"Real" knowledge and "artificial" knowledge - I have a dilemma here

Re: Just remember this:

What about logical proofs?
One = one because that's how it's defined. One cannot equal anything else. Is that a 'tentative' truth? If you find even logical proofs 'tentative' then you have a tentative grasp on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if you're mind slipped away from it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Logical proofs aren't tentative, and I can keep them in my knowledge, but I am not going to let concepts such as that fully define my reality. I see a reality beyond concepts. And Im not saying that's the right way or the wrong way. It's just the way I choose to go.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course not. It's a good idea to build your foundation with them though, and go from there.

:bugeye:
Your mind transcends the mind??
Perhaps you mean, beyond your ability to put into words? There's a difference.
I suspect you believe some things are beyond the possibility of understanding. Is this so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Just remember this:

One is a construct. One isn't knowledge. Further, one has no bearing on "objective reality".

 

Re: Re: Just remember this:

You are assuming that logic is truth. I assume the same thing, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.

Yes.

Ultimately, yes. In practice howver, I don't consider it tentative. It is important to bear in mind however when attempting to really probe "reality".

From time to time, yes. I might ask though.. by what measuring stick do you assume something is "reality"?

 

I think they are, if you read my last post.. maybe you'll see?

As well you shouldn't.

Hmm.. in what manner? I think the only reality we can really ever know is exactly "things that are abstract' since it is our brains through which we experience our bodies, thoughts and the world.

 

It does. 'One' isn't the knowledge. The definition of 'one equals one' is. It is a definition of a concept that applies to objective reality. Our experiences exist in subjective reality, but they are the direct result of influences from objective reality.

No, logic is not truth. Logic is a thought process by which we arrive at truth. Define 'absolutely true'.

It's only a tentative truth if you believe subjective truths can only be tentatively reflective of objective reality, for just about all truths can essentially be said to be subjective. I believe subjective truths can prove objective truths, though I can't remember my reasoning/proof for that, lol.

Um, good question, lol.
That which has the quality of truth of objective existance.
That which 'truly exists'.

Only where they apply to objective reality. Proofs related to subjective reality are not tentative.

 

Not yet,...I'll have to check it out sometime.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are assuming that objective reality exists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it does not, if the world that we are refering to was say, An illusory construct of a combined field of human conciousness. Essentialy meaning that what we think of becomes the next step in reality. If lots of people think Logicaly the world will progress Logicaly, say you could submerge the personal construct (the island above the sea connected to the homogeanous landmass underneath) by meditation or intake of halucinogenic substances, what would you see? Would your experience correlate with your idiosyncratic view of Logical reiality?
Ofcourse the world doesn't need to be simply a human construct, the concept human might be an abstract fleeting 'phase' in an infinity of different world systems with an infinity of operative conciousnesses yet all corroborating to a single conciousness. There is no way you could prove this to be untrue, just as it can't be proved to be true either from one person to the next. Essentialy Logic is your own construct in this scenario.
Perhaps there is a reason that popularly accepted formulas and theorys are 'proved' with quite a high error marginal, the average of a large number of test results is taken. f=ma, E=mc^2, are all found with this method. Could it be that the researcher 'wills' the results of an experiment?

And for the record, I don't assume this scenario to be true, I am partialy daydreaming and trying to prove that you can't fully assume with perfect truthfullness that the world is Logical and Objective. And to support wessmoris with his statement.

 

I suppose I mildly mis-spoke. I was attempting to say "you're assuming that logic is the method by which you arrive at truth". I agree with that statement but it is a statement of faith regardless of your assertion.

That which cannot be false.

Indeed, hence my point. I'd say that technically, ALL "truths" can be PROVEN to be subjective because of the method by which humans "interface" with "objective reality".

I'm asserting that they can only tentatively do so, moonman's examples are appropriate I believe.

Unfortunately as I've stated above, this "objective existance" cannot be verified as absolute. It can only be as good as the perception that assigns such status. Therein lies the rub.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass here, I'm very curious... what kind of thing are you imagining or, can you provide and example of a "proof related to subjective reality?". My cursory thoughts yield that they too would be tentative, even to the subject.. it might get complicated though.

 

It must exist, or our minds would be able to directly influence 'reallity'.

You're assuming that if reality is subjective that there even ARE other people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now these substances would be a part of objective reality. If not, then it's only your mind... See my point?

It can be proved untrue, by showing it's logically inconsistent. I disagree that logic is each person's own construct. Logic is completely self consistent. Must be. If anyone had 'different logic' it would be faulty logic.

Infinity is paradoxical, and therefor does not exist in reality. Incomprehensibly huge numbers exist, yes, but not infinity. Infinity is more of a process (it's not a number), and is therefore limited by time.

Only if reality was subjective as opposed to objective, but it has been shown that it is not.

You cannot prove something without logic, and since you're attempting to disprove logic, there is no way you can prove your statement!

I don't think I agree with that. Can't think of an example offhand, but I'm sure something can be defined such that it cannot be false, yet is not true...

