Is knowledge also a belief?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Artimas » Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:48 pm

Or perhaps power is not just knowledge, maybe power is also the action of applying what you do know to reality.. to hasten/slow change.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3814
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:56 pm

Each human him-/herself and humans themselves are what we call "media". Actually they do not need other media (books, newspaper, radio, tv, internet and so on) than themselves.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:02 pm

One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more by belief.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:15 pm

Artimas wrote:Or perhaps power is not just knowledge, maybe power is also the action of applying what you do know to reality.. to hasten/slow change.


Power doesn't have to always come about from knowledge. Abusive power can come about because of a lack of knowledge. Knowledge is a tool - just as knowledge in the wrong hands, mis-interpreting it, deliberately or otherwise, can bring about abusive power.

Applying what we know to reality is practical wisdom and intelligence. Crows are intelligent creatures because they are problem solvers.
We are at times unintelligible creatures because we add to problems rather than seeking ways to solve them, seeking solutions.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:37 pm

Arminius wrote:One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more by belief.


...or by a mis-interpretation of knowledge or by a mis-interpretation of belief, believing something which was not meant in the first place - to suit one's own purpose...focusing only on what one chooses to see rather than seeing a fuller picture. That is the other, side-of-the-coin dangerous nature of belief.



"A different important point to consider is how Nazi officials, such as Alfred Baeumler (Bäumler) interpreted Nietzsche’s work. Alfred Baeumler was a pseudo-philosopher for the Nazis who played an important role of portraying ietzsche as the ‘godfather of fascism’. In one of his books called der Philosophund Politiker he writes about the relation (he saw) between the Nietzsche and Nazism, “The German state of the future will not be a continuation of Bismarck's creation, but will be created out of the spirit of Nietzsche and the spirit of the
Great War”25. Wikipedia claims that he was “one of the few influential philosophers in Nazi Germany”. This leads to believe that the Third Reich would have been more inclined to accept what Nazi philosophers had to say about Nietzsche instead of what Nietzsche actually meant."


For instance, Nietzsche's Will to power ...


"....On the other hand, what Nietzsche meant by the “Will to Power” was entirely different. The will to power (German – “der Wille zur Macht”) is a model to explain human behaviour, is the driving force of man; ambition for achievement, having a higher position in life. All these are symptoms of the will to power."

http://www.activehistory.co.uk/ib-histo ... tzsche.pdf
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:17 pm

The simplest formula is:

some knowledge is derived from belief , example>hypotheticals- as in 'what if, such & such


Most belief is derived from some knowledge of hypotheticals,


But not all belief is derived from knowledge- based on 'some knowledge is not hypothetical, because that kind of 'knowledge' is merely a pre-intuitive
automatic function of the sympathetic nervous
system.

The point being, is, that knowledge and belief are
vast umbrellas , covering their relative descriptions,
for one, and their post-criptions on the other.

Knowledge is described as = to belief at a time, when
description and inscription were undifferentiated,
they were tied to very basic functions of survival.
The critical doubt arose, at a time, when these definitions became more broad spectrum, and began
to be different.


Now, in common language, doubt is forced upon , with such expressions as ' I don't believe what you
say'- ; with belief differentiated from saying-
meaning.

Way before, common understanding was based on
purely literal and objective belief, forced on the fact
that few people wrote, and the spoken language had to be by various reasons taken at face value.


Some of these reasons were attributable to minimize variance , to minimize the effects of primal force which threatened to disorganize life. Adherence, reification,and social welfare were dependent on
maximum cogency of a unitary public narrative.

Variant private belief, developed from more control over the environment, especially after writing became more of a vehicle of evolving symbolic re-presentation, generally.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6706
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:17 pm

Arminius wrote:Where?

Sources?

Links?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004&p=2594764&hilit=perception#p2594764

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Maybe you want to reread it before logic testing me? It seems like a waste of time to go back to things I already covered.

Arminius wrote:Rhetoric! Otherwise he would have given evidence, sources or at least links to that post.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:18 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:phyllo

ANGRY WROTE:

I claimed not to believe things because I have developed a discipline of weeding out belief in my life, becoming agnostic about more things than would be considered normal and by obtaining knowledge.


phyllo wrote:

I think that is a rationalization which is used to satisfy your ego.


