Seeing & Knowing

[puto]

'The cat is on the mat' is a warrant for the belief that is all in the mind? Adequacy of the grounds of evidence in it follows that if you know, you know. Gettier examples and the traditional analysis of knowledge of the justification condition. Reasoning, and perception is no information (the reliability of the knower and cognitive capacities.) Do you remain agnostic on the question of justification of knower? Scepticism is the possibility of all knowledge claims. For S to be justified in believing that q, the grounds that justify this belief must be in the contents of S's mind. Not a Gettier problem of the traditional analysis of a JTB conditions: S's belief that q is not inferred from any falsehood. No inference from a false belief to a true belief all - she just sees, and not attributed to Knowledge: Epistemic luck and not sufficient.

[Belinda]

'The cat is on the mat' is a warrant for the belief that is all in the mind? Adequacy of the grounds of evidence in it follows that if you know, you know. Gettier examples and the traditional analysis of knowledge of the justification condition. Reasoning, and perception is no information (the reliability of the knower and cognitive capacities.) Do you remain agnostic on the question of justification of knower? Scepticism is the possibility of all knowledge claims. For S to be justified in believing that q, the grounds that justify this belief must be in the contents of S's mind. Not a Gettier problem of the traditional analysis of a JTB conditions: S's belief that q is not inferred from any falsehood. No inference from a false belief to a true belief all - she just sees, and not attributed to Knowledge: Epistemic luck and not sufficient.

Yes, and contents of minds owe much of their existence to whatever socially accepted paradigm applies to the question.It is a pity but true that we know nothing. The morality then resides not in belief or so-called 'knowledge' but in never -ending quest for knowledge and reverence for absolute truth

[Age]

+++Great, and also by the way, why do you think or believe that a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' is fantastical or unlikely, exactly?+++

Human nature.

So, what is 'human nature', EXACTLY?

Sounds like you HATE and DETEST children, the ones you had and/or could have, and the other ones, as well as others, naturally.

But that, I'm afraid, is as far as I want to get into that here, since it's completely off topic.

And, because you have absolutely nothing at all, which could actually back up and support your view or BELIEF, here.

+++But anyway, as long as you can also imagine, and see, or understand, 'this world', then, as some say, 'this' exists in the 'Mind's Eye'.+++

I can't see it. Again, unless you mean that figuratively. I'm not sure if you do, or not.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Were you really thinking or imagining that I was referring to, literally, 'seeing', with the human eyes, 'that' what you find to be unlikely, in the future?

+++What, literally, even is the 'mind's eye', exactly?+++

Your internal visual field, in your mind.

In the Mind's Eye things can be 'seen', through and by 'understanding', alone, and thus any actual 'visual field'.

Unless, again, you're using it figuratively, but, again, I'm uncertain as to whether you are. Indeed, I'm not even sure, now, if you appreciate the difference.

So, when I asked you if you can imagine how some thing is, in the future, did you, really, think or believe I was talking about in the 'seeing physical eye', sense?

+++Anyway, if one already knows 'the shape' of the 'very thing', which is called 'a fork', then this will be a huge advantage when one is able to finally see, with the physical eyes, for the first time, in maybe enabling to recognize 'a fork' when 'objects and shapes' are first seen and noticed, and obviously when one of 'those shapes and objects' is 'a fork'.

See, because one already knows 'the shape' of 'the object' 'fork', 'that one' might not need absolutely any help at all from any one else, nor from touch, in being able to place the label 'fork' with the newly seen fork object.+++

Sigh. No, that is simply not the case.

So, you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that you could NEVER EVER see ANY object, and recognize it, nor relate that object TO ANY of the pre-existing 'shapes' in your memory. Thus, you are absolutely completely CLOSED, here, when just goes to SHOW and PROVE that with the power of BELIEF even the 'blind of physical seeing' can be completely 'BLIND IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING', as well.

Please read the report from that project in India.

Please become, and remain, OPEN.

Now, what is in 'that report', exactly, which you, really, would love me to see, and understand?

