Of Frank's Ignorance

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I am saying mathematics can qualify as knowledge because they are based on the observation of how mental objects interact.

How can you observe mental objects?

1 Reply

I believe we are diverting from the OP. Observation and deduction is based on subjective interpretation. One can define specifics that can be deemed as "common knowledge" and provable through observation and experimentation, but we're talking about one individual. How one perceives one individual is always subjective. It's not about litmus tests or atomic elements.

If Frank is not ignorant, please provide proof from what you have observed.

That's the crux of this forum.

2 Replies

JoeFromChicago wrote:

How can you observe mental objects?

With the inner eye:

Wiki wrote:

The third eye (also known as the inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept referring to a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

By way of introspection. Just as you invented the snarks and the boojums, and then you "observed" in your mind what happens when the set of boojum is placed within the set of snarks.

Or maybe you didn't, i.e. you took a shortcut, but it can be done. People CAN actually visualize stuff in their mind and derive knowledge from such observation. I can imagine one stick, then another stick, and when I count the resulting sticks, I arrive at 2 sticks... I can try again with imagined cars or apples or whatever, and conclude that 1 + 1 is 2 whatever the type of objects actually being counted.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Indeed we are deviating, but Frank is apparently not interested in defending his blunder... Maybe he understood what I meant. One can always hope, right?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Indeed we are deviating, but Frank is apparently not interested in defending his blunder... Maybe he understood what I meant. One can always hope, right?

Oh, I'm totally committed to defending my position (not "blunder"), Olivier.

I understand that you think I am not very intelligent. Perhaps "wisdom" is different from intelligence, but my "wisdom" is telling me to just sit back right now and let people much smarter than myself have their say.

My wisdom is tellng me to "just shut up" for a while.

There will always be tomorrow and the tomorrows after that! I'm not going anywhere...and there is no rush. Wink

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If only you could always be sooo wise as to shut up and let people much smarter than you have their say... :-)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Should read:
If only you could always be sooo wise as to ALWAYS shut up and let people much smarter than you have their say... :-)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

when you where reading philosophy did u skip over Kant...
it's called analytic a priori.
i would further explain but it would be futile.
just google it and once your mind becomes more developed lets say 5 years you will c ur incorrect

2 Replies

@classicalcynic,

My point is not that logic is irrelevant when determining truth, it is that both facts and reason are useful, but that reason alone, without facts to support it, cannot tell you anything true about this world. Kant's a priori statements are things that are true by definition: e.g. "all X are Y" like in Joe's example, by virtue of how X and Y are defined. Their truth value is simply derived from an examination of the relevant definitions, rather than from an examination of something physical, because the statement itself is about something conceptual, not physical.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

you lost me in a maze...
create a straight path thus so i can walk!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

By way of introspection. Just as you invented the snarks and the boojums, and then you "observed" in your mind what happens when the set of boojum is placed within the set of snarks.

Well, I think we're straying into the realm of the esoteric, as timur suggests. I don't think I'm observing anything when I talk of snarks and boojums, but I'm not going to belabor this point, as it's obvious you and I have vastly different definitions of "knowledge." If you define the term as encompassing only "empirical knowledge," then I'm not surprised that you take the position that knowledge can only come from observation. That would be true by definition, so long as you define it that way. Of course, if one disagrees with that definition, then you're left to argue that your definition is better - which I haven't seen you do.

1 Reply

@classicalcynic,

Did you ever study math? You learn math from understanding numbers. Nobody has to prove 2 + 2 = 4. Anyone questioning this calculus just isn't ready to accept what's not objective.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

i dropped a bowl.. did you experience this subjectively? in your experience does gravity mean floats to roof?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

do you have any more wise insights? other than shutting up?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

math is rather faulty for one can come to the conclusion tha 2 + 2 = 22.
it depends on reason and man depends on irrationality

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

maybe u experienced my contradiction in a subjective way...

1 Reply

@classicalcynic,

That's precisely what I meant; people's ability at objective conclusions are wanting - including your's.

0 Replies

@classicalcynic,

You,

Quote:

maybe experienced my contradiction in a subjective way...

We're all subjective beings, but there are some truths that are not subjective.

Some synonyms for objective are,

Quote:

impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

Of Frank's Ignorance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know