Perhaps ANGRY might have said AUTOMATICALLY believe things.
Why does this have to be a rationalization on his part, phyllo?
If the man does in fact use this method to weed out automatic belief, to examine things and not to automatically accept things based on faith and on the belief of others, how is that rationalizing and satisfying his ego?
That's the way of the agnostic, the skeptic.
.

Yes why must I believe things automatically or even after the fact? Why can't I remain agnostic until knowledge occurs?
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
Perhaps ANGRY might have said AUTOMATICALLY believe things.
Why does this have to be a rationalization on his part, phyllo?
If the man does in fact use this method to weed out automatic belief, to examine things and not to automatically accept things based on faith and on the belief of others, how is that rationalizing and satisfying his ego?
That's the way of the agnostic, the skeptic.
Think about it. People tell you things all day long. Friends, spouse, children, the news media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines). You don't verify most of that stuff. It's not knowledge. Can you imagine being agnostic about it? How would you function and make decisions?



I'll tell you. It's basically taking things with "a grain of salt". How many times is the media/news in error about their reports? How many times do you believe what they say is true on "breaking news stories", before the revise the story a dozen times, do you believe each revision? Or do you not just realize that you do not know, they do not know but are doing their best to give you what they can.

My wife, my kids tell me things - but do they really understand what they are telling me? People tell me lots of things. Some people like, some people forget. Why must I believe their account to be true? Why can't I remain agnostic? Of course I can act on good faith of their accounts, but that doesn't mean I believe it to be true.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:29 pm

WW_III_ANGRY

Yes why must I believe things automatically or even after the fact? Why can't I remain agnostic until knowledge occurs?


After the fact of what? Evidence and proof?
Aside from that, there are some things which we realze that may not be proof of evidence in their totality. We've had that experience. Something once known and believed to be so, becomes uprooted and changed. So, being agnostic can be a good thing because we decide to withhold judgment.
At the same time, we can't allow our agnosticism to make neurotics out of us. We don't necessarily have to take a leap of faith in things which haven't been proven but we can take a leap of faith in "knowing" that at least for now, the knowledge which has just been proven is real for NOW. That's our relationship to reality and the unknown. Being human, we're fallible creatures but at least we're honest when it comes to admitting our mistakes; that is, if we value reality and truth.
If that made any sense. lol
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:45 pm

Moreno wrote:Again. Language is for us. If you do not want to work with the idea that knowledge is a specific subset of beliefs, don't. There are good reasons to do this. But we have freedom with language. To say that it is wrong to think of it this way is silly.


Sure Moreno - I agree. I never said it was wrong, I said I am offering a superior method. Language is not the reason here. Yes, belief means a lot of different things, but look at the sense of belief I am pointing out in this OP.


Moreno wrote:I think a better word is 'distinguish' rather than dissociate. We do distinguish knowledge from other beliefs, those of us who use something like the JTB idea.


Yes, sure, "We" - being who? Philosophers? Maybe more so than Joe Schmoe of course. But how about everyone else? Sometimes it can get very muddled.



WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I contest that belief is never justified.


Moreno wrote:You are making this all binary. No justication, complete and absolute justification. That has no place in the real world and would mean that you do not believe in scientific methodology, for example. In science you can have something that has some support for it. It fits with current models. Some reseach results (seem to or do) support the hypotheis. But not enough for the scientific community to accept that it is true. Not big enough samples, some questiosn about other possible factors, etc. There is some justification, but not enough.

If I believe that women are mean because, through poor luck, say, the women I have known are mean, this is some justification. Just not enough to pass the cut off for scientific knowledge. We may look at a person and feels superior, but in fact many of our beliefs and even what many of us consider knowledge is similar, we just have higher cutoffs, but it still would not pass scientific muster.

There are gradations of justification. There is not perfect justification and knowledge today may not be tomorrow.


