Is knowledge something you have...

To me it sounds like a case where the word choice is problematic. 'Verified' perhaps. Or 'consensus.' I see problems with both of these - verified having a root meaning truth, I believe, anyway, but at least it hints at a process undertaken by humans.

Hence all my antsiness around 100%. This is a probability, but.....

Seems to me this opens the door to beliefs being knowledge that you would have trouble with.
I appreciate you laying out your position. I feel a step closer, so the qualia are pleased. Remains to be seen if they are 'right'.

Let me take a couple of probes. With your use of 'true', what was true in 2009 might become false in 2010.

Hell, I word it like that and it sounds obvious. But a very non-technical truism.

And I assume JTBeliefs can turn out to be false?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Facinating thread Doreen and one day I will get the opportunity to read it through out. So excuse if this has already been proposed.

Say for example I know of two bits of data. An "A" and a "B". There is no context, and no apparent value attached. Just merely two bits of utterly useless information.

Is this knowledge?

I dare say it is....
Is it truth?
Don't know in absolutuum, but does that effect the fact that the "A" and the "B" are two bits of information that "I" KNOW about?

My approach here is a form of dialetics I think and I am attempting to apply the greatest possible amount of reductionism to the issue.

Is knowledge determined by anything other than it's self evidence?

Does utility , meaning or any other value make it any less or more than knowledge?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I need a context. I mean, where are these data? Or to be more neutral - what makes them data?

I can work with the rest if I get a little more here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok...but that is exactly the issue...
only two bits of data an "A" and a "B" and you can presume that you are not familiar with the English alphabet as well..
utterly useeless as they stand....

The point is to clarify the distinction between "pure" knowledge and knowledge of other things such as values and qualities.

For example you take a peak at the SETI data stream [ signals from outer space] and pullout two bits of information from that incredible amount of data. Is the information knowledge or is it only information, until it imparts knowledge.

Personally I feel, as suggested above it is indeed knowledge but of the most useless kind. However "uselessness" is a value and that also is a knowledge of utility.

 

I was trying to get even more basic than that. The way you worded it these data might not have an experiencer/user/observer. They are just floating in the void. I would then respond that they are not data in that context. They are things in themselves with all the attendant problems talking about them.

Now it seems we have a person who does not speak English who finds these two shapes that do not symbolize anything for him or her. Yes?

Not sure what you mean by this distinction. Is this the different between something simply experienced and something experienced that points in some way to something else?

I wouldn't call it information, yet. I would refer to phenomena/events or something like that.

I think, thought I am not sure and will have to think more about it, I would say that knowledge always has some kind of utility, taken in its broadest sense. If I can't use it, I don't know anything.

Or taperecorders know things.

 

so we can agree I think that things floating in a void with no observer would NOT be considered as knowledge. [ no utility to a non-observer what so ever]

For those things to become knowledge requires an observer of those things...

Could this be a rule we could hold to for a moment?

So for things to be knowledge they must impart something to an observer.

There must be meaning of some, even if trivial, value present to make it knowledge [ or even apparent ]
Even in the smallest of impacts for the thing to be recognised and literally observed it must have at least a small value...i.e. simple curiosity "Why? What? How? When? etc etc.

the question is though:
Does the value make any difference to the data?

I think not...

therefore it takes the inspiration of "value" - meaning, to make data, knowledge. and a taperecorder is apparently incapable of being inspired to value it's data retained.
~ re: artificial intelligence....
so it could not be said that a computer has knowledge. Only that which can feel value can have knowledge.

 

OK.

I think so actually. If I am the datum or parts of me are the data, it matters to me. I think all gazes are felt. And QM seems to have this hold on the micro.

I am not sure what 'feel value' means, but I think I agree anyway.

 

an interesting outcome of this line of thinking is that one could argue that knowledge is the awareness of causation and effect and not either on their own.

If one is aware and has memory of effect only with out knowledge of causation then this would be "blind" effect. not knowledge persee and probably more like psychosis IMO.

and as discussed above data with out effect is unobserved so also not knowledge.
so....
to be knowledge there must be an awareness of both cause [ pure data ] and effect [ value ] .

sheesh! our minds [imaginations] are clever in the way we can abstract things to zero meaning and yet apply meaning simultaneously.

 

shhh! don't tell any one.....[chuckle]

 

it wanders into Mind/body/soul type discussions...and another one of millions of threads on the subject....

 

I believe that knowledge is something that you acquire through your teachings and various life experiences. It cannot be defined to one or more specific things, but the more you understand about the world and the people around you, the more knowledgeable you are.

 

or deluded.