knowing?

[lizbethrose]

Entschuldigen Sie, bitte. I use figurative language because it helps me understand concepts. My concept of the function of white blood cells as 'soldier' or 'defender' allows me to understand how the body fights off diseases caused by germs and viruses. Your use of 'housekeeper' engenders an image of a putzfrau sweeping up detritus.

Whatever. My statements about fear come from a study I did about 5 years ago on the function of the amygdala in human emotions. The study didn't rely on just internet citations, so I'm afraid I can't give you a single url. You might try 'functions of the amygdala' as a start.

Adults among the 5 big cats are at the top of their food chain and have few, if any, natural predators. Hyenas are scavengers. A lion may be killed by another lion, particularly in territorial battles, but the only other 'natural enemy' i know of would be a poisonous snake--and snakes often strike out of fear. I believed I mentioned loss of habitat as a major threat to the big cats of the world.

But your thread is about knowing and knowledge. I've said that fear is the basic emotion--fear is instinctive. An animal with instinctive fear 'knows' when it's in danger. A fawn will use its coloration--to blend into the background--in an effort to avoid the danger. The fawn has been taught to do so by its mother--so the doe is passing on knowledge to the next generation. (An aside: Zebras have stripes that resemble heat waves rising from the grasslands--that's their defensive coloration. Interesting, no?) The female is usually the one who passes on knowledge to her children, thus it becomes 'lore.' (Another aside: The Brothers Grimm published their first book under the title, Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children's and Household Tales). The folklore they published was taken from often centuries-old oral tradition that had been passed down from mothers to their children.)

Whatever, again. At what point in evolution did knowledge become intelligence? Shoot! I have no idea--when the brain had evolved sufficiently to be able to anticipate something other than danger? Or did intelligence result from curiosity? Maybe it's the result of both? I really don't know enough about pre-history to be able to say. Somewhere along the line, pre-man--homo erectus, homo neanderthalus-- learned that attaching a stone to a stick kept him relatively safe while hunting. Somewhere along the line, he learned that bashing in your enemy's head worked better than simply throwing stones at him. Of course, you had to get close enough to him to be able to bash his head in, so how do you get around that little detail?--maybe by throwing stones at him. Whatever works, right?

Which is another aspect of knowledge and, possibly, intelligence. If something works (empirical 'proof'), then use it; at least, until something better comes along.

Evolution, as you know, is a very, very slow process that involves a lot of trial and error. But there was an explosion of human creativity during the Neolithic period--the New Stone age--as opposed to the Old Stone age--the Paleolithic--which saw a moderate rise in human technology. If it is shown to be true that neolithic man was able to sail from the northern shores of the Mediterranean and then go island hopping as far as what's now the near east, their use of tools had developed for beyond the original intent for tools. But that may only be the release of scientific 'discovery' before it could be fully tested and given peer review. It happens.

[Mowk]

Entschuldigen Sie, bitte. I use figurative language because it helps me understand concepts. My concept of the function of white blood cells as 'soldier' or 'defender' allows me to understand how the body fights off diseases caused by germs and viruses. Your use of 'housekeeper' engenders an image of a putzfrau sweeping up detritus.

Whatever. My statements about fear come from a study I did about 5 years ago on the function of the amygdala in human emotions. The study didn't rely on just internet citations, so I'm afraid I can't give you a single url. You might try 'functions of the amygdala' as a start.

Was there a report associated with this study? Is this report cross referenced with resources drawn from? You could possibly submit it as reference. From a brief survey of the information presented on the wiki page for the Amygdalae there are two of them. And there is mention of hemispherical specialization. The right amygdala has been associated to processing fear and when electrically stimulated produces fear and anxiety, however the left amygdala is also capable when stimulated of producing either pleasant or unpleasant anxiety fear or sadness responses. If this is the case it supports the presence of both fear and pleasure as motivators of behavior. Yin and Yang showed up at the party together. The other interesting mention was that the structure is present in complex vertebrates. So how did you get from complex vertebrates to all living cells, regardless complexity or even the presence of a vertebra?