I think you are using belief here as synonymous hope/faith as I did not refer to this sense of the definition in my epistemic frame. I did not speak or rule out that sense of the word in my frame of reference, myself, nor do i think we should. As I pointed out, hope is a more apt term in this discussion, rather than conflating that with the topic at hand, which is thinking something to be true, without justification of it being knowledge. Which I would say is not the same attitude as knowledge, which is why knowledge shouldn't be categorized as a subset of belief. The problem many are having here is that belief has many different homophonous senses.





Moreno wrote:There is no reason to be concerned epistemologically. One can still be as rigorous as one likes if one works with knowledge as a subset of beliefs. One can be unbelievably skeptical and demanding in relation to all beliefs. And one can still have a set of knowledge one is satisfied with that distinguished this set from other beliefs that do not pass muster and do not get to be called knowledge.


I think there is at times. Remember, epistemology is not a hard science. Who am I arguing against? Well if we agree, then great. For the things I didn't quote in your response, I agree with what you stated. So as such, it seems we are close to coming to an understanding between each other.

Moreno wrote:No philosopher who uses, for example, jtb conflates knowledge with belief in the sense you are concerned with.

Really? I don't see how that is necessarily true. No Philosopher? How can you be so sure?

Moreno wrote:In the set of drivers, there are forumal one professional drivers. These people can do things that the larger set of drivers cannot do.
In the set of letters, there are vowels. When we say that vowels are letters this does not mean that T is a vowel.
Think of some idiot on the internet who is a writer. He writes. He is in the set of writers. This does not mean we conflate him with Tolstoy.
We have CRITERIA we use to create a subset.
One of the reason philosophy focuses on belief is because philosophy takes nothing for granted. So we have to begin at the experiential level. The individual who believes. Lay people can focus on knowledge and beliefs in the abstract, not in situ, and wax knowledgeable about which is which (always with great certainty). In situ the person who believes X is true has reached that conclusion through a variety of processes. Some good, some bad. So we look at the justification process and make determinations.

Many people use reason and logic to arrive at beliefs that are not correct. Perhaps one of their basic assumptions is not correct.

People reported rogue waves for a long time and scientists dismissed them as incorrect. The scientists justified their belief based on then current oceanography and other scientific models. They justified their beliefs on the knowledge that emotions can affect perception. IN this case they were wrong. They had some justification for saying that the people reporting rogue waves were exaggerating. But as it turns out not enough justification.

You want everything in two nice separate boxes. Here we have the knowledge box where everything is the product of absolute reason and logic. Here we have the belief box where everything is based on faith and has no justification.

That is not the real world. The real world, in situ, has degrees of justification. And even rigorously arrived at, well justified beliefs that become part of scientific consensus have turned out to be incorrect. Even that. They were justified, but it turns out not justified enough. The great thing about science is that BUILT INTO THE CORE IDEA OF SCIENCE IS REVISION, WHICH
NECESSARILY
ENTAILS
THE IDEA
THAT IT IS NOT BINARY
BUT IN FACT
WE ARE DEALING WITH
DEGREES/GRADATIONS OF JUSTIFICATION.

Of course you are free to use the words the way you want. I do not consider you wrong for using them that way.
I don't think it is the best use in a philosophical context, but that is a different issue.
To think that we are wrong for using it our way, that's loopy.


What is this based on? How isn't it the real world? In what aspect are they not two little boxes belief and knowledge, Moreno?
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:41 am

Below is the JTB model - in a diagram and my model. Please forgive the differing size of the two diagrams.


Image

Now my model:

Image



Please note that I allow belief to be truths, but most aren't. You can get lucky. Please note that some knowledge is not truth, but most is. Also please note the vastness of "truth" compared to belief and knowledge. Of course, it's not to any sort of scale, but representative of sentiment that truth is far more voluminous compared to what we can ever know or believe.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:52 pm

What does your model for "truth" stand for - all that there is and isn't known? I couldn't find your meaning as I read the post above it.
I can't really see the second model well.
It seems to me that your putting truth and belief along the same measurement.

Can you elaborate on it.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:57 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:What does your model for "truth" stand for - all that there is and isn't known? I couldn't find your meaning as I read the post above it.
I can't really see the second model well.
It seems to me that your putting truth and belief along the same measurement.

