Do You See to Know Or Know to See?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If there are two points on a piece of paper, what do you see?A straight line joining the two dots?

Or a some other arbritary curve?

Or perhaps two lines through the two dots?

Or just two dots?Or you can say you do not know and simply walk away from it.

But then it may be important for you to ‘explain’ these two dots.

You can then assume that it is a straight line joining the two points, for reasons that are outside the fact of this two dots. Perhaps the context in which these two dots were known, or the circumstances in which they happened, but whatever it is, the explanation is beyond what you merely saw. You can also have a theory or plausible theories, ie something mental and again beyond the physical world, to explain these two dots.

But why should I or anyone else agree with you or believe your theory or theories, or whatever your explanation is?

Well what we can do next is to collect evidence.

If you theory or your intutition or experience suggested to you that it is a straight line, then we can find another dot on a line in between the two we already know.

OK so we go find that ‘missing link’, and lo and behold indeed there is such a dot. So is the theory or intuition or your smart guess confirmed or do we now simply have three dots instead of two?

So how can we ever know anything?

2

Also, what if that straight line exists on a curve? How would we know if it was straight?

3

chan i dont know if this is a really big abstraction or what, but i think it needs a few more sentences.

if “there are” two points on a paper, that must mean that ink is on the paper in two places, or that the paper can be divided up into “points” of some size, and two pieces of paper that size exist.

i dont know what you mean when you ask ‘what do you see’. if there are ink spots, then the photons clearly show only two inkspots. if i am predisposed towards thinking that two ink dots connect an invisible straight/curved line then i can introduce the reasons for that predisposition as an argument for why there are invisible lines currently.

what do you mean by ‘explain’ the two dots? explain why they appear as they do? how they got there? the possible consequences of their existence? i think i see now, explaining means finding the nature of the connection between the two.

youre right, everything is a probability. we can however say with certainty that in the past, decisions made with x amount of certainty have always acted in accordance with our prediction.

you cant live your life thinking that the fourth point you discover, for some unseen reason, exists way out of the straight line you predicted. you cant live assuming that the effects of unpredictable quantum leaps are a constant threat to the coherence of your molecules, or that the next hijacked plane could land on your house, it just doesnt help your life in any way, and it clearly hurts it.

there is a line to be drawn however. someday there will be laws in the government that determine how they act in risky situations. i believe it is possible to determine a numerical quantification of the likelihood of any outcome. i also believe that a very specific ratio should be used by the government when making decisions involving a certain amount of resources. decisions involving a lot of resources should be only allowed when the probability is a certain, safe level. those involving fewer resources can be made with a lower safety level.

what im saying is that quantifying these levels of probability will, in the long run, yield the greatest results once decisions are based on them. and it is very possible to find the perfect level.

4

The two ‘points’ can be anything, any two pieces of fact, eg two pieces of fossilised bone fragments, two reports of likely terrorist activities, two events occuring at different points in time, etc etc.

To ‘explain’ means to give some reason, especially if the ‘points’ beg for an explanation. For example you picked up a blood-red stone while walking along a river bank and some immediate questions may pop into your head, such as why is this stone red, what is it doing here, are there any more of these, etc etc.

5

Is what you are taught is red the same as what I am taught is red. Or does it look different to your eyes then mine. Do what you see, as a human the same as what I see or do what you perceive is a horrible creature to me. The question is do we all exist on different dimensions, in which are consciousness’s merge on to one plain in which we are able to perceive are different physical forms.

Or did I just misunderstand what you were saying and put a bunch of rambling incoherently but I bet someone here can make sense of it.

6

Your theory and intuition and your smart guess confirmed that we now have three dots instead of two. Not necessarily in this order, though. We don’t really start with nothing when we intuit and try to figure things out. We start with some concepts–such as, we know about the straight line. Then, there’s the help of empirical testing—If I connect these two dots, what do I come up with? As I can clearly see, a straight line, a figure with which I already have a previous acquaintance. Then the theory, two dots make a straight line–supposing we just emerged from a cave and have only been exposed to dots but not to straight line.

7

[size=75]Edit: Post deleted: Repeat Post.[/size]

8

ie we know to see? and that we need to know something before we can even see anything?

There are severe implications if this is so, ie you need to know to see, eg you can no longer tell me show me the proof and then I believe, because even if I show you the proof, you cannot see it. It is mind that, so to speak, connect the dots, and sees the line, which, strictly speaking, may not exist.

Back to the example of the straight line. You say show me proof that it is a straight line. So I produce a number of dots all aligned, maybe 4 or 5, but you can object and say these are just 4 or 5 dots, and nowhere is there a line in sight.

And this is exactly the problem I have for evolution. I stumbled upon one fossil and yet another and discovered a third, and I say this is proof that this species evolved in such and such a manner, progessing from this fossil to that and then to that.

