Philosophy Now Forum

rantal wrote:What do you mean by, it all depends on context

all the best, rantal

If I am sitting down writing a post. I still know how to ride a bike; I might know of a particular bike. But I would not have to be currently conscious of that. Just like, I bet you know of numbers, and now how to count, but you were not thinking about it until I mentioned it. Nor were you doing this: 1,2,3,4,5... But now you just counted, so not only are you showing you know of arabic numerals, you are also showing that you know how to count.
But your knowledge of them is still internal, without it being active.

chaz wyman wrote:

rantal wrote:What do you mean by, it all depends on context

all the best, rantal

If I am sitting down writing a post. I still know how to ride a bike; I might know of a particular bike. But I would not have to be currently conscious of that. Just like, I bet you know of numbers, and now how to count, but you were not thinking about it until I mentioned it. Nor were you doing this: 1,2,3,4,5... But now you just counted, so not only are you showing you know of arabic numerals, you are also showing that you know how to count.
But your knowledge of them is still internal, without it being active.

Yes,

I know how to write
I know how to differentiate one particular bike from bikes in general
I don't need to be conscious all the time because it is a skill, I only need it when I do
Likewise, I know how to count, that is another skill, like riding a bike, once learnt seldom forgotten
The know how is internal like any skill

So, there is nothing knew in your post

all the best, rantal

1.
Categorization should be based on what there actually exists in the world, including our own mentality. It is not the case that we can invent a label and then look for the content. You look for similarities, and also differences, to introduce a category, in the first place. Then there are subcategories which are based on the more specific differences among the members of that category.
‘Know how’ is considered a subcategory of ‘know’; at least this is what the syntax of the term says. Therefore, one should first define ‘know’ to be able to use it in a more specific, and at the same time more syntactically complex term. You can invent your own completely new terminology, but as long as you use existing terms, you can’t ignore what they originally meant. As I mentioned before and received no response from you on that account, ‘know’ is a general term which includes at least two subcategories; namely, what can be seen by others, ‘description of a taste’(objective reality), and what can’t be seen by others, ‘the feeling of sweetness’(subjective reality). Now, on the one hand ‘ know how'; is syntactically more specific than ‘know’, and is to be referred to a certain subcategory of ‘know’, and on the other hand, it is meant to discard the already mentioned subcategories, and thus appear more general. As I said, this problem, can of course, be solved, if you adopt a completely new term, like for example, ‘nohau’ , for which you can give any definition you like. But whatever you do , you should make a room for the real difference between what you can describe and what you can’t.

2.
Please clarify what the role of information is, in regard to ‘know how’, in your theory. Don’t you think your ‘know how’ is anything but ‘have information’?

pharaoh wrote:1.
Categorization should be based on what there actually exists in the world, including our own mentality. It is not the case that we can invent a label and then look for the content.

Indeed, that is why we can eliminate the supposed category of KNOWLEDGE OF reducing it all to KNOWLEDGE HOW

You look for similarities, and also differences, to introduce a category, in the first place. Then there are subcategories which are based on the more specific differences among the members of that category.
‘Know how’ is considered a subcategory of ‘know’; at least this is what the syntax of the term says. Therefore, one should first define ‘know’ to be able to use it in a more specific, and at the same time more syntactically complex term.

Except that I contend that all sub-categories of knowledge are in fact Knowledge how to and that therefore since all other categories are eliminated the sub-category Knowing how to becomes the sole category Knowing;' that is to say that all knowing is knowing how to


You can invent your own completely new terminology, but as long as you use existing terms, you can’t ignore what they originally meant.

On the contrary, once a sub-category can be shown to be reduced to another its usefulness is no more and it can be eliminated as has happened often in both philosophy and sceince

As I mentioned before and received no response from you on that account, ‘know’ is a general term which includes at least two subcategories; namely, what can be seen by others, ‘description of a taste’(objective reality), and what can’t be seen by others, ‘the feeling of sweetness’(subjective reality).

I have responded to that, all other sub-categories reduce to Knowledge how to and since there are no longer and other sub-categories that becomes the only category of knowledge

If you consider that I have not covered all aspects of knowledge then kindly cite some counter-factual to my contention

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:As a brain in a bucket I still experience; I may experience knowing how to ride a bike, say food is salty or sweet, etc.

Well, that's the point. You know you are experiencing, the rest is (entirely reasonable) conjecture.
But I agree:

rantal wrote:It matters not

You forgot to answer my second item. i.e.:


"2.
Please clarify what the role of information is, in regard to ‘know how’, in your theory. Don’t you think your ‘know how’ is anything but ‘have information’?"

rantal wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

rantal wrote:What do you mean by, it all depends on context

all the best, rantal

If I am sitting down writing a post. I still know how to ride a bike; I might know of a particular bike. But I would not have to be currently conscious of that. Just like, I bet you know of numbers, and now how to count, but you were not thinking about it until I mentioned it. Nor were you doing this: 1,2,3,4,5... But now you just counted, so not only are you showing you know of arabic numerals, you are also showing that you know how to count.
But your knowledge of them is still internal, without it being active.

