78

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Doubt doubt

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 12:13 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

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

boils down to why you do something. i also believe that free will is an illusion. There is a reason for every action and to me that doesnt allow for free will. for instance if someone asks you to pick a random number between 1-1000 you will try but it is impossible. there is some significance to the number you pick. you may not know it but there is. maybe you walked by 151 X street a minute ago. its appears to be a random guess but no matter how hard you try you can not pick a number that is not in some way significant to you or on your mind for some reason.

It reminds me of the operation of the human eye. a human can look at something and a human can track an object but a human can not pan around with there eyes as if they were moving a camera. if you try to scan a room all your eyes can do is jump from one object to another. you can try this for yourself. have someone stand on one side of you out of sight and throw a ball from that side to somewhere out of sight on your other side. you will see the ball and your eyes will follow it. now try to follow an imaginary ball or follow where the ball had flown. it cant be done. our eyes just dont work that way. this is the same as attempting to pick a random number. we just cant do it. we may pick a number that appears random to us but it is not. its a birthday or a phone number or something. it could be a number we forgot years ago but the brain can still recollect it. it could be a number we never even knew such as a street sigh or digits from a number on a billboard. only thing it cant be is random.
0 Replies

Doubt doubt

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 12:26 pm
@Diest TKO,
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.
Doubt doubt

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 12:41 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

So no one chooses to do evil therefore we are wrong to stop murders. It is simply an action with reasons.

yes but nobody chooses to punish them either. everything just happens. everything we do seems to be a choice but we could do nothing different.

the murderer murdered. if you had a time machine and keep going back to right before the murder and observed without changing anything it would happen the same every time forever. you could change something before the murder and stop it from happening but never will his thoughts change without you doing something. his thoughts are set in motion just like laws of physics. if you drop a ball and go back in time and watch, it will drop the same every time unless you change something. point a fan at it or whatnot. we feel free because we have a subconscious that knows more than we do about what goes into a choice. this is to be expected. the mind is created to help us thrive and it seems only natural that boring us to death would not be good. our brain tricks us to keep us going. i know i am just a computer spitting out these words because thats what the past has told me i should do but it still feels like free will.

but think about it. what good is a mind as a tool to help humans thrive if it bores itself to suicide. if the mind is a creation of the body it is only reasonable that it would do exactly what it does which is make it appear as if we have free will. hell that appearance is all that makes us conscience.
0 Replies

tomr

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 04:37 pm
@guigus,
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.
failures art

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 05:17 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt wrote:

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.

People don't just make the best choices though. I can knowingly ignore the best actions.

A
R
T
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 06:50 pm
@amer,
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"...
north

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 09:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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"...

the ability to QUESTION , the ability to FORMULATE , a thought different from what is given , look , see , understand , a thought that is an advanced , thought or thinking , is the essence of free-will

0 Replies

guigus

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:09 pm
@tomr,
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 its own object, but not as a perception or feeling, hence as a representation of them, in the Kantian sense -- as 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. 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.

Certainty is the impossibility of doubt. Consistency is not certainty. Nor is non-contradiction. Certainty is another beast.
north

1
Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:15 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

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
0 Replies

tomr

1
Wed 29 Sep, 2010 05:05 pm
@guigus,
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.
guigus

1
Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:36 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:

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.

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. And what you call being "useful" is just being absolutely certain, which no knowledge will ever be. 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.

tomr wrote:
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.

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.

tomr wrote:
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".

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?). This leads to an infinity of unsolvable problems, which were already old when we were not even born yet. The problem with all this is just that it is not how things really are: knowledge must refer to:

1. An actuality
2. Something external to itself

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.

tomr wrote:
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.