But many others say it is all rubbish for these are just three pieces of fossils and nothing more. So then these others need to know that evolution is true even before they accept anything as evidence. How can these be led to knowledge if they cannot see the evidence starring at them in the eye?

9

You basically have a problem with induction.

You don’t just have a problem with evolution, you have a problem with all of science.

10

i suppose what is lacking from your world view chanbengchin is “reasonable belief”

you see, where we can say with absolute certainty that 2+2 = 4 (which is in fact tautological, 2 and 4 are so defined to include the fact that 2+2=4, which is in fact why we have absolute certainty), we can not say anything with same certainty about science.

there is no absolute proof that there is such a thing as gravity. it can, in principle, all be a coincidence. it is possible that tomorrow when you wake up there is no gravity anymore. there is no way anyone could prove that the sun will not turn into a cube overnight.

what people can do is offer reasonable grounds to belive something. for instance, considering that for very many years the sun remained spheric, that all other astral bodies in same conditions tend to be a sphere, that water in oil forms spheric drops, that the sphere is the geometrical form with the smallest surface to volume ratio, and a lot of other such statements, it is reasonable to belive the sun will stay a sphere.

do you have to belive it ? no you dont. it would not draw the same logical inconsistencies not beliving 2+2 = 4 would. you can live a happy philosophycal life being convinced the sun will be a cube next morning.

is beliving it the cheapest solution, with respect of the intellectual effort it would take to justify any other stand ? yes it is. people claim that is the reasonable thing to do then. if you do or dont, sun will shine on you all the same.

so, considering two dots on a piece of paper, we can produce a theory about them, it can sound compelling, plausible, beautifull. but you have the choice if you want to belive it or not.

so you dont have to know to see, because you can see even if you dont know. and you dont have to see to know, because you can imagine even if you dont see. and you never really know anything, you just belive this and that to be so. because its the simplest, most economical set of explanations at hand.

11

What is “reasonable belief”? What are acceptable and not acceptable as reasons for beliefs? If my reason for believing is my feelings, is it acceptable? If I say my reason is that straight is beautiful and therefore it must be a straight line, or maybe it is because I dreamt about a straight line last night, which of these are acceptable as “reasonable beliefs”?

Further if it is just a matter of my choice, which can be whimsical, subjective, and inconsistent, how then can we ever agree on anything? For example I say it is a straight line but you choose to see three curly lines instead, then we are both correct, for it was our choice to see what we want to see. But that sounds like a ridiculous argument doesn’t it?

If there is an objective reality out there surely there must be an objective basis for belief, something independent of the perceiver altogether, and for which he gives himself no choice but to believe, if he is a rational being.

12

i am sorry to dissapoint. there is not, can not be constructed, proven, industrially produced or otherwise manufactured an objective basis for belief.

if you chose to read this post as being french, there is nothing to stop you. you may even correct my mistakes in french spelling.

there is no good reason for you to decide this is not, in fact, intended by me as french.

should you however choose to read it as english, you will see there are some possibilities open that weren’t before. but this is strictly a matter of choice, if you dont want to you dont have to and i or anybody else cant force you.

and we agree on anything as a long, although rarely explicit, process. first we agree we can in principle communicate. (which is why a certain type of arguments is disregarded on many forums, it fails to make that necessary step towards the possibility to agree. also it is why extremist parties are not deemed legitimate forces. as long as they wish to overturn the system, they do not make that necessary step)

then we agree on how we communicate. then we agree we can in principle agree. then we set the rules which govern how and what has to be proven so we agree. then we see what really can be proven, and see where we stand

and the important part is, you are not forced to agree anywhere along the line. you can chose to listen, or to walk away, or to blindly hurl insults. but should you choose to listen, uou might find some possibilities open that weren’t before.

13

Yes. Sounds odd, but true. We take it for granted that what we “see” makes sense because the thing itself makes sense. But the meaning of a thing is not in the thing, but in our knowledge, in our thoughts, of other things in relation to that thing.

See, even if you showed me the “proof”, we must have the same understanding of the thing called “proof” in order for us to make sense to each other. I cannot “see” what you see, unless we have the same understanding of the thing.

Well, again, a child may not know of the theory two points/dots make a straight line. Only after it’s been taught to him/her, that he may know what it could mean. Even as an adult, without training in geometry, one does not right away equate two dots/points with straight line.

You are way out of (straight) line here. Lol. Sorry about the pun. But I got totally lost when you dropped this bombshell. See Matt’s comment.

14

zenofeller,

Choice is moot. We are here to argue and so that presupposed some choice already made. And in the context of this thread, what I am saying is: When I want or have decided or chosen to know truly, how do I go about it? For I do not want to just believe whatever I want to believe as knowledge. That I think is a foolish choice. I want to believe only that which is true. Is that not a reasonable choice?

