PDA

View Full Version : How Can I Know Anything at All?


tostones
02-10-2007, 06:55 PM
Peace,

Today I was reading a recent issue of Philosophy Now, and this was the question of the month. A key question that comes up in the exploration of the nature of knowledge.

I'm interested to see others add on here. How can you know (perceive with certainty) anything at all? Does knowlege-as-certainty exist or just knowledge-as-reliable-fact?

peace

Os3y3ris
02-10-2007, 07:18 PM
I'd have to say "no". After I smoked Salvia, the shit dropped me off in another dimension. So I had to ask "How do I know anything is real?" Couldn't find a good answer.

Civilison
02-10-2007, 07:48 PM
aaah snaps.... peace to brother tostones, we used to build back in the day.

this is a very interesting thread.

my view:

everything that me and you know has been known before. i mean most of the intellectual information we contain has been derived from some sort of source. therefore, what i know has already been known before.

another point of view - everything that is to be known is already contained within life and human beings are welcomed to extract from life as much as possible. what we get from the source (nature) is science. knowledge is existential in almost a sentient, consciouss manner.

yet another point of view - there is a difference between knowledge and information. to me, knowledge is original thought and information is indirect thought. therefore, the only time that human beings actually know something is when right then we get to experience/know it or out of our divine ability to create an original thought.

i believe absolute knowledge exists. it exists right to the side of informational knowledge because one does not exist without the other. the difference? absolute knowledge cannot sometimes be seen, that is not the case with informational knowledge which is almost strictly based on seeing.

peace

Ultimate Fist
02-10-2007, 08:52 PM
We have five senses and a brain and that's all "we" is. We can't know.

THEORY
02-10-2007, 09:55 PM
You can't know only perceive. ONE.

the silencer
02-10-2007, 11:08 PM
ill thread..

maestro wooz
02-10-2007, 11:59 PM
all you can know is how you feel, everything else is secondhand.

Kong
02-11-2007, 10:11 AM
You know what you know, anything else is idea on information. I don't take it to serious.

Prince Rai
02-11-2007, 02:25 PM
my view:

everything that me and you know has been known before. i mean most of the intellectual information we contain has been derived from some sort of source. therefore, what i know has already been known before.

first of all, good topic starter and an intriguing take by civilison.

i suppose that most of what we know has been known before is a valid observation. That the Earth is round is an observation shared by individuals for a very long time, subtracting the era where people may have believed otherwise. However, what about innovations or new discoveries? what particular source may have known about a new finding or for this particular matter, who may have known about the "new knowledge" before?

another point of view - everything that is to be known is already contained within life and human beings are welcomed to extract from life as much as possible. what we get from the source (nature) is science. knowledge is existential in almost a sentient, consciouss manner.

i like this thought. a question perhaps would be, is "everything to be known" just mere information to be extracted or raw knowledge. I suppose knowledge and information need a profound explanation before these two words are used in order to hinder unjustified interchanging of the two.

Is Information rough/raw diamonds and Knowledge the cut and post-processed gems or jewels for that matter?

yet another point of view - there is a difference between knowledge and information. to me, knowledge is original thought and information is indirect thought. therefore, the only time that human beings actually know something is when right then we get to experience/know it or out of our divine ability to create an original thought.

you have touched upon the previous question. information being indirect thought is plausible, how about information just being mere fragments of data without any given thought at all. your theory on knowledge works well with info being mere data.

i believe absolute knowledge exists. it exists right to the side of informational knowledge because one does not exist without the other. the difference? absolute knowledge cannot sometimes be seen, that is not the case with informational knowledge which is almost strictly based on seeing.

peace

i agree fully. id like to add to your last point by saying that it is strictly based on our senses, wouldnt you say?

P.E.A.C.E

Civilison
02-11-2007, 07:07 PM
peace rai

building strong man... much respect!

However, what about innovations or new discoveries? what particular source may have known about a new finding or for this particular matter, who may have known about the "new knowledge" before?yeah, new knowledge is new knowledge only if it is seen from a perspective of someone that was unacquainted with that particular knowledge source whether it is data or an object or a writing or whatever. but, looked from a more holistic/universal perspective, new knowledge is just an extraction from a universe that contains everything within itself but consciously chooses to only manifest certain phases or cycles at a time.

i believe the human mind can comprehend the absolute/all knowledge at once but at different eras in the evolution of man ever since many thousand years ago, different things are known to man at that time of existence. but what if the evolution of the earth is whole and not partial like we see it. what i mean is back in the day when the ancients ruled (egyptians, indush cush, south america ect.) it was a different time of evolution of humanity and the earth and space at the same time. now we are at a different stage and what might be new knowledge to someone now or then might be different from now or then...

