Cognition [Erkenntnis] vs Knowledge [Wissen]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cognition [Erkenntnis] is contrasting different [disjunctive] from Knowledge [Wissen] in terms of brain structures.

The Cognition [Erkenntnis] neural structures are fundamentally the same in non-human animals and within the brains of humans.

On the other hand, it is only humans who has the brain structures for knowledge [Wissen], i.e. the ability to verify and justify cognitions as knowledge [justified true belief -ex-Gettier] contingent upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

My point here is there a cognitive process [we share with other animals at the fundamental level] i.e. a framework and system of cognition [FSC] contingent upon the human conditions.

Prior to the cognitive process there is the emergence process and the realization of reality.

As such, what is realized as real cannot be that absolutely human/mind independent thing that is claimed by philosophical realists which is false and not tenable.

On the other hand what is realistic is what the philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim that;
whatever is real [fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity] is contingent upon a specific human-based framework of emergence, realization, cognition of reality which is subsequently known [justified true belief] and described [linguistically].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
1. Cognition [Erkenntnis] and Knowledge [Wissen] come in varying degrees.
What is knowledge [not opinion nor raw beliefs] is based on verification and justification processes as contingent upon a human based framework and system of knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

Thus there is knowledge as long as there is a FSK [re consensus] it is conditioned upon.
So, there is scientific, economics, social, theological, etc. knowledge of varying degrees.
In this case, theological knowledge as claim by theist as grounded on an illusory God and the theological FSK has extremely low degrees of credibility and objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK.

Non-humans do not have 'knowledge' as defined above because they do NOT have a faculty of knowledge in their brain to verify, judge and justify, e.g. as in science and others forms of FSK knowledge.

However, non-humans and humans has a faculty of cognition that enable reality to emerge out of a so-called "soup of particles".
Since humans evolved from non-humans via adaptions of the latter inherent features, both humans and non-humans has the same fundamental cognitive features in the DNA and brain.
There is no denial humans and non-humans share the same cause and effect algorithm, pattern recognitions, memory, and others.

My point is,
there is no absolute human/mind independent external reality but what is reality is somehow conditioned and influenced by the cognitive functions within us that has a 13.7 physical and 3.5 billions years of organic history.

Philosophical realists [like PH, FDP, and others] simply ignore the above history in considering what is reality, i.e. it is independent of the human conditions and mind.

[Atla]

Ok so your cognition has 267 noumenal [impossible to exist] layers beneath the phenomena. But which layer smuggles in an entire universe?

[Impenitent]

brain structures? the noumenon of brain structures must be really real to show that every other noumenon (beside the real noumenon of brain structures) can not be known...

other people and their brain structures must transcend noumenon...

-Imp

[promethean75]

Please go easy with the german, VA. And where is the KIV? Trying to switch up on us now?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cognition [Erkenntnis] and Knowledge [Wissen] come in varying degrees.
What is knowledge [not opinion nor raw beliefs] is based on verification and justification processes as contingent upon a human based framework and system of knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

Thus there is knowledge as long as there is a FSK [re consensus] it is conditioned upon.
So, there is scientific, economics, social, theological, etc. knowledge of varying degrees.
In this case, theological knowledge as claim by theists as grounded on an illusory God and the theological FSK has extremely low degrees of credibility and objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK.

Non-humans do not have 'knowledge' as defined above because they do NOT have a faculty of knowledge in their brain to verify, judge and justify, e.g. as in science and others forms of FSK knowledge.

However, non-humans and humans has a faculty of cognition that enable reality to emerge out of a so-called "soup of particles".
Since humans evolved from non-humans via adaptions of the latter inherent features, both humans and non-humans has the same fundamental cognitive features in the DNA and brain.
There is no denial humans and non-humans share the same cause and effect algorithm, pattern recognitions, memory, and others.

My point is,
there is no absolute human/mind independent external reality [as claimed by the philosophical realists] but what is reality is somehow conditioned and influenced by the cognitive functions within us that has a 13.7 physical and 3.5 billions years of organic history.

Philosophical realists [like PH, FDP, and others] simply ignore the above history in considering what is reality, i.e. it is independent of the human conditions and mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant on Cognition and Knowledge
Markus Kohl
https://philarchive.org/rec/KOHKOC-2

Abstract
I discuss the difference and the connections between Kant’s notions of cognition (Erkenntnis) and knowledge (Wissen).
Unlike knowledge, cognition is a representational state which need not have the propositional structure of a judgments.
Even cognitions that have such a structure need not coincide with knowledge, because they might rather have the doxastic status of opinion or faith, or they might be false (whereas knowledge is a certain recognition of truth).
I argue that while Kant distinguishes between many different species of cognition, he uses the term ‘knowledge’ univocally across his theoretical and practical philosophy.
All knowledge is based upon some kind of cognition that provides the sufficient objective, certain ground for a knowing assent to a proposition.
However, not all knowledge must be based upon the demanding type of cognition that is central to Kant’s overall argument in the first Critique, which requires a synthesis of concepts and sensible intuition.
We have a lot of determinate knowledge, including knowledge that we possess transcendental freedom of Will, that is based upon purely conceptual practical cognition.
We can also have some indeterminate philosophical knowledge (e.g.
knowledge that there are non-sensible, noumenal beings) that is based upon purely conceptual theoretical cognition.

Introduction
The distinction between ‘Erkenntnis’ (‘Cognition’) and ‘Wissen’ (‘Knowledge’) has, until recently, been somewhat neglected in Anglo-American Kant scholarship, partly because Kemp Smith collapsed it (translating both as ‘Knowledge’) in his translation of the first Critique.
But the issue is not simply one of translation.
When I (a native speaker) first read the Critique in German, I did not recognize it as a distinction at all.
As Rolf George notes, ‘Wissen’ and ‘Erkenntnis’ are (more or less) synonymous in contemporary German, but not in Kant’s 18th century German.
In this chapter, I try to illuminate how these concepts differ and (yet) intersect in Kant’s philosophy.

I proceed as follows.
In section 1, I explain the major differences that obtain between Cognition and Knowledge.
In section 2, I consider the many different species of Cognition Kant acknowledges.
In section 3, I explain Kant’s conception of Knowledge and the connection between Knowledge and Cognition.
In section 4, I conclude with a brief survey of where Kant locates the limits of human Cognition and Knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• "For while Erkenntnis is a form of “knowledge” in the everyday sense of this word, what Kant means by Erkenntnis is quite different from the sort of “knowledge” that has been the focus of contemporary epistemological discussion.
  Thus, if we attempt to understand Kant’s claims as claims about anything like knowledge in this sense, we will make very little headway in understanding the views that Kant actually wished to defend."
  Karl Schafer