So are you saying that we are doomed to foolishness, that there is no way we can ever know anything? and that we are at the mercy and chance of our capricious, uninformed, even uninformable, choice?

I have reason to hope we can do better.

For although you say:

Yet you seems to be precisely constructing just such a basis:

Which apparently means that a good choice for believing, and thence seeing things in that light, is that which leads to communication and agreement.

If that is what you are saying then there is at least one reason for choosing what you chose, rather than just random foolishness, and it is a reason we can all agree as reasonable, perhaps because it achieves something, namely communication.

So I can agree it is a matter of choice, but thats not the point, which is: How do I choose? ie choice is not the issue but choosing is. Is there a better way or a worst way to choose? and in what sense is it better or worst.

And my belief for such a possibility of knowing how to choose is precisely the evidence of what you have wrote as I have quoted above.

15

and the comments are:

Exactly! So how is induction possible at all? And thus how is science believable at all?

16

again, there is no absolute truth. to claim you “have decided to belive what is true” is nonsense. when i say choice, i ment a very direct and contextual choice. you chose to credit what i say. not you chose to credit truth that sometimes you see manifest in what i say. because indeed there is not, and can not be any reason above the text to belive the text, or any clue outside the text to assist in decoding the text. because everything is inside the text.

i must agree that as you have developed your point, ie not the choice but the choosing is a very interesting path. i really have little clue, not having had seriously considered this beforew. as a temporary patch/conversation starter, i propose it might be you always chose that path which opens most possibilities, ie the path of the greatest complexity, but i will probably need to return here and reconsider it.

17

But your “archaeology”, by its very meaning, requires that you have presuppositions—presuppositions are indicative of your knowledge of other general things in relation to your discovery of the fossils. One doesn’t just declare that evolution happened because there are variations in fossils of organisms. What if they are just variations, period. You have to have some hypothesis or other theories in place already so that the fossils could begin to make sense to you. In other words, in order for you “to see”, you already know some things.

18

when you are faced with situations of uncertainty, as all situations are, you choose based on the method that has yielded succesfull results in the past.

all we can do is refer to an experience of making a choice, like assuming that if an event happens twice, it will happen a third time. if this prediction has worked in the past, then when you are faced with two consistent examples you will choose to predict that they have illustrated the situation accurately and you can make a prediction for #3.

if you consistently fail to guess #3 correctly after using only two examples to base your concluson, then in the future you will want 3 examples and you wont want to make a prediction until you see them, you will feel that in this specific situation, 2 examples are insufficient.

using whatever method you want, you will experience a certain probability of succes or failure. you will constantly be working your methods to aim at the one method that most often results in success.

this is the only ‘truth’ that people ever seek: the one that most often yields correct predictions. and this is subject to their empirical experience.

19

OK I think it is clear you are agreeing to the need to know to see, but you are not yet addressing the implications of such a notion. For if you cannot know anything from ‘raw’ seeing, then where in the first place did the knowledge that fueled your theories or hypotheses comes from?

You can of course say that knowledge comes from a regression of know to see and see to know cycles. For example back to the two dots. If you ‘know’ that the two dots are part of an unseen line, then when you get a third dot that does not fall on this ‘line’ you now know you have something else, maybe a new line. And your knowledge of the ‘line’ is now the prior knowledge that informs you about what the third dot can possibly means - the basis for explaining it.

And thus you can project such a cycle backwards to explain how you arrive at the hypothesis or theory that joins the two dots. But this regression backwards in time need to stop at some point, perhaps when you are a baby.

The implication here is that there must be some innate knowledge wired in you even before you opened your eyes, ie our minds are wired to be able to know what we see. And from the first sight, we get our first impressions, which then bootstraps the whole process to bring us to where we are today, to discern a intelligible world and one which make ‘sense’ to us. This is the implication. And of course this is an anti-empiricist conclusion.

Do you agree or disagree to this? Or, better still, you may have another theory altogether how we can ever know at all?

20

Which means that what you just said is not true …

… and this too … :astonished:

In any case even if truth is relative, true is what is true to me. It may well be nonsense to you, but not for me. So your claim of nonsense is nonsense to me.

What about yourself then? What do you choose to believe and not to? What are the reasons for you believing or choosing to believe anything, especially since from your perspective there is nothing as truth? For surely you are a reasonable person aren’t you, and, I presume, act, which includes the act of believing, in a rational and consistent and reasonable way.

I do not fully understand you here. If I were to refer to my dots, are you saying that I cannot bring ‘external’ knowledge or ideas to help me ‘see’ my dots, but whatever are about the dots are in the dots themselves? Is that what you are saying?

Awaiting eagerly your return.