You fail to account for inaction. A person may be compelled to do something, but the action will happen or it will not if a person chooses to. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
T
K
O
In that case, I think you're tailoring your terms to your thesis.
You're using the word "reason(s)" without any dimension whatsoever. The reason a apple falls from a tree is the combination of the stem weakening and the mass of the apple being drawn to the greater mass of the earth. The reason a person chooses a career is a combination of factors too. The sum of those factors does not come out to a calculated answer. A person may choose their career because they are good at something, the money it makes, or even just because it is easiest. Some choices will obviously conflict and we get to decide what we value most.
You seem to be blurring reasoning and causation.
T
K
O
So no one chooses to do evil therefore we are wrong to stop murders. It is simply an action with reasons.
The hard time you are having so as to choose a word for what you describe results from that it is already "contaminated" with belief or knowledge. The central point is this: we cannot know what we perceive in the precise moment we actually perceive it. Knowledge always refers to a past perception: it is reflexive. And it can always be taken as referring to a possibility, in which case it becomes a belief. You can confirm, by introspection, that actual perceptions exclude knowledge, actual knowledge excludes actual perceptions, and possible perceptions imply belief, rather than knowledge. Meaning is the name of all these dual articulations.
[Knowledge of a] tree might be understood as the sight of a gray to brown form, that is column-like to branching in shape, with a textural surface of a particluar range (the trunk) and massed above this the sight of greenery composed of smaller varying green shapes (leaves).
First you said we "create" mathematical truths, and now you say that we are its judges. No matter which one you chose the point remains the same: mathematical truth is not certain.
Diest TKO wrote:
In that case, I think you're tailoring your terms to your thesis.
You're using the word "reason(s)" without any dimension whatsoever. The reason a apple falls from a tree is the combination of the stem weakening and the mass of the apple being drawn to the greater mass of the earth. The reason a person chooses a career is a combination of factors too. The sum of those factors does not come out to a calculated answer. A person may choose their career because they are good at something, the money it makes, or even just because it is easiest. Some choices will obviously conflict and we get to decide what we value most.
You seem to be blurring reasoning and causation.
T
K
O
yes exactly. the brain calculates all past information and comes to a conclusion and the body responds. the only room for free will there is if you get to do the prioritizing. but i dont think you do. i think every step of the way is brain calculation and response. past experience is calculated and the best action for this situation is the result. if anything is free it is the choice we make about what payoff we hope to receive. if a girl asks me out i might want some pussy but not a relationship. i might want a relationship or i may want neither. my answer to her will be the calculation of all past experiences modified by what i want. what i want is just the calculation of all past experience as well. free will is an illusion created by not having all the information. we cant keep track of all the calculations our brain makes so it seems free but if you look into yourself you will see why you do everything you do. you just have to ponder it. thats how i realized i am just a tool to help my body and the human race thrive.
Had it occur to you that whatever you think or come up with is also the result of inherited ability´s, Genetic and Social inherited ? And that even when you produce upon those to come up with something "new", that very same production is conditioned to your reasoning power which was not determined by your own will...
...How does it follow that because your brain can picture several possible sets those very same sets are not conditioned beyond will ? Which is exactly to say, as it was already been said, that you can do what you want but cannot want what you want...
Will goes in strict accordance with your "processing power" in terms of I.Q. , E.Q. , Memory, and Instinct, mostly biased by need and impulse...even Reasons main purpose is to serve your own needs which you cannot control...
Let me just finish by saying, that nothing of what you are or believe to be really belongs to you...I consider it more like a "loan"...
Quote:The hard time you are having so as to choose a word for what you describe results from that it is already "contaminated" with belief or knowledge. The central point is this: we cannot know what we perceive in the precise moment we actually perceive it. Knowledge always refers to a past perception: it is reflexive. And it can always be taken as referring to a possibility, in which case it becomes a belief. You can confirm, by introspection, that actual perceptions exclude knowledge, actual knowledge excludes actual perceptions, and possible perceptions imply belief, rather than knowledge. Meaning is the name of all these dual articulations.
This is exactly the reason these terms need clarity. I am saying define them from basic perceptions and in such a way that they are useful. So that not every piece of knowledge is also a belief because a memory must always be questioned in its objective accuracy with the real world which can never completely be achieved. When you say knowledge always refers to a past perception so it must be a belief, you assume that we must compare the perceptions of memory with the physical world or some system outside the mind.
I am saying forget the comparison and simply define knowledge as the associations made between perceptions as in the example of the tree:
Quote:[Knowledge of a] tree might be understood as the sight of a gray to brown form, that is column-like to branching in shape, with a textural surface of a particluar range (the trunk) and massed above this the sight of greenery composed of smaller varying green shapes (leaves).
