Of Frank's Ignorance

So far, in earlier posts I have covered variations on most of the items that have been brought up by other now, cc.

I have suggested that Olivier's definition of "knowledge" is unreasonably limited and gratuitous...and seems to be here only because he thinks such a definition help serve his argument that I am ignorant and/or stupid.

I given examples of instances where I know something without having "observed" what I know. When he suggested that since I am "knowing " it in my mind...I am actually observing it there...I suggested all ideas have to arise in a mind...and that this line of questioning was probably desperation on his part.

And other things.

But, as I noted, sometimes wisdom dictates that just shutting up for a bit makes more sense. So I am essentially doing that.

If you think I've given up...or am surrendering to the notion that I am stupid ** ...I have not give up and I am not stupid. I'm around for the long run...and any sitting back watching what others have to say is a reasonable part of the exercise.

**Yes, stupid and ignorant are not the same thing!

frankie wrote,

Wow! It's amazing you understand the difference, because you're both!

Are you masturbating while insulting, ci?

It makes me wonder what you're doing besides making yourself look ignorant and stupid on a2k!

Already? You're easy to get lost.

One can examine (observe) concepts and derive knowledge from such examination, just like one can examine (observe) objects and derive some knowledge from such examination.

Kant's "analytic a priori" statements are of the conceptual type: they are true by virtue of how the concepts in the statement are defined. Therefore, their truth value is determined by examining these concepts. It's still about observation in fact, but at the conceptual level.

I imagine lots of things make you wonder!

Timur is dead wrong. Do you think a mental calculus is more esoteric than the same calculus made on paper?


Of course... but I never said my definition was better than any other definition... Mine is only about scientific knowledge, and there might be other ways to truth, e.g. through art or religion. I don't know and am willing to learn. But if you ask me if I know this or that, like Frank asked about the gods, then I will revert to my understanding of knowledge, which is that it has to be based on evidence. Since I cannot submit the gods to observation (they tend to hide in the netherworld), I have no knowledge of them.

This is not true. You proposed a sentence about you. Evidently you can observe yourself. To disprove me, you would have to present a true statement about something out there that is not based on any observation whatsoever. And then I will ask you how you know it's true...

frankie wrote,

It's interesting that he's able to negate his use of language. I guess he never had to observe English to communicate his thoughts.

Yeah...it is true.

But I'm still gonna sit out for a bit longer. You seem to be enjoying yourself with these other good folk.

Stick with it.

You presented a statement about you. And you can observe yourself.

Nice try.

But that seems to be your specialty. Nice tries.

I'll continue to watch until tomorrow.

do you mean limited as incomprehensive?
his focus seems set on winning rather than gaining insight.
i don't think that at all.
also empirism lead to practical knowledge and tool making but not greater insight into happiness, virtue, ethics ect..
and knowledge about these subjects cant come about empirically or if they can not to a great result.

no comment

how can one observe the incorporeal?

It's a hit, not a try. You did not even try to address it. It passed through you like a cannon ball.

Therefore, you probably KNOW you can't address it. :-)

Can you, or can you not explore a concept, consider an idea, imagine a scene?

but how is that observeing that?

express it analytically so i can get a better understanding?

I'm not analytical but I can try. I am just streching tge definition of "observe" to mental objects, in addition to physical ones. The difference between the two types of objects is not that large. When you observe a chair, do you look at a bizarre contraption of wood, or at a recognizable concept: a "chair", something one can sit on?

Let's compare two situations:
In 1, you read a sentence and copy it by hand on paper.
In 2, you read the sentence, memorize it, and copy it on paper as you remember it.

For a simple sentence in your native language like "i love cats", the result of 1 = the result of 2. For more complex sentences, or sentences in foreign language, the results can vary, as your memory struggles to reconstruct the original.

What's the difference in terms of observation? In case 1 you observe the visual image of a sentence on paper or screen, a VIEW of it that is reasonably accurate, if imperfect because our senses are imperfect. But it is a mental object which you look at, a mental representation reliable enough, and processed for you by your brain based on data captured by your senses. That's what you copy on paper.

In case 2, what do you copy on paper? A memory, which is another mental object. Very different from an image, in general. More like the sound of the sentence if spoken out load, at least if you understand the language. That's the mental object you copy on paper.

But in both cases, you observed and documented on paper a mental object.

I am just streching tge definition of "observe
sounds like semantics...
why don't you try defining your terms.
define: observe, mental objects,

seems also you have plato's forms theory interjected in there.
bizarre contraption of wood, or at a recognizable concept: a "chair", something one can sit on?

try to clarify.
if your going to make me walk a maze atleast giv me a machete.