Knowing how versus Knowing that

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!

At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!

At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.

I'm sure this makes sense to you, well maybe not, first "anus" now "buttocks," make up your mind girly. I'm sure you mean to mean something.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!

At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.

I'm sure this makes sense to you, well maybe not, first "anus" now "buttocks," make up your mind girly. I'm sure you mean to mean something.

It's hard to know what you stupid, illiterate yanks mean, but an 'ass' is a donkey, and an 'arse' is not. Your horrible accent isn't my fault and not an excuse for bad spelling.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!

At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.

I'm sure this makes sense to you, well maybe not, first "anus" now "buttocks," make up your mind girly. I'm sure you mean to mean something.

It's hard to know what you stupid, illiterate yanks mean, but an 'ass' is a donkey, and an 'arse' is not. Your horrible accent isn't my fault and not an excuse for bad spelling.

I take you less and less serious with every post you make. You seem to only be the shell of the person that once lived. The dried up old husk of hate, the only thing left!

I'm truly sorry! :* (<--A Kiss) xoxoxoxo (<--With hugs)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I take you less and less serious with every post you make. You seem to only be the shell of the person that once lived. The dried up old husk of hate, the only thing left!

I'm truly sorry! :* (<--A Kiss) xoxoxoxo (<--With hugs)

A yank says it so it must be true. I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I take you less and less serious with every post you make. You seem to only be the shell of the person that once lived. The dried up old husk of hate, the only thing left!

I'm truly sorry! :* (<--A Kiss) xoxoxoxo (<--With hugs)

A yank says it so it must be true. I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.

No problem!

[Lev Muishkin]

I take you less and less serious with every post you make. You seem to only be the shell of the person that once lived. The dried up old husk of hate, the only thing left!

I'm truly sorry! :* (<--A Kiss) xoxoxoxo (<--With hugs)

A yank says it so it must be true. I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.

No problem!

Yeah take you kid to a Walmart, and don't forget your gun!

[Wyman]

As to the topic, "knowing how" is just a whole bunch of "knowing that's," back to back.

Doesn't 'knowing that' necessitate language, where 'knowing how' does not? Knowing that 'x' means knowing that a proposition/assertion/belief is true. The only one of those terms which could be said to not involve language would be 'belief.' A discussion about belief would be an interesting conversation - it may not compete with 'ass' versus 'arse' with some on this forum, though.

Knowing how, however, seems to imply only an ability. Animals, pre-linguistic children and pre-linguistic/prehistoric humans could all be said to know how to do some things. I don't think they could be said to 'know that.' Describing such abilities in terms of 'knowing that' would be a linguistic description imposed upon a non-linguistic event. Which would be my preliminary answer to what a belief is as well.

[Wyman]

BTW, perhaps veg-tax could start a thread on 'ass' versus 'arse' since she seems to bring up the topic every week or so on the forum. It would be easier to ignore.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I take you less and less serious with every post you make. You seem to only be the shell of the person that once lived. The dried up old husk of hate, the only thing left!

I'm truly sorry! :* (<--A Kiss) xoxoxoxo (<--With hugs)

A yank says it so it must be true. I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.

No problem!

Yeah take you kid to a Walmart, and don't forget your gun!

At 57 I have no kids. And my guns, I reserve for those that offend me with physical violence. I only ever defend, as it should be. I do have a conceal and carry permit. I was weened on defense, thus I stand for defense, and defense alone. My vast knowledge of how to kill, is only for defense. They started my learning of how to kill at age 9. I largely disowned the teachings, because I was forced to learn, it was not my elective. Even though I made 3 television appearances because of my expertise. One might think, that at a young age,I'd take any attention, I may have gotten, as to my expertise, and ran with it, straight to the bank, or at least in my daily dealings. Nope, it's just to put the transgressor in violence, of my innocent self and family, on the ground, or below it, if they insist, no other choice available.

Young man, you have a lot to learn!

[SpheresOfBalance]

As to the topic, "knowing how" is just a whole bunch of "knowing that's," back to back.

Doesn't 'knowing that' necessitate language, where 'knowing how' does not? Knowing that 'x' means knowing that a proposition/assertion/belief is true. The only one of those terms which could be said to not involve language would be 'belief.' A discussion about belief would be an interesting conversation - it may not compete with 'ass' versus 'arse' with some on this forum, though.

Knowing how, however, seems to imply only an ability. Animals, pre-linguistic children and pre-linguistic/prehistoric humans could all be said to know how to do some things. I don't think they could be said to 'know that.' Describing such abilities in terms of 'knowing that' would be a linguistic description imposed upon a non-linguistic event. Which would be my preliminary answer to what a belief is as well.