Adults among the 5 big cats are at the top of their food chain and have few, if any, natural predators. Hyenas are scavengers. A lion may be killed by another lion, particularly in territorial battles, but the only other 'natural enemy' i know of would be a poisonous snake--and snakes often strike out of fear. I believed I mentioned loss of habitat as a major threat to the big cats of the world.

This PBS programs does not limit hyena to the classification of scavenger. Few species will not scavenge if the opportunity arises as it requires much less energy output if you don't have to kill what you would eat. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/perfect-hunter.html. A video record of hyena attacking lion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JF6q67NQk4 Listen to the end of the clip and its commentary. "Hyenas are not scavengers that occasionally kill, they are predators and killers in their own right."

But your thread is about knowing and knowledge. I've said that fear is the basic emotion--fear is instinctive. An animal with instinctive fear 'knows' when it's in danger. A fawn will use its coloration--to blend into the background--in an effort to avoid the danger. The fawn has been taught to do so by its mother--so the doe is passing on knowledge to the next generation. (An aside: Zebras have stripes that resemble heat waves rising from the grasslands--that's their defensive coloration. Interesting, no?) The female is usually the one who passes on knowledge to her children, thus it becomes 'lore.' (Another aside: The Brothers Grimm published their first book under the title, Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children's and Household Tales). The folklore they published was taken from often centuries-old oral tradition that had been passed down from mothers to their children.)

Well technically it was a thread that began with a question of knowing. The knowledge portion was mentioned to support the conclusion that knowing isn't required, as much of the body of knowledge included conceptions that were thought of as known, but later turned out to be in error. In thinking, if something was thought known and later turns out to be in error then the original thinking was not a known only a thought that it was a known. This is why I described knowledge as a belief it self. I believe I agree with your assessment of the collection of Grimm's Tales. It is likely they were thought of as knowledge and passed through oral tradition, which is quite similar to the suggestion that our body of knowledge is not dependent on what is actually true, but what was thought of as a known. Any description of knowledge must be inclusive of all that was considered knowledge. This is why I believe Plato was in error when he attempted to distinguish knowledge as requiring it be true and justifiable, as there was already within the body of knowledge things that were thought of as known (assessment of true) which turned out not to be true.

Whatever, again. At what point in evolution did knowledge become intelligence? Shoot! I have no idea--when the brain had evolved sufficiently to be able to anticipate something other than danger? Or did intelligence result from curiosity? Maybe it's the result of both? I really don't know enough about pre-history to be able to say. Somewhere along the line, pre-man--homo erectus, homo neanderthalus-- learned that attaching a stone to a stick kept him relatively safe while hunting. Somewhere along the line, he learned that bashing in your enemy's head worked better than simply throwing stones at him. Of course, you had to get close enough to him to be able to bash his head in, so how do you get around that little detail?--maybe by throwing stones at him. Whatever works, right?

That statement regarding attaching a stone to a stick keeping them relatively safe when hunting is a strange comment. It is perhaps a misnomer to consider an ax as a tool specialized for hunting. I'd guess when hunting they'd leave their ax at camp and take a tool designed more for long distance killing like a spear. I'd fathom a guess that a rock attached to a stick didn't keep anyone relatively safe at least not directly. With the ax they could manipulate their environment to a greater degree and that lead to building structures that actually did keep them safer, but not during the hunt. If safety during hunting was a pressure it was likely improved by hunting in groups and not carrying an ax. Odd how smoothly you transition from hunting, to bashing in the heads of other human enemies. I don't assume any other human is an enemy why would they? I don't believe I was born with an instinctual fear of other humans. I tend to think the opposite. That while the mechanism to feel fear maybe instinctual like setting an alarm. What that alarm goes off to is based on the experience of the individual. We tend to teach the fear of other human beings, I don't think it is instinctual.

I came upon a set of twin fawns while walking in the woods a few springs ago. I was nearly on top of them before I noticed them. One fawn must have been very hungry, for as soon as I showed up, it rose rather wobbly to its feet, took two steps, and attempted to suckle from my belly. I didn't feel real comfortable with the thought of it's mother being near, so I left in a hurry. The damn fawn attempted to follow me, and I didn't know what in dear speak meant stay. So I used violent motion in attempt to scare it away. That didn't have the affect I intended either. So I am unsure of the whole line of reasoning that fear of a specific trigger is instinctual, as in we 'know' by instinct what is a danger. I'm guessing that when doe and fawn got back together there were a few lessons taking place.

