Knowing how versus Knowing that

[SpheresOfBalance]

Wisdom = valuable refined knowledge.

What is knowledge? Otherwise this is just a circular definition.

Whyman do you even know what circular arguments are?

I give you credit, HH, unlike some others around here. You are on the ball. I thought when I wrote that that you had claimed that knowledge was wisdom. Then, that wisdom was valuable knowledge. You said only that philosophy was the search for wisdom. So you weren't being circular.

I'm surprised you don't like my emphasis on knowing how over knowing that. I would treat knowing how to build a bridge, program a computer, solve a mathematical problem as fundamental examples of knowledge. I would call the propositions about these subject matters closer to descriptions of the process and arising out of the prior ability or expertise. I would say that whether knowledge is 'valuable' depends primarily on whether it is useful - which is close to your definition of wisdom.

Knowledge as ability, among other things, accounts for how pre-linguistic humans could be said to have knowledge, as well as animals. The real sticky part is how to describe language itself as a knowing how or ability(and as I am attempting in the OP, perception as such) - this is the subject matter of the philosophy of language - I'm especially referring to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, which I think you ought to read.

I would call you both to the attention of the fact that as to value, individuals define it, individually. That there is no universal value, such that one mans value might be another's non value. That value is in fact relative amongst men.

[Wyman]

I would call you both to the attention of the fact that as to value, individuals define it, individually. That there is no universal value, such that one mans value might be another's non value. That value is in fact relative amongst men.

That's true. Plato refuted Protagoras, an early pragmatist who said that 'man is the measure of all things' in that manner. He said that you could just as well say that a baboon is the measure of all things.

How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so. So, the choice of goal is relative, but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable?

[Ginkgo]

This dichotomy seems to me similar, and perhaps reducible to, the distinction between 'know that' and 'knowing what it's like to be a bat' from Nagel.

Interesting to compare. I can see some similarities and differences.

Nagel tells us that no amount of physical information can tells us what it is like to be a bat because such a thing can only be understood from the bat's point of view. Certainly I can know all the relevant physiology and biology pertaining to a bat and its environment, but hanging blindfolded upside down in a cave eating slugs will never tell us what it is like to be a bat.

I guess this is a bit like Mary who has all the knowledge available when it comes to colour, but has yet to actually experience colour. I don't think Jackson would say, "we don't know what it is like to be Mary" Rather, he probably would say there are some things about Mary's exposure to colour for the first time we will never know. Mary would exhibit a certain type of subjective feeling upon seeing colour for the first time that is exclusive to Mary.

On this basis I don't sees Nagel's argument as an argument against this particular aspect of physicalism, since physicalism, doesn't deal with what it is like to be something. Nonetheless, the two arguments taken together both refute physicalism.

[Lev Muishkin]

They represent feelings. Upon re-reading Jackson's argument it seems to me he is an epiphenomenalist when it comes to qualia. That is to say, qualia from Jackson's point of view are a by-product of physical processes taking part in the brain. As such they are non=physical and therefore lack physical characteristics. Jackson is probably a property dualist.

Obviously: and a dualism is nothing more than a fudge.
That's why I asked You, and not Jackson.
Shall I ask again, or will you just quote someone else?

I was not particularly interested in the epistemological basis, but just a basic meaning, to see if we are talking about the same thing.

I could give you my answer, but there are people far more qualified than myself who can supply answers to such questions.

But I'm not talking to them - I'm taking to you.
If you don't know then say so!

[Ginkgo]

Lev,


If we are talking about qualia then we are talking about some type of dualism. I don't think we can't really get around that. Now dualism might be "a fudge", but that is beside the point. If you are looking for a physiclaist qualia explanation then I don't think there is such a thing.

I'm not sure of the above is answering your question.

[Wyman]

Lev, I notice you use the word 'obviously' an awful lot. In the law, we are trained to avoid such words (and 'clearly' or 'without a doubt') because, aside from not adding anything to what a statement asserts, it actually has the opposite effect intended, showing that the ideas expressed are in need of some extra help.

Perhaps you could rephrase your question to Gingko, which I think pertains to the meaning of 'qualia.'

As to what Gingko said, that qualia represent feelings. Gingko, I could take this statement in two senses - the word 'qualia' represents feelings - a kind of definition; or, qualia (as something experienced) represent feelings (as something in the 'real' or physical world).

As an analogy, take an 'idea' in the 'veil of ideas' sense. They are said, by Locke and the rest, to represent the physical world and true ideas are those that accurately represent the world. In a different, more literal or definitional sense, the term 'idea' represents, in Lockean empiricism, the experiences we have of the physical world.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I would call you both to the attention of the fact that as to value, individuals define it, individually. That there is no universal value, such that one mans value might be another's non value. That value is in fact relative amongst men.

That's true. Plato refuted Protagoras, an early pragmatist who said that 'man is the measure of all things' in that manner. He said that you could just as well say that a baboon is the measure of all things.
Agreed!

I hope you don't mind, that I edited your quote below, it's not to be disrespectful, rather just the way I see it. I shall edit in red, comment in blue and highlight your words of interest in purple.