That's a hairy subject, lol
I was thinking any logical proof could be considered subjective if all knowledge is tentative, which I agree with only to a certain extent. But I believe logical proofs have bearing on objective reality (as do most people). When you think about it, nothing really matters if reality is only subjective.

 

I was winging it, I do believe that's not a proper definition because it's circular, but you get my drift I'm sure.

I was thinking any logical proof could be considered subjective if all knowledge is tentative, which I agree with only to a certain extent.

I "believe" that too, at least that they are "the best expression of our understanding at the time" but maybe reality is layered eh? one definition works for a certain level, but the deeper you go, all concepts break down, including logic... for instance in a black hole (just as an example, don't know if that's a great example or not). I'm just saying all knowledge MUST be tentative (at least somewhat) or you may miss the bigger picture eh?

Hehe, if you think about it MORE.. you realize that's completely backwards. If subjective reality is all there is (which is true in essence) then the person's perspective means exactly everything to that person. Hmm.. check out my thread "paradox" where I think I've talked about this.

 

But that doesn't work! Many have tried, and failed miserably, lol.

 

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean.

 

OK, step 1:
- Convince yourself you can fly.
Step 2:
- Locate a tall building.
Step 3:
- Jump off and prove you can fly.

If you're stupid/crazy enough to believe you can fly in the first place, you probably oughtta jump off!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The types of knowledege

There are many types of knowledge.

GWB knowledge is non-existent

Occult knowledge is too, or is it?

Conformist knowledge is based on "all the important things" like labels and gossip.

Non-conformist knowledge begs to differ.

Book knowledge is important if you want to become a lonley librarian.

Fashion knowlege is essential if you want to marry a slob husband who will later desert you.

 

What is real knowledge and artificial knowledge? In this world what is seems to be correct at all is also a question. Why we consider ¡®chair¡¯ as ¡®chair¡¯? In fact we can call it as table or anything else. We create knowledge and it is on our hand. Therefore from this topic, what is artificial and real is a very subjective matter. We could not classify the world in clear-cut. Knowledge is doubted and will be redefined anytime.

Anyway, we are living in a society where all members are inter-connected and related. We are glad that we are aware of our own knowledge and the way we want to go through. Yes, it is a great gift in life. Congratulations! But, Just imagine if we are just ignore others¡¯ knowledge and pursuit our own path, what will be the effect?

We do pursuit the knowledge purely and wouldn¡¯t be interrupted. Then we could just follow the path purely. On the other hand, we are being isolated by the society. We will have no interest to involve in the societal activities and lose track with them after all. We might just keep in touch with the one who share our soul, right? But how many of them we could find? Actually when we obtain the knowledge blindly, does that mean we are afraid to meet other¡¯s challenge?

What I am trying to emphasize here is not to encourage us to blindly follow the rules of society and conform to them. On the other hand, we could use this opportunity to analyze and evaluate their opinions. In that way, we could more confirm with our way and strengthen our confidence. Moreover we could go in more details with our knowledge on the process of evaluating. We are human and will meet mistake sometimes. Who knows we could find surprise within the discussion! We need reminders within life, as the reminder will appear anytime in any shapes. So, give a chance to yourself as well as the reminder.

In Chinese society, we have the yin and yang philosophies. Yin and yang needs each other to be perfect. We could imply it in our context here. We just consider yin as our knowledge whereas yang as the criticism as the yang. With yang, the yin will become perfect and sounded more convincing. And that¡¯s why we have a very subjective world, which comprises a variety of cultures and values.

Sharing and observing within the society is another way to pursuit our own knowledge and completing self-actualization. This is the main purpose that we live in this diversify society. Trust yourself that we wouldn¡¯t be internalized by the society¡¯s norms later as we already clear with our objective of life.

 

Seek out the sufi! He is hidden

Suggested reading "The way of the sufi - Idries Shah, or "The Sufis" same author there is much in there pertaining to this self-same discussion
Here are a few things I like from it "Look not at my exterior form , but take what is in my hand" - Rumi

Ibn El-Farid - " sufism lies behind & before systemization - our wine existed before what you call the grape & the vine (the school, & the system)

 

This is quite a dilemma. You could just keep the knowledge but not cling on to it. Don't completely accept ideas, but don't completely reject them. Or, if being wrong means nothing to you then you can cling on to any idea , and if you're wrong it wouldn't matter. But most people can't stand being wrong and can't even say that they are wrong. Well its all up to you, you'll figure it out soon...

 

Hehe.. I only mean fundamentally tentative. I'm more than convinced that if I jump off that building it'd be a very bad thing for me - that still doesn't mean there isn't a chance I'd survive.

With regards to logical proofs - the proof "one = one" is fine sure, and it CAN be applied to 'objective reality', but that doesn't mean it's truly representative of it. It's merely representative of a mathematical perspective of it.

What I'm driving at is that "objective reality" is the mold and we are the molded. We can never have more than a negative approximation of the mold. "objective reality" cannot be described perfectly without the perfect language to describe it. It'd like any fundamental limit C or 0 degrees K. The closer you get to it the more difficult it becomes to attain it.