I don't think I suggested that through evolution, knowledge became intelligence. What I suggested was that perhaps the mutation of a non-plastic cell into one which was plastic provides support for adaptation. One such adaptation was that of anticipation. I do not think that all cells have the capacity to anticipate. Which is why I am arguing that fear is not the prime agent responsible for evolution. The first cells that evolved did not have fear as a response mechanism to guide them. Fear as a response, evolved much later in the evolutionary process. As fear evolved much later in the process it can not be the primary agent of evolution. The very capacity for cells to mutate seems a more reasonable primary agent.

Which is another aspect of knowledge and, possibly, intelligence. If something works (empirical 'proof'), then use it; at least, until something better comes along.

Evolution, as you know, is a very, very slow process that involves a lot of trial and error. But there was an explosion of human creativity during the Neolithic period--the New Stone age--as opposed to the Old Stone age--the Paleolithic--which saw a moderate rise in human technology. If it is shown to be true that neolithic man was able to sail from the northern shores of the Mediterranean and then go island hopping as far as what's now the near east, their use of tools had developed for beyond the original intent for tools. But that may only be the release of scientific 'discovery' before it could be fully tested and given peer review. It happens.

"Their use of tools had developed for beyond the original intent for tools." Could you explain this further, cause I'm having difficulty grokking the notion that the invention of any one tool would set a precedent that defines the intent of all tool use. It seems to me the intent of tool use is the same then as it is now, to achieve a mechanical advantage. A sail leverages wind force mechanically, like an ax handle leverages muscle force mechanically.

Evolution was once thought to be a very very slow process, our current technological capacity to perform genetic sequencing is shedding new light on that belief. For example within only the last 6000 years (a relatively short period in evolutionary time) blue eyes have emerged as a mutation in our genetic make-up. Recent studies indicate that mutations are taking place within our genetic make-up all the time. A child was recently born with a mutation to the gene that controls muscle growth. There is a medical health concern that the mutation may prove fatal but if this child survives to reproduce, his offspring will carry the gene for accelerated muscle growth as well. The problem with these isolated mutations is one of gene dilution, the larger the population that doesn't have the mutation the less likely that mutation will be incorporated into the larger population.

I've heard of a theory that intelligence may have been jump started by an environmentally catastrophic stress, perhaps the impact of an asteroid, that wiped out a good portion of the population at a critical point in time. That would allow for a single mutation in our genetic make-up to more swiftly affect the population, as there is less likelihood of genetic dilution of that mutation in a smaller population. Within the course of few generations a small local population would have the genetic mutation and the rest of the population wouldn't. If that mutation turned out to be beneficial to survival, those with the mutation would be more likely to survive the catastrophe and reproduce then those without the mutation. This theory rather nicely lines up with the time frame you mention.

This notion of what works, works has little dependence on being a known and much more to do with its successful application. The knowledge that the earth was flat likely prevented a whole lot of people from attempting to sail around the world as it was feared that if you sailed too close, you fell off the edge. An example of a false postulate of knowing followed by mistaken fear. The fear followed on the heals of mistaking the world to be flat and as flat it would have the consequence of an edge to fall from that could be anticipated based on other flat things having edges to fall from.

Our track record of claiming something is a known when it later proves to be in error makes me wonder if there is anything that is known. So someone establishes an argument that if we don't know between two possibilities then at least we know we don't know. How does that prove anything else is known. As I think that argument is thin I'm not inclined to conclude we know anything, beyond perhaps we know we don't. Knowing we don't know doesn't seem to help me determine what, if anything we do know.

I don't know, but I have a fair set of beliefs and admit they are merely guesses as to what is going on. Guesses based on experience, what others have thought, and upon observation of the relationships I see present in the world. Clearly a child doesn't have an instinctual fear of fire, a danger, or a mother would not have to either gently guide the childs hand away or swat the hand away while saying "No!", but after being swatted may learn to fear fire while the child that is exposed to a gentle guiding hand and the whisper of hot, might develop a healthy respect for fire.

