Epistemology

[max_freakout]

I have. Why do some people put words in 'bold'. I'm not that fucking stupid.

what is the bold button for?

 

[Jonti]

If a person is not mistaken about whatever we say that person knows it.

This is not difficult stuff.

 

[max_freakout]

also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.

this is an important point to illustrate what i am saying


the expression 'completely validated' is meaningless, no such validation could ever be possible

 

[max_freakout]

Socrates underscoring my reasoning that there is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
Maybe I must be dead for a few centuries before people start to think about it

i had a bit of a zen moment yesterday, and i realised that in that famous quote from socrates, the word 'wisdom' has a transcendental meaning

 

[max_freakout]

I'm reminded of Godel's Theorem in mathematics. He showed that in arithmetic there are things which are true, but which one cannot prove to be true.

have you read any of Douglas Hofstadter's books? He said, that what Godel's theorem does, is take Bertrand Russel's principia mathematica, and 'turn it around to look at itself', which russel claimed was impossible (or something like that anyway)

 

[max_freakout]

If a person is not mistaken about whatever we say that person knows it.

This is not difficult stuff.

but there is no way of knowing if you are mistaken or not in any particular instance (ie, regarding any particular proposition)



it isnt difficult, it's *totally impossible*

 

[max_freakout]

saying 'i know that i know nothing' is a complex paradox, rather than a belief and as such is able to transends itself.

i think "i know that i know nothing"


is in fact 'I' trying to insist that it exists, when in fact it doesnt.......

 

[Jonti]

I think this news will come as a considerable relief to your readers.

 

[max_freakout]

you could approach this subject from the other direction, and ask "what is the point of epistemology?"


an honest answer to this question will necessarily reveal the same (impossible to resolve) paradox that i am highlighting

 

[Jonti]

Oh, no you're not!

there is no way of knowing if you are mistaken or not in any particular instance

True. But I say there may still be instances where one is not mistaken, and you have not, cannot, shown otherwise.

Just saying you have, does not make it so.

 

[Jonti]

have you read any of Douglas Hofstadter's books? He said, that what Godel's theorem does, is take Bertrand Russel's principia mathematica, and 'turn it around to look at itself', which russel claimed was impossible (or something like that anyway)

Yes, I've read the Eternal Golden Braid (about Godel, Escher and Bach). And I've read and understood Godel's Proof by Nagel and Newman. I think you'd enjoy it.

He proved that there are true statements in arithmetic that cannot be proven; untrue statements that cannot be disproved; and statements we cannot even decide either way.

All very and quite devastating to (Russell and Whitehead's) epistemology of mathematics. Of course, mathematicians serenely carry on doing math and getting results. One take on Godel is that he showed syntax is not enough; that there is some semantic content in maths.

 

[max_freakout]

there may still be instances where one is not mistaken, and you have not, cannot, shown otherwise.

ok, so you cou;ld maybe call such an instance, "accidental knowledge", it is knowledgge just by accident, ie you dont know it's knowledge, but it 'just happens to be true', and it is therefore, 'true belief'

but, this type of instance might be non-existent, you dont know if it actually exists or not


Also, you say 'have not' and 'cannot'

i disagree that there could be such a case where you 'cannot' show otherwise, i think that anything could be disproved, in the future

 

[max_freakout]

Hofstadter's 'godel, escher, bach' is completely beyond me, but i read the new one 'i am a strange loop' and found it extremely illuminating

 

[Jonti]

The "Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose is also good. Hofstadter is argueing that the mind/brain is "nothing but" an electronic data processing machine. More exactly, that a sufficiently complex piece of data processing kit, programmed in the right way, would be conscious in the same way that the mind/brain is conscious.

Penrose disagrees with that, giving his reasons for rejecting the "consciousness is nothing but calculation" theory (of strong AI) that Hofstadter has popularised. Like Hofstadter's efforts, Penrose's books also have lots of fun maths to enjoy.

 

[max_freakout]

From 'I am a strange loop':

"what we call "consciousness" is a kind of mirage, it must be a very peculiar kind of mirage, to be sure, since it is a mirage that perceives itself, and of course it didnt believe it was perceiving a mirage, but no matter - it still is a mirage" - Douglas Hofstadter


this relates perfectly to what i am saying about epistemology, the requirement for epistemology is this mirage of consciousness, t the extent that you believe there is a requirement for this section in the library, is the extent to which you believe this mirage to be real.


the very fact that a concept called 'knowledge' exists, is proof that 'I' don't exist, because knowledge is impossible, it cannot exist, even as a concept, the only way out of the contradictory nature of the concept 'knowledge', is to admit that there is no 'I', there is no knower

 

[bluestreak]

I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know. She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.

