information comes from the outside. Knowledge is what our mind synthesizes from the information it receives from the outside. It may not represent absolute truth, or even anything close to it, but it is what the mind has concluded.


If knowledge must be truth for it to be knowledge, then yeah, you're right. Humans cannot have knowledge. There is nothing we can know with absolute certainty because we can only observe the world through what our limited senses tell us. For all we're able to perceive, we could just be some code in a simulation or a brain formed of quantum fluctuations within a long dead universe. We simply cannot know.

I agree that the question is semantically inconclusive. But in the context of your definition I tend to agree. Even though what I seek is absolute truth in an epistemological sense.

Detached from the abstract discussion I strive for a priori "knowledge" which I can base my perceived knowldege (your definition of knowledge) on since otherwise I'm stuck in a cycle of selfreflection and reevaluation that is as exhausting as it is fascinating.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I agree that the question is semantically inconclusive. But in the context of your definition I tend to agree. Even though what I seek is absolute truth in an epistemological sense.

Detached from the abstract discussion I strive for a priori "knowledge" which I can base my perceived knowldege (your definition of knowledge) on since otherwise I'm stuck in a cycle of selfreflection and reevaluation that is as exhausting as it is fascinating.

Hmm. From a more practical standpoint, all I can give is this - trust your own mind, it's the only real anchor you can have. Trust that it works, trust that it will effectively help you navigate the world, trust that it will make appropriate corrections when new information is presented. Trust that while you may never reach some absolute endpoint from which to anchor all knowledge from, that it will do its best from what it has. Reflect when you come across a contradiction but let it flow when it's working.

But I have to say myself, that it's a pretty weak anchor. The mind can fail us in many ways, from overexerting itself into mental illness to rationalizing toxic emotions to outright shutting down under dire circumstances. Despite that it is the best, if only, tool we have at our disposal.

I hope you find an answer (and tell me tell me when you do because I also want to know). But I guess my hopes are not high.