[lizbethrose]

Mowk wrote:

Was there a report associated with this study? Is this report cross referenced with resources drawn from? You could possibly submit it as reference. From a brief survey of the information presented on the wiki page for the Amygdalae there are two of them. And there is mention of hemispherical specialization. The right amygdala has been associated to processing fear and when electrically stimulated produces fear and anxiety, however the left amygdala is also capable when stimulated of producing either pleasant or unpleasant anxiety fear or sadness responses. If this is the case it supports the presence of both fear and pleasure as motivators of behavior. Yin and Yang showed up at the party together. The other interesting mention was that the structure is present in complex vertebrates. So how did you get from complex vertebrates to all living cells, regardless complexity or even the presence of a vertebra?

There was no single report. There had to be cross-references, because I often use them for additional data. My study is also 5 yrs. old while neurological studies of the amygdala and the limbic system in general have gone on. You may think I'm waffling, but I'm really not. When I research something I start with basic articles, go to the references to see what I can find in them, then I focus in on what single subject I want to study--serial killers and fear; autism and the function of the amygdala; artificial intelligence; etc. In the case of my study, it ended up being all of the above; obviously, for differing reasons Autism was a part because a friend of mine gave birth to their first-born--a boy. The couple are devoutly Jewish and hold onto a lot of the old-world customs such as not preparing a baby's room or opening shower gifts until after the baby's birth--just in case. The baby was born, beautiful and healthy. A year later, he was diagnosed as autistic.

As for fear displayed at a cellular level, that's a different thing. Fear is obviously an emotion and an emotion implies consciousness. This, in turn, implies a brain and a level of awareness. Cells have no brains, but they do respond to outside stimuli. This seems to be true even in plant life. But, again, you're on your own, if you want to research it.

That statement regarding attaching a stone to a stick keeping them relatively safe when hunting is a strange comment. It is perhaps a misnomer to consider an ax as a tool specialized for hunting. I'd guess when hunting they'd leave their ax at camp and take a tool designed more for long distance killing like a spear. I'd fathom a guess that a rock attached to a stick didn't keep anyone relatively safe at least not directly. With the ax they could manipulate their environment to a greater degree and that lead to building structures that actually did keep them safer, but not during the hunt. If safety during hunting was a pressure it was likely improved by hunting in groups and not carrying an ax. Odd how smoothly you transition from hunting, to bashing in the heads of other human enemies. I don't assume any other human is an enemy why would they? I don't believe I was born with an instinctual fear of other humans. I tend to think the opposite. That while the mechanism to feel fear maybe instinctual like setting an alarm. What that alarm goes off to is based on the experience of the individual. We tend to teach the fear of other human beings, I don't think it is instinctual.

Attaching a worked stone to a short stick would create an ax. Attaching a worked stone to a long stick creates a spear. Attaching a non-worked stone to a short stick creates a cudgel. Holding a rock in your hand is also a cudgel. Proto-humans hunted in packs because their prey was often too large for a single 'person' to take down. And the packs seem to have preferred driving the prey over a cliff rather than killing it outright. I segued from hunting into bashing in other proto-human's heads, because it happened. When no other meat was at hand, they killed and ate each other--fear of going hungry rather than fear of another as an enemy.

I came upon a set of twin fawns while walking in the woods a few springs ago. I was nearly on top of them before I noticed them. One fawn must have been very hungry, for as soon as I showed up, it rose rather wobbly to its feet, took two steps, and attempted to suckle from my belly. I didn't feel real comfortable with the thought of it's mother being near, so I left in a hurry. The damn fawn attempted to follow me, and I didn't know what in dear speak meant stay. So I used violent motion in attempt to scare it away. That didn't have the affect I intended either. So I am unsure of the whole line of reasoning that fear of a specific trigger is instinctual, as in we 'know' by instinct what is a danger. I'm guessing that when doe and fawn got back together there were a few lessons taking place.