[Age]

'The cat is on the mat' is a warrant for the belief that is all in the mind? Adequacy of the grounds of evidence in it follows that if you know, you know. Gettier examples and the traditional analysis of knowledge of the justification condition. Reasoning, and perception is no information (the reliability of the knower and cognitive capacities.) Do you remain agnostic on the question of justification of knower? Scepticism is the possibility of all knowledge claims. For S to be justified in believing that q, the grounds that justify this belief must be in the contents of S's mind. Not a Gettier problem of the traditional analysis of a JTB conditions: S's belief that q is not inferred from any falsehood. No inference from a false belief to a true belief all - she just sees, and not attributed to Knowledge: Epistemic luck and not sufficient.

Yes, and contents of minds owe much of their existence to whatever socially accepted paradigm applies to the question.It is a pity but true that we know nothing.

WHY do SO MANY NOT SEE the SELF-CONTRADICTION and OXYMORON in STATEMENTS and CLAIMS like 'this one' just MADE UP, here?

The ANSWER BECOMES KNOWN, WHEN HOW the Mind and the brain work is UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

LOL 'we' know NOTHING, BUT, 'we' know that 'we know nothing'.

Surely, the CONTRADICTION IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

The morality then resides not in belief or so-called 'knowledge' but in never -ending quest for knowledge and reverence for absolute truth

[Maia]

+++Sounds like you HATE and DETEST children, the ones you had and/or could have, and the other ones, as well as others, naturally.+++

That's a pretty nasty thing to say. I would love to raise a family, if the circumstances were right.

+++Were you really thinking or imagining that I was referring to, literally, 'seeing', with the human eyes, 'that' what you find to be unlikely, in the future?+++

I wasn't sure. You seem to be switching from one to the other.

+++In the Mind's Eye things can be 'seen', through and by 'understanding', alone, and thus any actual 'visual field'.+++

Aha, so here, you're speaking figuratively.

+++So, when I asked you if you can imagine how some thing is, in the future, did you, really, think or believe I was talking about in the 'seeing physical eye', sense?+++

I did indeed, yes, when you were speaking about forks.

+++So, you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that you could NEVER EVER see ANY object, and recognize it, nor relate that object TO ANY of the pre-existing 'shapes' in your memory. Thus, you are absolutely completely CLOSED, here, when just goes to SHOW and PROVE that with the power of BELIEF even the 'blind of physical seeing' can be completely 'BLIND IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING', as well.+++

Immediately upon gaining vision, yes, that is indeed exactly what I believe would be the case.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, right? Or perhaps, in this case, as those who refuse to look at the evidence.

+++Now, what is in 'that report', exactly, which you, really, would love me to see, and understand?+++

Within the first 48 hours of gaining their sight, the subjects in the test were unable to identify things to any greater degree than random guesswork, that is, for those particular tests, 50%. After that, they gradually learnt to do so, but it took them months and months, and even then, not perfectly.

[Age]

+++Sounds like you HATE and DETEST children, the ones you had and/or could have, and the other ones, as well as others, naturally.+++

That's a pretty nasty thing to say. I would love to raise a family, if the circumstances were right.

But, you claimed that 'human nature' is to live in conflict and disharmony. So, why would you want to raise a family in conflict and disharmony?

In fact why would you even do this to your own children?

Why would you be so cruel to them?

+++Were you really thinking or imagining that I was referring to, literally, 'seeing', with the human eyes, 'that' what you find to be unlikely, in the future?+++

I wasn't sure. You seem to be switching from one to the other.

So that you can see clearly, here, I may not have been switching from one to the other, at all.

I will now, again, suggest that every one seek out clarification and obtain clarity before any assumption at all is made. If, and when, you people start doing this, then actual peace and harmony can and will begin. Thus, 'the world' will be in less conflict and disharmony.

+++In the Mind's Eye things can be 'seen', through and by 'understanding', alone, and thus any actual 'visual field'.+++

Aha, so here, you're speaking figuratively.

