What is the Nature of Knowledge

[Thunderbird]

This is the way I do it on the web.

 

Need assessment of current information system

Selection of key words {code}

Specifications of search information

Identifying the specific Informational context

Updating the general informational context

[Thunderbird]

This is the way I do it on the web.

 

Need assessment of current information system

Selection of key words {code}

Specifications of search information

Identifying the specific Informational context

Updating the general informational context

 

 

 

1.Need assessment of current information system

2.Specifications of search information

3.Selection of key words {code}

4.Identifying the specific Informational context

5.Updating the general informational context

 

This is better order..

[Overdog]

I appreciate the insights that have led to clarifying the relationship between knowledge and belief, though I feel that it is fallacious to equate the two. I agree with Zythryn that in the first person, they are the same thing, but they are definitely distinct when more than one mind is involved, as I believe Jedaisoul pointed out.

 

Thanks, yes I completely agree it is fallacious to equate the two except in the first person. I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I did not agree with Jedaisoul. I have been talking about the first person view.

 

I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion (and others) until the week after next, I promised you a rain dance in Alabama next week and I'm leaving in the morning...not expecting much if any internet access where I'll be.

[freeztar]

Thanks for the clarification Overdog. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page.

 

Have a good trip!

[freeztar]

Thanks for the clarification Overdog. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page.

 

Have a good trip!

 

I guess I'll know when you've done your boogey when the dark clouds roll in. :)

[Overdog]

Ok, one final post before I hit the road (can't resist).

 

I'm dropping modeling the congnitive process, at least in this thread (realized it doesn't belong here).

 

If we agree that at the individual level there is little if any distinction between Knowledge and Belief, then...can we say our world view is a belief system?

 

If all we have as individuals are beliefs, then what I'm thinking of as "knowledge" is really a community of consensus on what beliefs I accept as true.

(I believe someone made this point earlier. no pun intended)

 

So I "believe" that a collaborative community of scientists peer-reviewing each others work, following the scientific method, is the best thing available for distinguishing fact from fiction, and my FAITH in it is reasonable and rational.

[Overdog]

Ok, I'm back from Alabama...did Freeztar's rain dance, for what its worth, and spent some more time pondering this.

 

So there is at least one other kind of knowledge, that is not part of our belief system. We know how we feel, don't we? We know when we are hungry... I'm calling this kind of knowledge innate knowledge. Innate knowledge would include instincts and emotion, and like Kant, Nature too "...had therefore to drop knowledge to make room for belief."

 

--Thanks for that Quote Modest.

 

For the evolution of a "believing" information system, much of innate knowledge was (had to be) dropped (by natural selection) but not all of it. We still have some instinctive behaviors, and certainly LOTS of emotion. What good would a believing machine be without emotions and some instincts to drive it, to give it impetous for action?

 

So the belief system evolved in the context of a pre-existing system of innate knowledge, and some behaviors governed by innate knowledge were cleared out, replaced by behaviors deriving from beliefs. It makes sense that an organism with the ability to quickly adapt it's behavior simply by "changing its mind" might enjoy significant survival advantages over the alternative of waiting for natural selection to alter instinctive behavior.

 

So we ended up as emotional, believing machines, driven to belive something, and able to believe anything, without regard to logic, reason, or the fact that one belief may be completely inconsistent with another.

 

We seem to have this innate ability to compartmentalize beliefs, so that conflicting beliefs are neatly hidden away, until some circumstance comes along that forces them into view.

 

I recall taking batteries of tests when I joined the Navy many years ago as a teenager. I remember one test in particular, it was some sort of psycological profile test. I remember about halfway through the test thinking I was aceing it, I knew the correct answer to every single question...then things began to fall apart in the second half of the test. The problem was, I still knew the correct answer to every question but the answer was in direct conflict with an answer I'd given in the first part of the test, and both answers could not be correct. The test was exposing to me what a confused, mixed up mess of conflicting beliefs my mind really was, and by the end of it I was afraid to turn it in for fear they would send me straight to the looney bin. But they didn't, instead I was recruited into the military, apparently no more mixed up than the next guy. Anyway, I left the recruiting office resolved to spend the rest of my life trying to organize and clean up the mess the test had revealed.