What a sweet story. But there are other indications that alert potential prey to danger. One is the sense of smell which could be combined with knowing how to distinguish good v. bad 'vibes.' If the doe was near--and she probably was--she would also have been alerted and would have to decide to sacrifice herself for her off-spring by trying to lure the predator away from the babies. I was outside on our back deck when three bald eagles, a mother, a father, and a juvenile were trying to get home. They were being followed and harassed by a flock of crows. The juvenile, who was somewhat lagging because of his shorter wing-span, was particularly upset by the harassment. The adults made a quick decision and one broke away and flew out of the formation. The crows followed and the remaining adult started to escort the baby home. Once they were beyond reach of the crows, the diverter flapped his wings twice, rose, and followed his family home, leaving the crows behind. In this case, there was no danger--just annoyance, but it showed the same thing.

I don't think I suggested that through evolution, knowledge became intelligence. What I suggested was that perhaps the mutation of a non-plastic cell into one which was plastic provides support for adaptation. One such adaptation was that of anticipation. I do not think that all cells have the capacity to anticipate. Which is why I am arguing that fear is not the prime agent responsible for evolution. The first cells that evolved did not have fear as a response mechanism to guide them. Fear as a response, evolved much later in the evolutionary process. As fear evolved much later in the process it can not be the primary agent of evolution. The very capacity for cells to mutate seems a more reasonable primary agent.

Mutation is certainly a great part of evolution--as is environmental stress. (I'm going to combine some of your thoughts, here--mainly because I agree with them. What I add is my additions to them. Anything else would simply be saying the same thing using my words instead of yours.) Another factor in evolution is the swift advancement of technology. An isolated gene pool is more apt to pass on a mutation--either for good or not. An isolated gene pool might also survive catastrophic stress such as limited nuclear warfare, simply because of its isolation.

Some mutations, such as light skin, hair, and eyes came about because of the relative lack of sunlight in northern climates. There was no need for sun absorbing dark skin, hair, and eyes. Our genetic make-up can also show how populations moved; Genghis Khan had blue eyes and red hair, for example--indications that northern Europeans had migrated into Mongolia. That was borne out by the discovery in China of the remains of light haired people dressed in woven, plaid, cloth.

There have been any number of false postulates believed to be true in human history. The belief that the world was flat is the best known in the western world. But, if you look at various creation myths, there are many more. Think of Adam and Eve. When I mentioned keep what works until something better comes along, I was talking about tools and technology, btw. Use the same tool until someone invents another one. At first, tools weren't necessarily specialized. What worked well for bashing in someone's head, worked equally well if you needed a hammer, for whatever reason. Perhaps to crack a bone in order to get at the marrow inside. Here's an article about tool development during the stone ages: http://history-world.org/stone_age1.htm.

The oral folk lore in the Brothers Grimm was probably based on fact. But, remember, folk lore often involves what Jung called the collective unconscious--racial memories. The Grimm's weren't interested in that--they were linguists out to preserve the German language. I have no doubt, however, that parents, in the time of great want, abandoned their children because they couldn't feed them. I have no doubt that proto-man could be a monster that ate other proto-men--and/or, children. The lore changed over time, yes, but the beginnings--the seeds--of the stories were based on truth within racial memory--a sort of pervasive, lasting, meme within the human unconscious.

Knowing and whether or not we 'know' things is somewhat instinctual. It's a difficult philosophical question to which you'll get so many philosophical answers, your head may swim as mine often does. I figure it like this: I exist--I am. How do I 'know' this? I don't. I could be an atom in a small jewel set into a royal crown of some sort. Does that make any difference to the me that is me? I am--no matter what I am. That's what's important. I have awareness, I have consciousness, I have emotions, I have memories--so what if I'm an atom in a small jewel? I still am.

Plato, imm, was trying to take perception and belief out of knowledge, since perception and belief are often erroneous. Knowledge, to Plato needed to be sans mere perception and belief which could make it true. But what is justified true belief? Can I prove (justify) my belief in my existence? I don't think so. I may be able to give examples of what I think is my existence (my beliefs), but are they either true or justified?

I'd likely make a lousy specimen for Plato's examination.