Why did you even begin to presume otherwise?

And, is your assumption and conclusion, here, even right and correct?

+++So, when I asked you if you can imagine how some thing is, in the future, did you, really, think or believe I was talking about in the 'seeing physical eye', sense?+++

I did indeed, yes, when you were speaking about forks.

But, what about in regards to the Truly peaceful and harmonious world?

+++So, you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that you could NEVER EVER see ANY object, and recognize it, nor relate that object TO ANY of the pre-existing 'shapes' in your memory. Thus, you are absolutely completely CLOSED, here, when just goes to SHOW and PROVE that with the power of BELIEF even the 'blind of physical seeing' can be completely 'BLIND IN SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING', as well.+++

Immediately upon gaining vision, yes, that is indeed exactly what I believe would be the case.

So, again, what 'we' have, here, is another example of the power of belief, and how belief, itself, can and does prevent and stop one from just 'looking at' what is actual True, let alone 'seeing' what is actually True.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, right?

And, it is the believers who are the most blind of all.

Or perhaps, in this case, as those who refuse to look at the evidence.

Once more, I do not do 'evidence', like I do not do 'debate', nor 'theory'. I much prefer to just stay open, so then I am able to see the actual Truth of things. I do 'facts', 'proof', and 'Truth', instead.

Also, and as has already been proved True, so-called 'evidence' can be and is used by both, on "opposing sides", in an attempt to back up and support 'the beliefs and claims'. 'Evidence', itself, is actually worthless and useless when compared with 'proof', itself.

+++Now, what is in 'that report', exactly, which you, really, would love me to see, and understand?+++

Within the first 48 hours of gaining their sight, the subjects in the test were unable to identify things to any greater degree than random guesswork, that is, for those particular tests, 50%. After that, they gradually learnt to do so, but it took them months and months, and even then, not perfectly.

Obviously, you are not open to even wanting to 'look at', 'discuss', and 'see' things, here.

[Maia]

+++Once more, I do not do 'evidence', like I do not do 'debate', nor 'theory'. I much prefer to just stay open, so then I am able to see the actual Truth of things. I do 'facts', 'proof', and 'Truth', instead.+++

Ok, well, there you go then.

The question raised in by the original post is a pretty interesting one, I think, and I hope I've been able to provide some insights into it.

[Belinda]

+++Once more, I do not do 'evidence', like I do not do 'debate', nor 'theory'. I much prefer to just stay open, so then I am able to see the actual Truth of things. I do 'facts', 'proof', and 'Truth', instead.+++

Ok, well, there you go then.

The question raised in by the original post is a pretty interesting one, I think, and I hope I've been able to provide some insights into it.

You have indeed Maia. You speak from authority.

[Maia]

+++Once more, I do not do 'evidence', like I do not do 'debate', nor 'theory'. I much prefer to just stay open, so then I am able to see the actual Truth of things. I do 'facts', 'proof', and 'Truth', instead.+++

Ok, well, there you go then.

The question raised in by the original post is a pretty interesting one, I think, and I hope I've been able to provide some insights into it.

You have indeed Maia. You speak from authority.

Thanks!

[Phil8659]

The topic Seeing and Knowing, has a flaw. sight is particular while knowing is universal.
If one states the title correctly, it would be perception and conception, addressed as Plato did.
Incorrectly stated, sure, there are countless replies which show lack of contemplation between the actual distinction, information and information processing.
If one uses the opening example of a thought problem, I defer to Plato and Aristotle, No sense, or life support system can do the work of another.
The ability to use grammar is contingent on parsing, parsing of perception, and which intelligible operations one can subject it to.
The operations of the mind is Exactly as Plato stated, all derived from the ability to compare two parsing's for equality. If they are not equal, etc., and from that, a binary step at a time, one builds all of the intelligible operations often called Mathematical, when in fact, they are used in every member of our Grammar Matrix.
Stating anything unclearly will always get a whole lot of useless word piles.

[puto]

Age

Do not claim knowledge that you do not possess through the acquisition of knowledge.