therefore... from the perspective of evolution of everything known to us now, it is hard to say what new knowledge really is.

is "everything to be known" just mere information to be extracted or raw knowledge.both information and raw knowledge. kinda like this:

you buy a book and you read it. your brain processes the words/data that you perceived. through that process you are able to further analyze/think about what you read and processed. that would be like information.

now imagine going out to the park or being in an incredible place on the planet and i'm sure wherever you stay at there are spots of natural amazement.

at that moment your brain processes whole reality. you see pictures/images and soak in the whole reality. that's a different processing of information. raw knowledge that must be further broken down by both your conscious self and your involuntary brain functions.

but when you read a book your brain still processes the images and shapes of letters, sentences etc...

so i guess information is a different kind of knowledge, a different level of manifestation of knowledge. a variation of knowledge.

the reason why this is such a dificult topic to discuss is because to know is really a very mysterious thing.

like before you go to bed and you think to your personal self before you pass out to the dream world. at that moment of thought you know too but in a different way - you know your deep, inner self. this knowledge is perceived by your third eye.

information is processed by your brain but then you can pass it on to the third eye so it is seen as a whole.

information just being mere fragments of data without any given thought at all.this works, without a doubt.

it is strictly based on our senses, wouldnt you say?yeah man, i guess that's what i was trying to say.

PEACE!

LHX
02-11-2007, 09:26 PM
the more you explore this question, you run into a dilemma from 2 angles

- by dilemma, i dont mean something bad - i just mean logical paradoxes



first of all - you run into the problem where you have to define your terms

secondly - it becomes apparent that conclusions can be drawn from a number of different angles


from a certain angle - it is just as difficult to determine how there could be things that you dont know


this is your universe after all


being able to explain it is a different story

Prolifical ENG
02-11-2007, 09:58 PM
Ah, good thread so far....Tostones...almost forgot about you.

How can you know (perceive with certainty) anything at all? Does knowlege-as-certainty exist or just knowledge-as-reliable-fact?

Well when I first read about this, I thought of an argumentative point of view that is similar instead of pure knowledge its arguments that lead to conclusions. Hence I view knowledge as conclusions.. with these classic examples:

Deduction - Arguments that lead with certainty to a conclusion i.e. the famous "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal." That example is certain enough for me unless you want to dig EXTREMELY deep.

Induction - A premise leads with probability to a conclusion i.e. "The Sun always rises in the morning so the sun will rise tomorrow morning". So of course there is an extremely good chance the sun doesn't explode or whatever happens.

In other words it is true that most arguments people make are inductive.....as well as most knowledge people gain are reliable facts. Similar models.

Prince Rai
02-14-2007, 07:06 AM
Peace Civilison, a good take on what i posted, very much appreciated!

Unique-B
02-14-2007, 07:44 PM
Know enough.. Thanks.

Civilison
02-14-2007, 10:39 PM
from a certain angle - it is just as difficult to determine how there could be things that you dont know

maybe because life is a finite existence of infinite things.

the infinite might be contained within the finite. this is where the problem arises.

i think...

Prince Rai
02-15-2007, 04:07 PM
maybe because life is a finite existence of infinite things.

the infinite might be contained within the finite. this is where the problem arises.

i think...

That's profound. There is a lot to consider about what you said, i agree totally!

infinite= knowledge?

and knowledge is to be found and evaluated by the finite= existance... I.E.

Civilison
02-15-2007, 04:43 PM
peace rai

that's one way you can look at that. another one:

let's look at the change of seasons for example.

winter is finite because every time it comes we know for a fact that it will eventually come to an end. however, winter is being infinitely manifested every year. it's a cycle that on its own has a limit but put within the framework of the whole, it could be considered infinite.

another example, a human being's life span is finite. however, human evolution is something that doesn't end (although it might?).

i think we can all agree that life is based on cycles and phases that keep re-manifesting itself.

even if we look at atoms. an atom has its properties which limit or categorize it somehow. however, when you break it down it turns out that the atom comes from and is much more deeper and infinite than we imagine.

everything physically created is finite but but the space and time in which physicality is created is infinite. therefore, life is an infinite existence (never ending, constantly re-manifesting) of finite things (physical things with some kind of a limit or category).

something like this. at least that's how i see it.

and in relation to what X was saying... i am a finite existence... a personal life-form but at the same time i am a part of an infinite universe. the things we don't know come from where we come from but sometimes your personal self doesn't acknowledge them. everybody attains to what they attain.

peace!

Xsavior
02-15-2007, 05:37 PM
I'd have to say "no". After I smoked Salvia, the shit dropped me off in another dimension. So I had to ask "How do I know anything is real?" Couldn't find a good answer.

just because it has a leaf doesn't mean u can smoke it

peace