[Mowk]

Knowing is instinctual? In the wtf <accept it and get on with it> sort of way? I just haven't been able to get that warm and cozy with it. Instinctual or intuitive? Sorry don't mean to be putting words in your mouth.

If instinct, please summarize instinct as so far I've been finding a wide variation in what is considered instinct. Are reflexes instinctual? Some say to blink is as instinct. I'm just wondering how broadly the meaning extends when you use the word instinctual? Do you consider breathing an instinct?

Untangle

[lizbethrose]

There are autonomic nerve responses that are neither instinctive nor intuitive. They're part of the nervous system about which we're mostly unaware. (Can you feel, are you aware of, your hair growing, for example. Can you control i?) The autonomic nervous system is a part of the 'primitive brain,' although I've been told that designation is no longer accepted by neurologists--I don't know.

Whatever. The primitive brain, whether or not it's called that, is the portion of our brain we share with other animals. It's what exhibits the 'startle' response--what I think of as the 'fear' response--at the cellular level. Prod an amoeba with something outside itself and it'll react by retreating--as a protozoa, it can't do much else, can it?

Our hearts keep on beating--unless diseased or just worn out; our lungs keep on breathing--unless diseased or just worn out; our kidneys and liver keep our bodies clean--unless diseased or just worn out; and so it goes. All of our internal organs function as the result of our autonomic nervous system--our primitive brain.

[Mowk]

Thanks for the lesson but you didn't answer the question.

[Mowk]

Knowing and whether or not we 'know' things is somewhat instinctual.

So I asked what is instinctual?

And you reply with information that you state is neither instinctive nor intuitive. What does an autonomic reflex have to do with knowing?

And maybe what it is to "'"'"'know'"'"'"?

[lizbethrose]

Knowing and whether or not we 'know' things is somewhat instinctual.

So I asked what is instinctual?

And you reply with information that you state is neither instinctive nor intuitive. What does an autonomic reflex have to do with knowing?

And maybe what it is to "'"'"'know'"'"'"?

I've tried to come up with a concise definition of instinct in human psychology using my own words: an instinct is an innate, rather than learned, response to an outside cause(?)--a baby animal will instinctively suckle; a dog will instinctively dry itself by first shaking the excess water out of its fur and then by rubbing itself on the grass. Humans have very blunted instincts because we've developed other methods of dealing with a lot of our basic, instinctual emotions.

Here's an example of avian instinct displayed to me by my small, male, Senegal parrot the other night. Late winter/early spring is the time, I'm told, when birds mate. My little Bird (that's his name) performed a beautiful mating dance for me. Why me? Because I'm the only one who lets him eat from my mouth, I suppose. Before the raccoons killed both of my cats, the male would deposit his furry, dead, love offerings under my desk to show how he felt. These are instinctive responses. Honey bees dance to point out where the best food is--instinctive, again. It's instinctive for a mother animal to protect her young and for the young to 'play-fight.'

Humans no longer need the amount of instinct we once had. They may still be a part of our unconscious primitive brain, though, because they were an important part of our evolution. You might go to Wiki for its definition of instinct. Also, you might go to http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Angell ... 906_p.html for a bit about the psychology of human instinct. Angell also deems fear as instinctive and a basic emotion in animals. --Liz

PS, If you can answer what it is to "know," "...you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

[Mowk]

Liz, thanks for the convo. I'd always considered there some difference between the thought of an instinct and that of an autonomic reflex. Perhaps there is less a difference then I had imagined.

A reflex is a nervous system response to a single stimulus, like jerking your leg when your knee is struck below the cap, or pulling away from pain, or blinking when something comes close to your eye, the startle response. While I think of an instinct as a more complex programmed sequence of behavior resulting from a combination of stimuli. Your bird Birds behavior, given the right time of year and the presence of hormones due to sexual maturation.

I generally don't think of instinct or reflex as examples of knowing, but there is an element of kinetic conditioning involved in performance.

When [Caveman A] asked [Caveman B] how he >threw rock hit target< when [Caveman A] >threw rock miss target< and [Caveman B] shrugged and said "me 'know' throw rock hit target, you 'know' throw rock miss target."