Can you elaborate on it.


Yes - the truth bubble represents is all that there is and isn't known except in the case where knowledge overlaps, then it is known. In the case where belief overlaps truth, is believed, and happens to be truth as well.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:26 pm

What does your model for "truth" stand for - all that there is and isn't known? I couldn't find your meaning as I read the post above it.
I can't really see the second model well.
It seems to me that your putting truth and belief along the same measurement.

Can you elaborate on it.
There is no 'dismembered' truth out there. There is a set of objects and there are relationships between those objects.
It is possible to make statements about those objects and those relationships. If the statement is consistent with what is observed, then it is said to be true, otherwise it is false.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:52 pm

phyllo wrote:There is no 'dismembered' truth out there. There is a set of objects and there are relationships between those objects.
It is possible to make statements about those objects and those relationships. If the statement is consistent with what is observed, then it is said to be true, otherwise it is false.


So does this mean to you there are no facts about things unobserved? Like for example, there's nothing true or false about what's going on deep underground on one of Saturn's lesser moons- until somebody goes and checks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:16 pm

So does this mean to you there are no facts about things unobserved? Like for example, there's nothing true or false about what's going on deep underground on one of Saturn's lesser moons- until somebody goes and checks?
Stuff is happening there but until you investigate it and think about it , there is no truth to be said about it. Facts are statements that you make.
If everyone dies, then there are no facts and there is no truth, there is no knowledge and there is no belief. There is still stuff but there are no thoughts about that stuff.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:21 pm

phyllo wrote:Stuff is happening there but until you investigate it and think about it , there is no truth to be said about it. Facts are statements that you make.
If everyone dies, then there are no facts and there is no truth, there is no knowledge and there is no belief. There is still stuff but there are no thoughts about that stuff.


So a consequence of that would be that a statement or proposition can't be true by accident, right? Like, if I say "There's a large chunk of ice shaped like a spoon on Europa". That statement, as of right now, is neither true nor false, regardless of whether or not there is a chunk of ice shaped like a spoon on Europa, and doesn't become true or false until somebody has a way to (dis)confirm it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:38 pm

Okay, so somebody say this about a chunk of ice on Europa.

If is confirmed by another or others then it is taken to be truth.

If it is not confirmed by others, then it is not taken to be truth.

It may still be there.

This demonstrates the difference between what is and what we think we know to be.

What we take to be knowledge may not be the reflection of reality.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:42 pm

phyllo wrote:Okay, so somebody say this about a chunk of ice on Europa.

If is confirmed by another or others then it is taken to be truth.

If it is not confirmed by others, then it is not taken to be truth.

It may still be there.

This demonstrates the difference between what is and what we think we know to be.

What we take to be knowledge may not be the reflection of reality.


We are under no obligation to take this sentiment about a chunk of ice on Europa as being truth, regardless of how many people "confirm" it. It is a matter of how was it confirmed, what does it mean, is it possible, plausible, there are other factors to use in reasoning as to why it is taken as truth.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:41 pm

So to further understand my perspective, frame of reference, let me elaborate a bit. This thread seems to be running over in other threads I have created, of course, there's reason why that is, there is a connection. There is a connection to my philosophy in differing subjects and there are roots in this epistemic frame to essentially every philosophy I have stated. The branches are throughout the forum in my other threads, this being a root, so to speak.

There is incredulity on this philosophy so I think it is warranted to explain how I have gotten to this point. Although, this explanation doesn't really matter or provide a case for this thesis of mine.