Your Original:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so. So, the choice of goal is relative, but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable?

My Edit:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so, that your current knowledge allows, as there could be a more effective means, not yet understood. "Most," is also relative, in this case to knowledge.

So, the choice of goal is relative, (I assumed you meant of the ones one knows of.) but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable? (with this question mark I assume you're asking me. First effectiveness speaks of something being "adequate" then potentially to any particular "degree," beyond adequate. It's also true that as to a quantity (degree) of effectiveness, it would depend largely upon the one that is doing the math, as surely there are variables to consider, unknowns again being a factor in the computation, thus again lending to relativity.)

Or so my logic seems to indicate... You?

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev,


If we are talking about qualia then we are talking about some type of dualism. I don't think we can't really get around that. Now dualism might be "a fudge", but that is beside the point. If you are looking for a physiclaist qualia explanation then I don't think there is such a thing.

I'm not sure of the above is answering your question.

No I was not looking for an explanation. I asked you what you mean by qualia, Since you seem reluctant to answer I'll stop there.
"Feelings" is not enough is it.

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev, I notice you use the word 'obviously' an awful lot. .

I think not.

[Wyman]

I would call you both to the attention of the fact that as to value, individuals define it, individually. That there is no universal value, such that one mans value might be another's non value. That value is in fact relative amongst men.

That's true. Plato refuted Protagoras, an early pragmatist who said that 'man is the measure of all things' in that manner. He said that you could just as well say that a baboon is the measure of all things.
Agreed!

I hope you don't mind, that I edited your quote below, it's not to be disrespectful, rather just the way I see it. I shall edit in red, comment in blue and highlight your words of interest in purple.

Your Original:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so. So, the choice of goal is relative, but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable?

My Edit:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so, that your current knowledge allows, as there could be a more effective means, not yet understood. "Most," is also relative, in this case to knowledge.

So, the choice of goal is relative, (I assumed you meant of the ones one knows of.) but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable? (with this question mark I assume you're asking me. First effectiveness speaks of something being "adequate" then potentially to any particular "degree," beyond adequate. It's also true that as to a quantity (degree) of effectiveness, it would depend largely upon the one that is doing the math, as surely there are variables to consider, unknowns again being a factor in the computation, thus again lending to relativity.)

Or so my logic seems to indicate... You?

I agree with your qualifications. And the word 'quantifiable' in my first sentence is bad. Not everything is quantifiable and what is quantifiable, as you point, still may have many variables.

Going back to Plato, his Socrates would ask, given that absolute knowledge is not possible (and, e.g., goals and means are relative), still, whose advice would you seek if you were sick, a baboon or a doctor? So one test, other than quantification, to measure effectiveness may just be evaluation of past results - demonstrations of ability and expertise. See if the engineer has built any bridges in the past and if so, are they still standing.

A relativist always has a problem of coming up with a criterion of value for anything - what gets them out of bed in the morning?

[Ginkgo]

Lev,


If we are talking about qualia then we are talking about some type of dualism. I don't think we can't really get around that. Now dualism might be "a fudge", but that is beside the point. If you are looking for a physiclaist qualia explanation then I don't think there is such a thing.

I'm not sure of the above is answering your question.

No I was not looking for an explanation. I asked you what you mean by qualia, Since you seem reluctant to answer I'll stop there.
"Feelings" is not enough is it.

I can give you my explanation for qualia if you like, but I don't see it being worth very much. My explanation is certainly not everyone's explanation.

Qualia is a fundamental property of the universe. We find qualia embedded in the dynamic quantum foam. Qualia is an emergent property, just like space and time are emergent properties from the basic structure of the universe.

Can I prove this? No, of course I can't. So this is why don't usually post such things. You asked for my explanation and now you have it. Just so long as Hex doesn't come along and accuse me of talking nonsense and babble.

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev,


If we are talking about qualia then we are talking about some type of dualism. I don't think we can't really get around that. Now dualism might be "a fudge", but that is beside the point. If you are looking for a physiclaist qualia explanation then I don't think there is such a thing.

I'm not sure of the above is answering your question.

No I was not looking for an explanation. I asked you what you mean by qualia, Since you seem reluctant to answer I'll stop there.
"Feelings" is not enough is it.

I can give you my explanation for qualia if you like, but I don't see it being worth very much. My explanation is certainly not everyone's explanation.

Qualia is a fundamental property of the universe. We find qualia embedded in the dynamic quantum foam. Qualia is an emergent property, just like space and time are emergent property from the basic structure of the universe.

Can I prove this? No, of course I can't. So this is why don't usually post such things. You asked for my explanation and now you have it. Just so long as Hex doesn't come along and accuse me of talking nonsense and babble.

With this sort of explanation I can't tell if you mean the same thing.
I can't ask the question more simply.
I do not want and explanation or an empirical exposition. I simply asked what you think it means|
The notion of the qualium derives from a logical consequence of thinking about perception, and objectivity. What you have above is not on the page. I mean really "quantum foam"!!