They really didn't have to know what 'knowing' was, just that Caveman B had a kinetic capacity that Caveman A did not. Somewhere along the line the "knack" for a task, diverged from a performance capability to an intellectual one somewhere along the course of attempting to figuring out how? Not so much an invention, rather an evolution of conceptualization.

[lizbethrose]

Teihard de Chardin, the Jesuit paleontologist, suggested that 'knowing' began when an ancestor of Homo sapien sapien understood what another ancestor meant given the language abilities at the time--much like your example. Your example, however, because it was in the form of a question and answer, is (to me) a bit farther down the evolutionary line.

We have no idea how the Neaderthals, for example, communicated with each other. We assume they did because they were able to pass on knowledge, but the sounds, the range of sounds, the rapidity and arrangement of the sounds can only be inferred through study of other vertebrate languages. Whale songs, bird songs, human languages and dialects that depend on tone, cadence, etc., for meaning--(Asian dialects are an example)--are about all we have.

I'm sure you know by now--I'm not a philosopher; I'm a time-binder, at best. (see: http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/timebind.html)

[Mowk]

A 'time-binder'? <grinning> and you 'should' have figured out by now that I don't know, it does not appear as requirement, science, politics and religion would prefer if it was, <chuckle> likely, making me not much of a philosopher either.

[Mowk]

In reading over and consideration I wonder the role of what is thought of as 'wisdom' in all of this.

[Mowk]

In reading over and consideration I wonder the role of what is thought of as 'wisdom' within all of this.

[Mowk]

"I know for a fact..."

wtf

[lizbethrose]

I know, for a fact, that today was a lovely Spring day. I know it because I experienced it. My sister said her town had 4 inches of snow overnight. I don't know that as a fact--I only know it because she said so. I believe my sister, so I know it snowed in her town, but I don't 'know it as a fact.'

Some people would question both statements--what does it mean to 'know' something; what does it mean to 'experience' something; what does it mean to 'believe' something?--and so on. The only way I can answer is by saying--I hold an image in my memory of what I believe (or what I've learned) are the ingredients that make up a lovely Spring day. Temperatures in the mid-50s, sunshine, flowers starting to bloom--these are the components of what I've labeled a "lovely Spring day." Other people may think differently, but I'm not concerned with that. I'm not concerned because I'm alone in my mind, which is how I experience things. My mind--all of the millions of neuronal sparks and pathways that act instantaneously and in concert--is unique to me and only me. No one processes input the way I do--no one can, because no one has my memories, my sensations, my genetic background/make-up, my "self."

Why do I believe my sister? Ultimately because--why should she lie?

[Mowk]

Hi Liz,

Thanks for playing. The adjective "lovely" would seem to me, to be more of an opinion, a judgment. You may reach that opinion based in fact but you have yet to mention any specific facts. Have you heard the phrase "just the facts"? From this perspective you have substituted your opinion for the facts. A fact does not have to be experienced directly to be a fact. A fact stands as a piece of information that may be obtained in a manner other then direct experience. A record high temperature for a given date and location would be a fact. When "you" "judge" a day as lovely, that doesn't in this thinking make it a fact.

Some people would question both statements--what does it mean to 'know' something; what does it mean to 'experience' something; what does it mean to 'believe' something?--and so on. The only way I can answer is by saying--I hold an image in my memory of what I believe (or what I've learned) are the ingredients that make up a lovely Spring day. Temperatures in the mid-50s, sunshine, flowers starting to bloom--these are the components of what I've labeled a "lovely Spring day." Other people may think differently, but I'm not concerned with that. I'm not concerned because I'm alone in my mind, which is how I experience things. My mind--all of the millions of neuronal sparks and pathways that act instantaneously and in concert--is unique to me and only me. No one processes input the way I do--no one can, because no one has my memories, my sensations, my genetic background/make-up, my "self.