[Overdog]

So there seems to be yet another kind of "knowledge", and this is where the meaning of the word "knowledge" starts to get very fuzzy. As well, the theories and mechanisms for how it arises are controversial. The central questions here (at least to me) pertain to where and how we get our abilities for Language, Logic, and Reasoning. Do we get them from Nature (hardwired infrastructure/innate), or from Nurture, or (to me more likely) is it a combination of both?

 

Philosopher Immanuel Kant reasoned in his Critique of Pure Reason that the human mind knows objects in innate, a priori ways. Kant claimed that humans, from birth, must experience all objects as being successive (time) and juxtaposed (space). His list of inborn Categories are predicates that the mind can attribute to any object in general. Schopenhauer agreed with Kant, but reduced the number of innate Categories to one, namely, causality, which presupposes the others.

 

See:

 

Psychological nativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It doesn't seem clear the extent to which these abilities can be attributed to instinct, yet at some level there must be a genetic basis for a physical infratructure which can, at the very least, support the development of these faculties through Nurture, if indeed they are not completely innate.

[Overdog]

So, either interest in this thread has evaporated, or folks are waiting in ambush...I'll assume the latter for now and continue.

 

Another kind of innate knowledge we seem to have leads to what is called a "Theory of Mind".

 

See:

Theory of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Excerpt:

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—others’ behavior.[2] Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior means, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a “generator of representations”[3][4] and to understand that others’ mental representations of the world do not necessarily reflect reality and can be different from one’s own. It also means one must be able to maintain, simultaneously, different representations of the world. It is a ‘theory’ of mind in that such representations are not "directly observable".[5] Many other human abilities—from skillful social interaction to language use—are said to involve a theory of mind.

AND

Theory of mind appears to be an innate potential ability in humans (and, some argue, in certain other species), but one requiring social and other experience over many years to bring successfully to adult fruition. It is probably a continuum, in the sense that different people may develop more, or less, effective theories of mind, varying from very complete and accurate ones, through to minimally functional. It is often implied or assumed (but not stated explicitly) that this does not merely signify conceptual understanding "other people have minds and think," but also some kind of understanding and working model that these thoughts and states and emotions are real and genuine for these people and not just ungrounded names for parroted concepts. Empathy is a related concept, meaning experientially recognizing and understanding the states of mind, including beliefs, desires and particularly emotions of others without injecting your own, often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes."

 

Earlier I suggested that our species had evolved into "...emotional, believing machines, driven to belive something, and able to believe anything, without regard to logic, reason, or the fact that one belief may be completely inconsistent with another."

 

To me, this says that we are Religious animals, by nature. I understand this may be an unusual use or definition of the word than ones we may be accustomed to.

[Overdog]

Well, I had thought that my previous post would have elicited some response. In the past, assertions that that we are inherently religious animals has always been met with strenuous argument. Perhaps for the first time, on this forum, I have had the liesure of stating my case clearly enough that I have somehow managed to avoid the controversy.

 

So, since no one is arguing with me, I will proceed to the next items I would like to discuss.

 

These items are Reason and Logic. Why, from an evolutionary standpoint, do these faculties exist? What exactly is the distinction between the two, and how does perception (the senses) figure in to all of this?

[freeztar]

Well, I had thought that my previous post would have elicited some response. In the past, assertions that that we are inherently religious animals has always been met with strenuous argument. Perhaps for the first time, on this forum, I have had the liesure of stating my case clearly enough that I have somehow managed to avoid the controversy.

It has not gone unnoticed. Perhaps the collective of Hypography that was previously involved in this discussion has lost the momentum because of the time lapse.

 

Maybe a rehash/summary of what we've discussed so far and where we are now might help invite more discussion from varied sources. :)

 

So, since no one is arguing with me, I will proceed to the next items I would like to discuss.

Ok, I'll jump in here. (btw, you didn't happen to do that raindance on the weekend did you :doh: ) :hihi:

 

These items are Reason and Logic. Why, from an evolutionary standpoint, do these faculties exist? What exactly is the distinction between the two, and how does perception (the senses) figure in to all of this?

 

Those are very good questions.

 

I can't specifically tell you why those traits dominated, but it's quite obvious to me that these traits were beneficial evolutionarily.

 

As far as the separation of logic and reason is concerned, it might be a false premise to begin with. Can one exist without the other? Or, to what extent are they interchangeable?

[Overdog]

It has not gone unnoticed. Perhaps the collective of Hypography that was previously involved in this discussion has lost the momentum because of the time lapse.