I was never one for epistemology really. Knowledge is flawed. End of. seems pretty simple really. Can't see a convenient equation for working out how flawed any individual statement is, good thing we have critical faculties, move on etc etc.

 

[max_freakout]

I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know. She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.

what did she mean fallacious arguments?

i got a first in a dissertation i wrote about this

every argumenton this thread is entirely sound and coherent

it all amounts to one thing, you could never know.

I was never one for epistemology really. Knowledge is flawed. End of. seems pretty simple really. Can't see a convenient equation for working out how flawed any individual statement is, good thing we have critical faculties, move on etc etc.

im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is completely impossible, it couldnt possibly exist

BUT, nobody wants to admit this to themselves! There is a 'hidden', devastating existential implication, to the impossibility of knowledge

 

[Jonti]

The "illusion" of consciousness

There's a way out of the tangle, I think, but it does require that one takes consciousness seriously as a scientific phenomena. The world does contain conscious bodies.

 

[Jonti]

im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is completely impossible, it couldnt possibly exist

I think this conclusion may be true in some worlds; it must depend on the nature of the actual world.

Which means it cannot be advanced without assuming some kind of knowledge about the nature of the world and the nature of consciousness.

 

[max_freakout]

There's a way out of the tangle, I think

of course you do!


"I think, therefore I am"


there is *obviously* no way out of this tangle

the fact that the concept of knowledge exists, opens up a black-hole in language, which you get sucked into if you look directly at it

 

[Aldebaran]

im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is completely impossible, it couldnt possibly exist

You had to study on what I said now already twice?

There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.

Should be logical to anyone capable of logical thinking.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know. She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.

Well, she'll have to ask permission of the copyright owners (the posters) first.

From the FAQ ...

2. Copyright

Copyright in each post remains with the author of that post; urban75 holds both the "database right" and a separate "compilation" copyright in entire threads and in the boards as a whole.

This means that we can take action against anyone who rips off chunks of threads, as well as individual posters being able to take action against those who rip off their words.

In the past, large chunks of the site have been used by newspapers without permission. In future, we will use our rights to protect urban75 content from commercial exploitation without permission and we encourage posters to use theirs.

Briefly:

Your posts are yours, you keep copyright in them and no-one can legally use them elsewhere without your permission; By posting, you give permission for your post to appear on urban75; and The collection and the database that are urban75 belong to urban75 as a whole.

(*urban75 refers to the websites registered under urban75.com, urban75.org and urban75.net)

Of course she is always free to study the material and recast the arguments in her own words. And I am happy for her to use my posts verbatim, but would ask she change my handle to spare my blushes.

 

[Jonti]

of course you do!

"I think, therefore I am"

there is *obviously* no way out of this tangle

the fact that the concept of knowledge exists, opens up a black-hole in language, which you get sucked into if you look directly at it

Or perhaps there is something wrong with the implicit assumptions of Cartesian dualism?

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, she'll have to ask permission of the copyright owners (the posters) first.

Yes she indeed should. She can also come here and try to prove me wrong.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Jonti, I have to leave now, I'm going to print this thing and read it later. I hope the thread doesn't grow too much before I can come back to it ; Remeber, dyslexic minds tend to get overheated very aesily.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

Another solution would be simply to point her students at the thread ...

 

[max_freakout]

You had to study on what I said now already twice?



Should be logical to anyone capable of logical thinking.

salaam.

what is the conclusion though?

Because even the 'suggestion thereof' is problematic, you could ask, 'of what?'

And, why do so many people deny this?

I think the real mystery or mirage is the question 'why do we require epistemology?'

why are we having this discussion? How could we be having this discussion? What are we talking about if there is no knowledge?

 

[Aldebaran]

Influx of philo students at U75 mmmm...

I'm already getting a headache

salaam.

 

[bluestreak]

Hmm, well I doubt it would be verbatim and sourced.

I just don't know! How unironic.

I wish I knew for sure that I didn't know anything. If I could just know that for sure I could be ready to develop as a philosopher. Instead I'm stuck here suspecting that I know that I know nothing for sure. My brain may blow a fuse.

 

[Aldebaran]

what is the conclusion though?

I gave you the conclusion

The "of" is what people imagine to be knowledge, which in fact is only a self- suggestion, hence doesn't exist outside the mind of the individual.

salaam