Strange that you would not also include some question regarding what is considered fact. Perhaps even stranger, your thinking that facts are unique to individuals because you are "alone in your head". I have memories of dreams, I experienced them, while it may be factual that I dream, the contents of the memories of those experiences in dreams are not facts. I dreamed of being on a beach, the sky was blue, there is a radio playing in the background and on it I hear the temperature is 82 degrees, I find a thermometer and sure enough it is leveled at 82 degrees. It is a lovely day. I remember this dream, I experienced in this dream, but little of it is factual beyond it taking place within the context of rapid eye movement while asleep.

Which is sort of why I think there is some justification in wondering WTF when someone says: "they know it for a fact". Thanks for helping build the case.

[Mowk]

Interesting.... If I replace the word "know" with the phrase "thinking it is known" Then when what is thought of as a known turns out to be untrue it would be the failure of the thinking not a failure of the knowing. But people do not like it when I replace their statements of knowing with statements of thinking they know. Perhaps an alternative would be to modify the definition of knowing to include it as a thing that is thought of as true but doesn't require actually being true. Yep, you actually did know, because knowing is no longer dependent on the subject of what is thought as known, to actually be true. Then it could be said that I know the world is flat and it would be true even without the world actually being flat.

So much easier to agree with your knowing if your knowing does not depend on anything being factual. But then you wouldn't be able to use the phrase "I know it as fact." I think most people who use the phrase: "I know it for a fact" likely have made a similar substitution, they have replaced their opinions and judgments for the facts.

[dan25]

Certain knowledge ('knowing for a fact') does not exist,
only belief...
The concept of certain knowledge exists, as does the
concept of unicorns, or fire-breathing dragons.

[Amorphos]

Everything contains information, knowing derives from;

a. an electrical signal containing info* is perceived specifically e.g. a yellow object becomes light-waves, then electrical signals which the brain reads as information* telling us it is a yellow object.
This is mechanistic, info is causal and objective, the brain merely an instrument.

b. sensory input is contrasted with similar in memory, info is purely from memory or info is formed into an intellectual process and calculated. This is subjective info.

c. info is imagined. also subjective, but can become objective when passed on as fact and believed.

[Mowk]

Certain knowledge ('knowing for a fact') does not exist,
only belief...
The concept of certain knowledge exists, as does the
concept of unicorns, or fire-breathing dragons.

[Mowk]

Everything contains information

knowing derives from

[lizbethrose]

Certain knowledge ('knowing for a fact') does not exist,
only belief...
The concept of certain knowledge exists, as does the
concept of unicorns, or fire-breathing dragons.

Why do you say that Dan25? I experience things and I draw knowledge from my experiences. My existence isn't a concept, an idea, or a belief; it is, rather, my "self-ness," of which I am certain because of the 'proof' of my senses. My senses come to me through measurable neuronal brain activity--its measurability provides empirical proof that I exist and that I experience. I am both sensate and sentient.

When I go outside and feel the almost-heat of an early spring day, and my eyes react to the sun by constricting, I know "for a fact" that it isn't raining.

Although you've been around for a while, you only have 10 posts--so welcome to ILP, Dan.

[Moreno]

Certain knowledge ('knowing for a fact') does not exist,
only belief...
The concept of certain knowledge exists, as does the
concept of unicorns, or fire-breathing dragons.

There is a lot of implicit and explicit knowledge presented here as certain. The asserted implicit knowledge would like be your epistemological beliefs, including beliefs, I would guess about perception, knowledge, and likely including beliefs about what I would call metaphysics, perhaps drawn from scientific theories.

[dan25]

Liz, thanks for the welcome.
I 'know' I used to be a power-lifter because I experienced it,
the diet, the training, the competitions, etc.
But do we even 'know for a fact' that we have genuinly
experienced what we think we have experienced?
Could any experience in a persons memory not be, merely,
a false memory?
Let's assume, for arguments sake, that an omnipotent God
does exist.
Being omnipotent, this God would be able to make me
believe (remember) that I had, for example, consumed
5000 calories on a particular day, when in actuality I hadn't
eaten at all on that day.
The same thing applies to everything in every persons
experience.

[dan25]

Moreno, I would agree that some of the post you quoted
SEEMS to be asserting certain facts.
Perhaps I should have started with "in my opinion".
We can't know anything for sure, but even that's not certain.