So that knowledge is completely subjective and based on perceptions and contains associations between smaller less complex units that I called "information" (and before that meaning) which contain very basic relationships between perceptions. It is a growing order of relationships that are always based on perceptions of the world and/or the mind and of course accessed through memory. As the relationships grow more and more complex we might call that instead a "body of knowledge" or a "collection of knowledge".
Now only when knowledge is applied to something outside the mind in question can we have a belief. To assert a conclusion about my knowledge of a tree, my knowledge of a squirrel and my knowledge of a squirrel always being in a tree that I have not percieved directly is a belief and not knowledge. So a belief that trees make squirrels is a jump from one group of knowledge to another using means, a thought process and reasons, other than knowledge to make the jump. I think now you can see that I am not trying to argue that what you have said is not also what I think just that I am trying to clarify some not very specific terms.
Quote:First you said we "create" mathematical truths, and now you say that we are its judges. No matter which one you chose the point remains the same: mathematical truth is not certain.
And I meant both. We both create and judge mathematical rules. No proof of these rules are needed to see that they cannot be backed up. It is clear that from the boundary of the subject that these rules create, that they cannot be found true or false from outside the very subject that they make, there is nothing there. But within it they can be judged to be consistent, not contradictory; such as one rule stating that another rule is not true.
tomr wrote:
Quote:The hard time you are having so as to choose a word for what you describe results from that it is already "contaminated" with belief or knowledge. The central point is this: we cannot know what we perceive in the precise moment we actually perceive it. Knowledge always refers to a past perception: it is reflexive. And it can always be taken as referring to a possibility, in which case it becomes a belief. You can confirm, by introspection, that actual perceptions exclude knowledge, actual knowledge excludes actual perceptions, and possible perceptions imply belief, rather than knowledge. Meaning is the name of all these dual articulations.
This is exactly the reason these terms need clarity. I am saying define them from basic perceptions and in such a way that they are useful. So that not every piece of knowledge is also a belief because a memory must always be questioned in its objective accuracy with the real world which can never completely be achieved. When you say knowledge always refers to a past perception so it must be a belief, you assume that we must compare the perceptions of memory with the physical world or some system outside the mind.
You are stuck within this absolutely external conception of meaning, which is an illusion: there is no way of attaining absolute certainty by recurring to objectivity. Our only option is trust whatever we've got, even if we know it may be a false belief: no comparison with another "system outside the mind" will settle this problem -- it will result in another memory, which will again become a belief.
tomr wrote:I am saying forget the comparison and simply define knowledge as the associations made between perceptions as in the example of the tree:
Quote:[Knowledge of a] tree might be understood as the sight of a gray to brown form, that is column-like to branching in shape, with a textural surface of a particluar range (the trunk) and massed above this the sight of greenery composed of smaller varying green shapes (leaves).
You are trying to forget the comparison? You need it. What you must get rid of is the idea that comparison will give you an absolute certainty -- that's the illusion. Knowledge and belief are the two faces of the same thing, you will never have one without the other. Your conception of meaning is just a disguised version of an absolute knowledge. What we have is knowledge, which is the actual truth of something. However, any actual truth depends on a possible truth, by which it unavoidably becomes a belief. You will never succeed in granting knowledge an absolute truth by turning it into meaning, since meaning depends on knowledge, even if as a belief.
tomr wrote:So that knowledge is completely subjective and based on perceptions and contains associations between smaller less complex units that I called "information" (and before that meaning) which contain very basic relationships between perceptions. It is a growing order of relationships that are always based on perceptions of the world and/or the mind and of course accessed through memory. As the relationships grow more and more complex we might call that instead a "body of knowledge" or a "collection of knowledge".
You know knowledge is never completely subjective, since it must refer to perceptions and feelings, which are objective. Then why you end up saying that knowledge is "completely subjective"? Because you made meaning independent of it, that's why. Without meaning, knowledge becomes the object of knowledge, but not as a perception or feeling, hence as a representation of them, in the Kantian sense, hence a subjective entity. That's not how things are: meaning permeates knowledge. Meaning binds perceptions and feelings with beliefs and knowledge: it consists in that binding. There is no way for something to mean anything to us without us believing on it or knowing it: you are just forgetting that simple fact, which leads you into this hierarchical view of perceptions and feelings, then meaning, then beliefs and knowledge, in which you will quickly run out of names just to build an amorphous layered tower that tells you nothing about meaning.
tomr wrote:Now only when knowledge is applied to something outside the mind in question can we have a belief. To assert a conclusion about my knowledge of a tree, my knowledge of a squirrel and my knowledge of a squirrel always being in a tree that I have not percieved directly is a belief and not knowledge. So a belief that trees make squirrels is a jump from one group of knowledge to another using means, a thought process and reasons, other than knowledge to make the jump. I think now you can see that I am not trying to argue that what you have said is not also what I think just that I am trying to clarify some not very specific terms.