Yes,

I know how to write
I know how to differentiate one particular bike from bikes in general
I don't need to be conscious all the time because it is a skill, I only need it when I do
Likewise, I know how to count, that is another skill, like riding a bike, once learnt seldom forgotten
The know how is internal like any skill

So, there is nothing knew in your post

all the best, rantal

I never claimed there to be anything new.
But you asked about context and I told you.
As for the rest of the thread is seem to be descending into bollocks.
I think I feel an unsubscribe coming on.

pharaoh wrote:1.
Categorization should be based on what there actually exists in the world, including our own mentality. It is not the case that we can invent a label and then look for the content.

I would be willing to bet that you are to blame for accepting categories based on invented labels just like everyone else.
Further - i'd ask how would you know when you had a 'natural category', that was not based on some human or social construct.
In fact I'd go further to say that anything you deem 'natural' is based on a temporary contingent set of endemic assumption about the world fully constructed by ideological considerations.

I'm reminded of an intelligence test given to illiterate 'natives' in Africa. They were shown images of a a chisel, a saw, a screwdriver and a lump of wood, and asked which was the odd one out.
Without exception they picked the screwdriver. The anthropologist expected them to pick the lump of wood as that was not a "tool", but they formed a category of 'activity' with wood. A screwdriver cannot be used with the wood.
This example is given to anthropology students to make them un-think their own culturally defined categorical assumptions. The point is to choose the screwdriver is neither wrong nor right, neither is choosing the lump of wood. The point is that categories are founded by cultural experience, they are not natural.

chaz wyman wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

rantal wrote:What do you mean by, it all depends on context

all the best, rantal

If I am sitting down writing a post. I still know how to ride a bike; I might know of a particular bike. But I would not have to be currently conscious of that. Just like, I bet you know of numbers, and now how to count, but you were not thinking about it until I mentioned it. Nor were you doing this: 1,2,3,4,5... But now you just counted, so not only are you showing you know of arabic numerals, you are also showing that you know how to count.
But your knowledge of them is still internal, without it being active.

Yes,

I know how to write
I know how to differentiate one particular bike from bikes in general
I don't need to be conscious all the time because it is a skill, I only need it when I do
Likewise, I know how to count, that is another skill, like riding a bike, once learnt seldom forgotten
The know how is internal like any skill

So, there is nothing knew in your post

all the best, rantal

I never claimed there to be anything new.
But you asked about context and I told you.
As for the rest of the thread is seem to be descending into bollocks.
I think I feel an unsubscribe coming on.[/quote]

Then you have yet to make clear what exactly you imagine context to have to do with this

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:
Then you have yet to make clear what exactly you imagine context to have to do with this

all the best, rantal

You can lead a horse to water.....

chaz wyman wrote:

pharaoh wrote:1.
Categorization should be based on what there actually exists in the world, including our own mentality. It is not the case that we can invent a label and then look for the content.

I would be willing to bet that you are to blame for accepting categories based on invented labels just like everyone else

.

Even on the assumption that I am one of those that you are so bravely are willing to bet, my objection still stands.

Further - i'd ask how would you know when you had a 'natural category', that was not based on some human or social construct.
In fact I'd go further to say that anything you deem 'natural' is based on a temporary contingent set of endemic assumption about the world fully constructed by ideological considerations.

I'm reminded of an intelligence test given to illiterate 'natives' in Africa. They were shown images of a a chisel, a saw, a screwdriver and a lump of wood, and asked which was the odd one out.
Without exception they picked the screwdriver. The anthropologist expected them to pick the lump of wood as that was not a "tool", but they formed a category of 'activity' with wood. A screwdriver cannot be used with the wood.
This example is given to anthropology students to make them un-think their own culturally defined categorical assumptions. The point is to choose the screwdriver is neither wrong nor right, neither is choosing the lump of wood. The point is that categories are founded by cultural experience, they are not natural

.
It is true that categorization is partly dependent on culture, personality, etc. Science's job is to take all those factors into cosideration. People can't go around and speak nonsense and when asked, reply that everything is relative and so on. In your own example, contrary to what you claim, there is indeed a right choice, which was the odd one out; and that was what they picked. Upon inquiry, they presented reasons which were quite sound, on the basis of their own way of thinking. It would quite have been possible that one of them, because of some defect in his mind, would pick the lump of wood; in that case, he was, in fact, doing it the wrong way. If he was questioned why he picked that one, he couldn't present a plausible reason, but if he was familiar with the clever argument you brought up in this thread, and at the same time he was informed what the other sane ones picked, he could resort to the same argument!
There was in fact a right answer in that particular context, and that was the 'screwdriver'. What you haven't taken into account is that, this 'right answer' is only meaningful in the eyes of the observer of the experiment, who is also taking account of the context in which the experiment is taking place.This sort of caculation, by no means, depends on culture and personality of the observer, and could be done with any intelligent computer, if you see what I mean. If you just try to think about 'observation of observation',you come close to what I mean.

rantal wrote:This is now going off topic

all the best, rantal

OK then, this is going to be the third, and if that makes you happy, the last time, I'm asking you this question:

"2.
Please clarify what the role of information is, in regard to ‘know how’, in your theory. Don’t you think your ‘know how’ is anything but ‘have information’?"