 

Thanks for your response, Freez, I was beginning to think I was talking to myself.

 

Maybe a rehash/summary of what we've discussed so far and where we are now might help invite more discussion from varied sources. :)

I will try to do this in my next post. It will take me a little time to summarize it.

Ok, I'll jump in here. (btw, you didn't happen to do that raindance on the weekend did you :doh: ) :hihi:

I did the raindance on monday, june 16th. Didn't name my boat that for nothin...

Those are very good questions.

 

I can't specifically tell you why those traits dominated, but it's quite obvious to me that these traits were beneficial evolutionarily.

Yes, it seems obvious, but I would like to explore this further. I'm thinking these traits were essential...need more time to elaborate.

As far as the separation of logic and reason is concerned, it might be a false premise to begin with. Can one exist without the other? Or, to what extent are they interchangeable?

I agree this may be a false premise. At the moment I can't fathom the distinction between the two.

[modest]

Well, I had thought that my previous post would have elicited some response.

 

I had lost where we were, but I've taken a look back and reminded myself. Now, were we saying emotion was a kind of knowledge? I was thinking emotion would be a kind of thought for sure, but knowledge would be a bit different from that. Let me bump my list thing I did:

 

• Our link to the natural world is the 5 senses.
  
• Those five senses lead to experience.
  
• Experience leads to all thought of any form (emotion, reason, knowledge, ect.)
  
• Ignorance can be a lack of experience (placing it outside the realm of thought all together) or a failure to understand an experience (an experience that failed to connect to knowledge or wisdom)
  
• Knowledge is the structured organization of experience into something useful - Not a useful action, just a useful understanding.
  
• Reason is the process of doing the above (organizing experience into knowledge) or a method of doing the the same.
  
• Belief is maybe nothing more than the confidence that the previous step worked and will lead to the next step. I'm not too sure of this.
  
• Wisdom is applying Knowledge to “life” which by all our definitions so far requires reason, knowledge, and experience.
  

[jedaisoul]

...Knowledge is the structured organization of experience into something useful - Not a useful action, just a useful understanding.

I think that essential elements of knowledge are testability and consensus. Observations become fact (and hence knowledge) by a process of testing and confirmation by a number of, preferably independent, observers.

 

Thus a group of believers may concur that god exists, but does this constitute knowledge? I think not, because there is no way to test and verify this belief. Whereas if a group of scientists concur after a series of independent tests that the Earth is roughly spherical and orbits the sun, then that constitutes knowledge.

[Overdog]

Thus a group of believers may concur that god exists, but does this constitute knowledge? I think not, because there is no way to test and verify this belief. Whereas if a group of scientists concur after a series of independent tests that the Earth is roughly spherical and orbits the sun, then that constitutes knowledge.

 

Yes, exactly, but it is one kind of knowledge.

[Overdog]

I will try to summarize a bit first, maybe that will help clarify things...

 

By/In post #57, we had arrived at the idea that, at the individual level, there was no distinction between what we call "Knowledge" and belief, leading to the idea that, as individuals, our world view is a system of beliefs. We had also noted earlier that thought occurs in an emotional context. "We think about how we feel, and we feel about how we think.", "Emotion has a reason of which Reason knows not."

 

So beliefs then, are one kind of knowledge.

 

In post #58, I proposed...

...at least one other kind of knowledge, that is not part of our belief system. We know how we feel, don't we? We know when we are hungry... I'm calling this kind of knowledge innate knowledge. Innate knowledge would include instincts and emotion, and like Kant, Nature too "...had therefore to drop knowledge to make room for belief."

and went on to speculate as to how a "believing" information system (our brains) might have evolved from/within a pre-existing framework of hardwired innate knowledge (instinct and emotion).

 

Post #59 raises some questions about other kinds of hardwired, innate knowledge.

 

Post #60 introduces Theory of Mind, which suggests that emotion, our ability to emote or empathize, is also innate.

[Overdog]

I had lost where we were, but I've taken a look back and reminded myself. Now, were we saying emotion was a kind of knowledge? I was thinking emotion would be a kind of thought for sure, but knowledge would be a bit different from that.

 

So what I'm saying is that Emotion IS a kind of knowledge, but is is more like a medium in which thought occurs. A sort of "waveguide" for thought, if you will.