You are mistaking belief for its object. We have a belief whenever perceptions or feelings are taken as possibilities, and knowledge whenever they are taken as actualities. And any perceptions or feelings can be taken as possibilities, no matter how uncomfortable that makes one feel. So we do not agree: my view puts meaning as the nexus between perceptions and feelings, on one side, and belief and knowledge on the other. Your view, on the other hand, puts belief and knowledge on top of meaning, as a layer on top of another in a developing hierarchy. Believe me, these are sharply different views.
tomr wrote:Quote:First you said we "create" mathematical truths, and now you say that we are its judges. No matter which one you chose the point remains the same: mathematical truth is not certain.
And I meant both. We both create and judge mathematical rules. No proof of these rules are needed to see that they cannot be backed up. It is clear that from the boundary of the subject that these rules create, that they cannot be found true or false from outside the very subject that they make, there is nothing there. But within it they can be judged to be consistent, not contradictory; such as one rule stating that another rule is not true.
Quote:Certainty is the impossibility of doubt. Consistency is not certainty. Nor is non-contradiction. Certainty is another beast.
yet it is certain that with out a breath of air in the next hour you will cease to live
that is a truth
You are stuck within this absolutely external conception of meaning, which is an illusion: there is no way of attaining absolute certainty by recurring to objectivity.
So that not every piece of knowledge is also a belief because a memory must always be questioned in its objective accuracy with the real world which can never completely be achieved.
You are trying to forget the comparison? You need it. What you must get rid of is the idea that comparison will give you an absolute certainty -- that's the illusion.
You know knowledge is never completely subjective, since it must refer to perceptions and feelings, which are objective. Then why you end up saying that knowledge is "completely subjective"?
So that knowledge is completely subjective and based on perceptions and contains associations between smaller less complex units that I called "information" (and before that meaning) which contain very basic relationships between perceptions.
You are mistaking belief for its object. We have a belief whenever perceptions or feelings are taken as possibilities, and knowledge whenever they are taken as actualities.
Quote:You are stuck within this absolutely external conception of meaning, which is an illusion: there is no way of attaining absolute certainty by recurring to objectivity.
I am not going back to objectivity. In my Webster's Dictionary that I bought at Wal-Mart it says this about the word objective: "... 2. existing outside and independent from the mind " and this is what I mean when I say:
Quote:So that not every piece of knowledge is also a belief because a memory must always be questioned in its objective accuracy with the real world which can never completely be achieved.
I am saying I want to define knowledge in a useful way where not every piece of knowledge must be called a belief, since you have said that because knowledge is stored as memories it cannot be accessed without questioning its accuracy with objective reality and that automatically makes it a belief as well.
Quote:You are trying to forget the comparison? You need it. What you must get rid of is the idea that comparison will give you an absolute certainty -- that's the illusion.
I am describing a means to disconnect knowledge from objective reality for the purpose of clarity. That's the comparison: between memories that are knowledge and the objective world. So that knowledge is simplified for clarity. There is no need for absolute certainty because that implies a comparison with the objective world to test for truth and that is what is left out of the definition. Only subjective experience remains.
Quote:You know knowledge is never completely subjective, since it must refer to perceptions and feelings, which are objective. Then why you end up saying that knowledge is "completely subjective"?
Okay. Let me just dust off that dictionary again: "...subjective...2: of, relating to, or arising within one's self or mind in contrast to what is outside". So when I say:
Quote:So that knowledge is completely subjective and based on perceptions and contains associations between smaller less complex units that I called "information" (and before that meaning) which contain very basic relationships between perceptions.
First of all I am talking about my definition of knowledge. Second it would follow from what I have said, that because this understanding of knowledge is based on only perception and not objective reality, that the definition would describe something "completely subjective".
Quote:You are mistaking belief for its object. We have a belief whenever perceptions or feelings are taken as possibilities, and knowledge whenever they are taken as actualities.
So are you telling me this based on your definition or mine? I am just trying to clarify these term. If you have a problem with this then please tell me why it is not helpful to explain the terms the way I did. Do not tell me why I am wrong based on your definition because that means nothing when there are two definitions. You could explain what precisely your definitions are and why yours give the discussion more clarity.