Qualia is what we experience, the gap between "I love you", and "it's just a bunch of hormones" From the way the thread has been going I'm not sure we are in the same page with this. I don't give a dingo's cuss about "quantum foam" (whatever that it)

[Ginkgo]

I do not want and explanation or an empirical exposition. I simply asked what you think it means|
The notion of the qualium derives from a logical consequence of thinking about perception, and objectivity. What you have above is not on the page. I mean really "quantum foam"!!

Lev, you asked for my opinion and a I gave it you you.

Qualia is what we experience, the gap between "I love you", and "it's just a bunch of hormones" From the way the thread has been going I'm not sure we are in the same page with this.

Yes, all theories of qualia leave us with an explanatory gap. Upon reflection I have told you what little I know about qualia.

I am on the same page as the wikipedia article:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I can't do any better than this.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I would call you both to the attention of the fact that as to value, individuals define it, individually. That there is no universal value, such that one mans value might be another's non value. That value is in fact relative amongst men.

That's true. Plato refuted Protagoras, an early pragmatist who said that 'man is the measure of all things' in that manner. He said that you could just as well say that a baboon is the measure of all things.
Agreed!

I hope you don't mind, that I edited your quote below, it's not to be disrespectful, rather just the way I see it. I shall edit in red, comment in blue and highlight your words of interest in purple.

Your Original:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so. So, the choice of goal is relative, but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable?

My Edit:
How about this: once you settle on a goal, such as building a bridge, you then choose the most effective means to do so, that your current knowledge allows, as there could be a more effective means, not yet understood. "Most," is also relative, in this case to knowledge.

So, the choice of goal is relative, (I assumed you meant of the ones one knows of.) but the effectiveness of the method/individual in achieving the goal is quantifiable? (with this question mark I assume you're asking me. First effectiveness speaks of something being "adequate" then potentially to any particular "degree," beyond adequate. It's also true that as to a quantity (degree) of effectiveness, it would depend largely upon the one that is doing the math, as surely there are variables to consider, unknowns again being a factor in the computation, thus again lending to relativity.)

Or so my logic seems to indicate... You?

I agree with your qualifications. And the word 'quantifiable' in my first sentence is bad. Not everything is quantifiable and what is quantifiable, as you point, still may have many variables.

Going back to Plato, his Socrates would ask, given that absolute knowledge is not possible (and, e.g., goals and means are relative), still, whose advice would you seek if you were sick, a baboon or a doctor?
The Baboon's as I watch his every move, trying my best to imitate, as we were taught to eat anything that a fellow primate eats, as a survival technique. Of course this assumes that the baboon and I have the same sickness. Yes I prefer a variation of Naturopathy. Never the Allopathic doctor, as I can only assume, obviously, that, that which caused his type to be the current authority, is still his only concern. All paid doctors naturally have a conflict of interest, in terms of 'helping' their patients. (I just couldn't resist the urge.)

So one test, other than quantification, to measure effectiveness may just be evaluation of past results - demonstrations of ability and expertise. See if the engineer has built any bridges in the past and if so, are they still standing.
Yes, it would seem we are stuck with the potential lessor of all potential evils; that which our knowledge allows. Until one day that we might know of everything, that elusive "absolute" knowledge. You see, I see that physics is in fact part of that absolute knowledge, at least in this universe, some of which we currently understand. My concern though, is whether we really try hard enough before we decide, believing that largely we rush to a fire that doesn't actually exist.

A relativist always has a problem of coming up with a criterion of value for anything - what gets them out of bed in the morning?

Yes that is a problem, futility, meaninglessness; or so it might seem to some. Still is it better to be forever blissful in ignorance, or miserable in knowledge? Yet the quest goes on! Does it not?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually there is only knowing by acquaintance, all else is belief. One may 'believe' in one that tells you that, he "knows that..." Not that what they say is necessarily not knowledge, just that you can't "know" that it's in fact knowledge, until you've experienced it, been acquainted with it. Only then can one say that they truly know, as much as any human can 'know.'

As to Mary and her understanding of colors, (as far as Qualia goes), no need to re-invent a word, as it's simply experience. Does one get more information from experience, of course, i.e., justified true belief (well-justified true belief), or rather knowledge, for one. In Mary's case, that it even really exists. Of course she'd have to measure it as she saw it to be sure that the data she was presented in her B&W lab, was indeed of that source, that everyone agreed was red. Personally I'd ask random people on the street, that were not involved in the data collection or dissemination, what color this thing is, this thing that I was told was red, by those that supplied me the data, as then I might finally 'know.'

In addition, it is a fact that different wave lengths of electro-magnetic energy stimulate organisms in different ways. Watch out for the UV, keep your sunscreen handy. Ummmm, that infrared feels nice. And blue has a calming effect on humans. I was actually told by a representative of an aircraft manufacturing facility that they were changing cockpit night-vision lights on a specific model from the standard red to blue for this very reason.

Does Qualia 'exist?' As a concept, sure! And that's about it. I would have to see the results of the double blind scientific experiment that confirms that it does exist, before I might simply 'believe' that it does.