Re: Knowing how versus Knowing that
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:29 am
At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!
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 wrote:At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!
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 wrote: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 wrote:At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Coming from one whose vision is obscured by shit, that's a compliment! Thanks!
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!vegetariantaxidermy wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:
At least he knows the difference between buttocks and a donkey.
A yank says it so it must be true.SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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)
No problem!vegetariantaxidermy wrote:A yank says it so it must be true.SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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)I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.
Yeah take you kid to a Walmart, and don't forget your gun!SpheresOfBalance wrote:No problem!vegetariantaxidermy wrote:A yank says it so it must be true.SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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)I hug family members and that's it. Stick your phony yank 'group hug' ickyness up your ARSE.
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.SpheresOfBalance wrote: As to the topic, "knowing how" is just a whole bunch of "knowing that's," back to back.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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)
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.Lev Muishkin wrote:Yeah take you kid to a Walmart, and don't forget your gun!SpheresOfBalance wrote:No problem!vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 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.
I would disagree.Wyman wrote: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.SpheresOfBalance wrote: As to the topic, "knowing how" is just a whole bunch of "knowing that's," back to back.
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 wrote: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?
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.You would have us all know completely nothing, before knowing a language complete, yet "that's" not true.