It is just false that every piece of knowledge must be a belief ("piece" of knowledge already betrays your objective take): it may be a belief, depending on whether you take its object as an actuality (knowledge) or as a possibility (belief). The point is that knowledge is not guaranteed to be knowledge, since it may refer to a possibility.
Additionally, knowledge is not "stored" as memories: you are taking an objectified view of knowledge, as if it were an external object -- viewing knowledge as an external object or as an absolute certainty are the same thing.
The essence of knowledge -- its very definition -- consists in its reference to an actuality, which is necessarily outside of it, hence outside of our minds (objective, according to your Wall Mart's dictionary). Even the knowledge of one's own feelings turns those feelings into objects: a totally subjective knowledge ceases to be knowledge.
This is a very old game you are playing: taking objectivity into the mind as a set of "material elements" from which knowledge is built by means of association. What you don't notice is that these "elements" must be at once objective and subjective for your schema to work. Your "knowledge" operates on them as if they were objective, despite their being subjective (they are equivalents of objects rather than those objects themselves, right?).
In other words: knowledge must refer to an objectivity, according to that same dictionary you keep referring to. If you just stop and think for a moment, you will see that knowledge simply cannot be "completely subjective": it would cease to be knowledge and become a wild hallucination.
Quote:It is just false that every piece of knowledge must be a belief ("piece" of knowledge already betrays your objective take): it may be a belief, depending on whether you take its object as an actuality (knowledge) or as a possibility (belief). The point is that knowledge is not guaranteed to be knowledge, since it may refer to a possibility.
I assumed that it had to be confirmed true in a rigorous way for your definition of knowledge to be in accord with objective reality. I do not know if by "you take its object as an actuality" you mean that that knowledge must be true to be knowledge or if the proof only has to convince the person with that knowledge. So are you saying knowledge is a choice? If the difference between knowledge and belief is personal choice then how can we ever agree on what knowledge is, where do you draw the line? If knowledge must be found to be proved in accord with objective reality how could you possibly do this? Since our only means of observing objective reality is through our perceptions of it, we can never know objects outside us. We only know what is in our minds. We can deduce that objects exist outside us but we can only experience that understanding subjectively. In fact everything we are is subjective. There is no knowing outside the mind. It can only happen inside it and so to talk about objects and actualities as if they are something that you know is meaningless. An object can be the sensory stimulation needed for knowledge to be gained but it is not knowledge.
Quote:Additionally, knowledge is not "stored" as memories: you are taking an objectified view of knowledge, as if it were an external object -- viewing knowledge as an external object or as an absolute certainty are the same thing.
I am not talking objectively when I say knowlege is "stored" as memories, because I am talking from memories that I perceived when I wrote it. I do think in my head that there is a world outside my mind, a place where things are stored, but I am not there and I can never be. I only exist as my mind. So why not say the things that are real to me are my knowledge? So we can compare our knowledge to objective reality(really just subjective reality) and find that the knowledge we have is not consistent with that reality and draw conclusions like whether the knowledge we have is consistent or not.
Quote:The essence of knowledge -- its very definition -- consists in its reference to an actuality, which is necessarily outside of it, hence outside of our minds (objective, according to your Wall Mart's dictionary). Even the knowledge of one's own feelings turns those feelings into objects: a totally subjective knowledge ceases to be knowledge.
Yes knowledge references objects as the stimulator of perception, but objects cannot be held in the mind. They are experienced subjectively. Objects trigger perceptions they are not perceptions. Knowledge must be totally subjective because we can experience nothing but our own minds.
Quote:This is a very old game you are playing: taking objectivity into the mind as a set of "material elements" from which knowledge is built by means of association. What you don't notice is that these "elements" must be at once objective and subjective for your schema to work. Your "knowledge" operates on them as if they were objective, despite their being subjective (they are equivalents of objects rather than those objects themselves, right?).
I can think objects exist outside myself without my knowledge being an object or requiring that knowledge be compared with the object that stimulated that knowledge.
Quote:In other words: knowledge must refer to an objectivity, according to that same dictionary you keep referring to. If you just stop and think for a moment, you will see that knowledge simply cannot be "completely subjective": it would cease to be knowledge and become a wild hallucination.
Knowledge is completely subjective. Yes it references objects but it exists only in the mind. The nature of objects can only be known through our perceptions and still most people would not describe knowledge as a wild hallucination.
You were going so well...up to the final sentence...were you just plane crashed...
...Whatever is true once, is true forever !