I have had multiple schemata destroyed, crushed, obliterated in my life. A schema is "an organized pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new information. Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment. People can organize new perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

The first big schema was destroyed through breaking free from religious indoctrination, it was a belief oriented schema that was based on dogma that was essentially forced upon me through indoctrination from childhood through 13 years of Catholic schooling. The second, was through mental illness. This was a perceptual schema, which is "A structured internal representation (1) of an object or image acquired through perception"
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100316467

Both of these schemata were imperative to my understanding of reality. My understanding of reality was deeply flawed I found upon the destruction of these schemata. The destruction of my perceptual schema through mental illness lingers more prevalent today as critical to my current perceptual schema, which is inherently different from the schema that arose from religious indoctrination. When I was mentally ill, I naturally perceived reality through a highly imaginative state of mind. Hallucinations occurred constantly at times, hallucinations were optical, auditory, olfactory (related to the sense of smell) and to a lesser extent, somatosensory (related to the sense of touch). A perceptual schema is imperitive to understanding everything. Through my minds capacity to entirely create an alternate reality because of hallucinations due to mental illness and my subsequent recovery, I have been keenly aware of the power of the mind in general to do this as a mentally healthy person. While recovering from mental illness I spent great lengths of time reflecting upon what I thought was real from hallucinations to what probably really happened instead. I had to fix my understanding of reality because upon my recovery, I knew my understanding was based on a great deal of hallucination. I went down a perceptual rabbit hole and came out more aware of the nature of perception, cognition, and conceptualization. I became aware of how to identify the difference between hallucination and actual perception of reality - which I then came to find out there isn't necessarily a whole lot of difference when you get down to it. Colors, are a product of our mind, for example. What we hear is a product of our mind. What we see, is a product of our mind. Our mind determines our perception of reality more so than many people would give them credit for. People think what they see is what is there, I know what we say is a product of our mind. This is an important distinction to make and one that eventually rose to weeding out belief due to this nature of perception, cognition and conceptualization. Perhaps its hard for others who haven't experienced what I have to weed out belief, because there is no need to. They function fine. Perhaps they don't know the depths that our mind produces our perception of reality. Perhaps they think what they see is knowledge and look no further.

I am grateful for my experience because it made me stronger. I took a great interest in learning so that I could not only catch myself if hallucinations struck me down again, but to understand why this happened, how this happened to me. What came of it was a greater understanding of essentially everything, I would say. If you would like to read more about my experience of mental illness, I wrote a book depicting the issues I had. I always was curious in high school, while learning what schizophrenia and psychosis was, to try to vicariously understand what it was. It was impossible. But now that I have experienced it first hand, I like to help others who would never experience it try to view it vicariously, and I hope that is why my book has done for those who have read it so far. The link is here: http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Madness-Christopher-Markowski-ebook/dp/B006ZR34BE


So I hope that this post may help with some of the incredulity that seems to be out there among my dissenters. Maybe it doesn't, but I don't mind trying.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:46 pm

I really have no desire to have any more schemata destroyed. As the wiki article describes "Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information", I have produced essentially a schemata that is not as rigid as in years past, that is full of doubt, and that makes it adaptable as such; it is open. So my current schemata is very pliable, not rigid, full of awe. It is even whimsical of sorts. One that allows for change, as change for my schemata is known too well. For a schema to be destroyed is like trial by fire; from the ashes something stronger comes out. If there were to be more, it would be embraced, but it is not easy. However, I I may have become increasingly efficient at this process. In any case - this is why I have so much doubt. Human psychology also shows us why so much doubt it needed. But let us not doubt so much that we forsake what we know.


"The mark of a mature, psychologically healthy mind is indeed the ability to live with uncertainty and ambiguity, but only as much as there really is. Uncertainty is no virtue when the facts are clear, and ambiguity is mere obfuscation when more precise terms are applicable." Julian Baggini
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
If it is not confirmed by others, then it is not taken to be truth.

It may still be there.


So in a case like that (not confirmed, but still there), would you say "There is a rock on Europa that looks like a spoon" is not true, or true but nobody knows that it's true, or some other thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:41 pm

I would say that the truth of the statement cannot be determined at this time. Unknowable rather than true or false.

On the other hand, one could justify it on statistical grounds. With thousands of rocks, there is a high probability that there is at least one rock which looks like a spoon. In that case, probably true rather than true or false.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:58 pm

An interesting situation is one that happens all the time ... one witness to an event.

I can say that I am playing with a rubber ball as I type this. Is it true? I know the answer ,however, nobody else can know if it is true or not. (Unless I'm secretly being observed or filmed)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users