Sorry, but I can only defend my own point of view: it is your role to defend yours. But I can try to explain my point better: you can believe anything, including your knowledge, provided you take it as a possibility, rather than as an actuality. Or, put another way: there is no privileged object of belief. Everything that can be taken as a possibility is a possible object of belief, and anything can be taken as a possibility: there is nothing of which we can have only knowledge and not belief. I understand your conception of knowledge perfectly, and no matter how much you clarify it, it still contradicts mine.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:55 pm
tomr

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am not my connectome. No no no. My brain cannot contain me. My memories are not chains of neurons and I am not a river or a bed. What's a metaphor. Evolutions a lie. The burden of proof is with you. My spirit is seperate from determined causes that compel me because no cause exists.
0 Replies

tomr

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:31 pm
@guigus,
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.

guigus

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 07:50 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:
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.

Have you noticed that you start concerned about my conception of knowledge being incapable of being objectively tested only to later assert precisely that "we only know what is in our minds"? So you are concerned about your own conception of knowledge. Again, you are confusing knowledge with its object: although knowledge happens within our minds, it can only happen by referring to something outside our minds, even if that something is our minds taken as objects. There is no knowledge without an object of knowledge. Regarding actualities, the fact that you can take any actuality as a possibility does not mean you can invent it: knowledge refers to actualities, it cannot create them.

tomr wrote:
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.

If all you have is your subjectivity, you will never be able to compare your knowledge with anything objective. Objective reality for you is nothing more than a supposition. One step further and you will say that the objective world does not exist and you are the only reality.

tomr wrote:
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.

If we "can experience nothing but our own minds," then our minds must be the only object "as the stimulator of perception," don't you agree? So the only thing we experience is our minds as the object of our perception, and the whole world vanishes into a subjective feeling. After all, if you really believe "knowledge must be totally subjective because we can experience nothing but our own minds," I don't understand why you are so concerned in defining knowledge as referring to an objectivity: just declare that knowledge, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then forget it.

tomr wrote:
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.

It is not your knowledge that must be an object but its object: knowledge presupposes an external objectivity, of which there is no subjective replacement. Don't fool yourself: these mental elements you are trying to replace objectivity with have already become objects to you.

tomr wrote:
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.

So although knowledge "references objects" it exists "only in the mind"? And how is that? Don't you see that either knowledge references objects or it exists only in the mind? If knowledge exists only in the mind, then it cannot possibly reference any object, since objects are outside the mind. Anticipating your answer, those intermediaries between objects and knowledge -- perceptions and feelings -- must be in contact with both, being both objective and subjective, right? Then you will have the same problem with them: how can their subjective dimension be in contact with their objective dimension? And how can their subjective dimension be different from knowledge without being its object, hence becoming totally objective? Do you see now what you are getting yourself into?
guigus

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:31 pm
@tomr,
Knowledge necessarily refers to an object (of knowledge). Even if that object is present only as a memory, knowledge does not refer to this memory, but rather to that object: by referring to the memory of an object instead of referring to that object, knowledge ceases to be a knowledge and becomes a belief, while its object ceases to be an actuality and becomes a possibility -- a possible object rather than an actual one.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:42 pm
@guigus,
You were going so well...up to the final sentence...were you just plane crashed...

...Whatever is true once, is true forever !
Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 09:23 pm
There you go, Order out of Chaos !

Enjoy !

0 Replies

guigus

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 10:40 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You were going so well...up to the final sentence...were you just plane crashed...

...Whatever is true once, is true forever !

Like the Ether in physics? Like time and space as absolute and independent entities? Like the flatness of Earth? Like Fukuyama's End of History? Like the Big Bang (wait and see)?

Have you ever heard about doubt?

Take care with that plane...
guigus

1
Thu 30 Sep, 2010 11:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You reacted to my assertion that an actual object becomes a possibility once known as a memory by asserting the eternity of truth (how romantic). Let me address that properly:

Your mistake is confusing actuality with truth: there are actual and possible truths, and all truth must be possible to be actual. However, a possible truth must be possibly false, and an actual truth that is possibly false is rather an actual falsehood, since it is no longer an actual truth. Hence, an actual truth is possibly -- not necessarily -- an actual falsehood -- or just possibly false -- which makes it doubtful.

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King