I would disagree.

An example:

You're an infant, lying in your crib, your eyes just able to focus for the first time, you're crying because you are hungry. You see "that" the door opens, "that" someone comes in, "that" they pick you up, "that" they place a nipple in your mouth, you know "that" your need is fulfilled. You have no clue "how" it was fulfilled. The "how" being "that" there is sound, time keeping, a refrigerator, milk, manufacture of bottles and nipples, a warming device, a house and doors, proximity, allows for/and mothers, understanding, etc, exist. You just know 'that' your needs were fulfilled. Once you know "that" all those things exist, and what it is "that" they can do, "that" their is purpose, "that" there are mothers, you shall finally know "how" it was accomplished. Thus knowing "how" is just a whole bunch of knowing "that's" back to back. It matters not "that" you can't either define the "thats," or the "hows" for that matter. "That" these things take place come long before understanding "how" it's true "that" they do.

Yes/No/Maybe?

People that see it otherwise, IMHO, do so because they take for granted, their youth, their past, and "how" it has led them to knowing all the "that's," "that" have created their now, their understanding of "how."

[Wyman]

But you just described a passive activity, not a skill or ability. And the infant doesn't know 'that' any of those things happened, as he/she can barely make out its mother's face. You are projecting your worldview on the infant - which includes all the those concepts you mentioned.

When you drive your car on a two lane highway and move over from the left lane to the right, how do you do it? - vis a vis the position of the steering wheel?

[SpheresOfBalance]

But you just described a passive activity, not a skill or ability.
You can frame it as you want, but in truth neither of us can revisit those early days. It matters not "that" we can define knowing "that," at "that" time. But "that" is still what knowing "that" shall be defined, once we know the "thats" of a language. You would have us all know completely nothing, before knowing a language complete, yet "that's" not true. We have to know "that" an "A" looks like "that," and "that" there are rules of usage, before we know "how" to use it. Thus "hows" are just many "thats," back to back.

And the infant doesn't know 'that' any of those things happened, as he/she can barely make out its mother's face.
Not at all, as again you forget time and process. You have a single moment in your mind as you read my words, then you frame my words within that single moment, yet I thought that the totality of my last message would allow you to see that time is of essence, "that" knowing of these "thats" is a gradual process, just like knowing "that" the mothers face looks as it does. Their is no need to know "how" it looks "that" way, only "that" it does.

You are projecting your worldview on the infant - which includes all the those concepts you mentioned.
Nope, sorry! Of course reconciling concepts with actuality comes much later, yet they are in fact 'that's' none the less, while the "hows" are simply many "thats" placed back to back. What comes first my friend, "that" we are born or "that" of our conceptualization of us being born, and finally the "how" of it all.


When you drive your car on a two lane highway and move over from the left lane to the right, how do you do it? - vis a vis the position of the steering wheel?
You'll have to break this down for me, if you mean anything other that what the following answers:
You do it "how" a PLETHORA of "thats" back to back informs you to do it. "That" you must stay in a lane for the sake of order, "that" a steering wheel controls the front wheels, and "that" turning them yields the desired effect, "that" each of the letters of the alphabet in a certain order yield words, (the "thats" involved are far to numerous to mention), which in turn yields the "how" of what you want to do, as well as the "whys." "That" things and concepts exist, come long before the "hows" and "whys" of "that" existence. "Thats" are facts, clearly in front of you, requiring no conceptualization, the "hows" and "whys" are concepts based upon those facts. A child "that" sticks their finger in a flame, knows "that" it hurts, even though they do not understand how to use language to convey such, they also know "how" and "why" pain from flame happened, so they don't stick their finger in a flame again. So actually primitive concepts are born without language. I mean how do you think language came into existence in the first place? Poof, there it was, a Rosetta Stone CD-ROM from heaven?

[Wyman]

Most people would answer the driving question: 'that' they turn the wheel to the right until the car is in the right lane, then straighten the wheel. However, you actually have to - after you get into the right lane - turn the wheel to the left (past the straight, 12 o'clock point) before you then straighten it out.

My point was, although you know how to move your car from the left lane to the right, you don't know that you are turning the wheel back to the left before straightening it out. It is done automatically and subconsciously. Do you think that unconscious abilities are also 'knowing thats?'

[Wyman]

You would have us all know completely nothing, before knowing a language complete, yet "that's" not true.

Just the opposite - I am saying prelinguists and animals do know - they know how. Since you don't believe that knowing how is knowwledge, you characterize it as 'nothing.' I characterize it as prior to knowing that.