Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:
Anyway, where does the part that I knew something that I didn't know enter into this? I make an assessment of beauty in each case--I know that when it occurs. So where is the unknown (known) part?

No you do not. Your values of beauty are already in place before you saw these images. You made no assessment, you reacted. So the phenomenon - the mental activity was preconscious. And in fact most of what we do is of that nature.

??? Making the assessment is having the mental content "(I find this) attractive" for example. That's a conscious phenomenon when it happens.

I think you need to think this one through a bit - as I think you will find the idea useful and truthful.

creativesoul wrote:Unknown knowns is also a contradiction in terms. Incoherent. Just as known unknowns for much the same reasons...

No it is not; no more than know unknowns.

For nearly all mental activities are based on standardized responses that we rarely have to time to unpack or assess. For a psychologists point of view it is exactly the unpacking of those ideas which underlie those responses that is at the heart of psychoanalysis; mindfulness, and behavioural cognitive therapy.

creativesoul wrote:Unknown knowns is also a contradiction in terms. Incoherent. Just as known unknowns for much the same reasons...

Yeah, I don't buy the idea of unknown knowns, because with respect to what it means to know something, I don't agree that would make sense to say that we don't know that we know the thing in question.

Folks might use something forgotten as an example, but I'd say that insofar as one has forgotten something, one doesn't know it. One might be able to recall it later, but I wouldn't say that an ability or disposition to recall something at time T2 counts as knowing it at T1. It counts as knowing it at T2, of course, but then it's present to consciousness, and it's simply known, not unknown.

That's not to suggest that I do not believe that memories are stored in our brains, but I do not believe that they're anything like mental content when they're not memories present to consciousness. For example, think of sheet music compared to a musical performance of it. Those marks on paper are not themselves a musical performance. They just store information that can be turned into a musical performance.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you need to think this one through a bit - as I think you will find the idea useful and truthful.

Maybe you're getting at the fact that we have dispositions, such as preference dispositions? The thing is that I wouldn't call those, as something unconscious, knowledge or something known.

I see dispositions like this: there are rivers, creeks, etc. that do not flow at all times. When they do not flow, they are sometimes called washes. Washes are ground contours that determine where/how the river will flow when there's enough water for it to flow. Well, dispositions are like washes, and consciousness and mental phenomena in genera are like a river. The wash isn't itself a river. It's just depressions/contours, etc. of dirt, rock, etc. Flowing water is required for it to be a river. And there's no flowing water when it's just a wash.

So the river isn't just arbitrary, but a wash isn't a river, either.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you need to think this one through a bit - as I think you will find the idea useful and truthful.

Maybe you're getting at the fact that we have dispositions, such as preference dispositions? The thing is that I wouldn't call those, as something unconscious, knowledge or something known.

I see dispositions like this: there are rivers, creeks, etc. that do not flow at all times. When they do not flow, they are sometimes called washes (and maybe they're always called washes--I don't know whether that's the case). Washes are ground contours that determine where/how the river will flow when there's enough water for it to flow (and as long as there's not too much water for the wash to contain). Well, dispositions are like washes, and consciousness and mental phenomena in general are like a river. The wash isn't itself a river. It's just depressions/contours, etc. of dirt, rock, etc. Flowing water is required for it to be a river. And there's no flowing water when it's just a wash.

So the river isn't just arbitrary, but a wash isn't a river, either.

duplicate

triplicate

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you need to think this one through a bit - as I think you will find the idea useful and truthful.

Maybe you're getting at the fact that we have dispositions, such as preference dispositions? The thing is that I wouldn't call those, as something unconscious, knowledge or something known.

I see dispositions like this: there are rivers, creeks, etc. that do not flow at all times. When they do not flow, they are sometimes called washes. Washes are ground contours that determine where/how the river will flow when there's enough water for it to flow. Well, dispositions are like washes, and consciousness and mental phenomena in genera are like a river. The wash isn't itself a river. It's just depressions/contours, etc. of dirt, rock, etc. Flowing water is required for it to be a river. And there's no flowing water when it's just a wash.

So the river isn't just arbitrary, but a wash isn't a river, either.

You area trying to change the goalpost and still failing.

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
One can not provide another with the answers to what is already unconsciously known

Is it actually logically or physically possible for something which is unconscious to be known
given that to possess knowledge of something would require conscious understanding of it?

What I am referring to is instinctive knowing.

We, human beings, like maybe all the other animals are driven/guided by some intrinsic knowledge, which most are not fully conscious nor aware of yet. There are some things that are just instinctively unconsciously known that control us to do or not do some things.

surreptitious57 wrote: The notion of unconscious knowledge would therefore be rather oxymoronic would it not?

On first glance yes it appears that way, but a deeper introspection shows otherwise.

Even the knowledge of a 'self' existing is consciously known, but what that actually self is is, by most people, still unconsciously unknown. Only when the question Who am 'I'? is answered, then this unknown known will be self-explained.

Instinctively we know who/what we are but unfortunately of how the brain works, the brain can only "know" what has been fed into it. So unless we come to a realization by ourself of what we know intrinsically, e.g., things like who we are and/or what is actually right and wrong, then a person has to wait until this knowledge is consciously taught to them.

surreptitious57 wrote:[
The distinction between knowing that there are unknowns and not knowing a known unknown is superfluous. Because
the knowing pertains to knowing we do not know. Not to what the unknown actually is. Otherwise it would be known

You miss the simple point. Of course it is not known. Thus, it is not a known unknown.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Unknown knowns is also a contradiction in terms. Incoherent. Just as known unknowns for much the same reasons...

No it is not; no more than know unknowns.

Yes it is, as is known unknowns. Something cannot be both known and unknown at the same time given the same creature capable of knowing. As already argued for without subsequent refutation, when one talks about a 'known unknown' s/he is talking about two different things. One is known. One is not. Unknowns are entirely incapable of being known. An example of an unknown will not be known... by definition alone. Coherency matters.

For nearly all mental activities are based on standardized responses that we rarely have to time to unpack or assess.

Relevance please?

It does not follow from this that there are known unknowns, or that there are unknown knowns.

For a psychologists point of view it is exactly the unpacking of those ideas which underlie those responses that is at the heart of psychoanalysis; mindfulness, and behavioural cognitive therapy.

How do you get from there to... there are known unknowns?

creativesoul wrote:

ken wrote:...because of the way you write you appear to actually believe the contrary of what you are asking for here, so there would be no thing whatsoever that I could supply you with here that would count as evidence to you.

Your strongly held belief that there are no unconscious mental phenomena will not allow you to see any evidence to the contrary. That is just a sad fact about beliefs and believing in them...

Do you not believe what you just wrote?

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I just have a view, which may or may not be true, right, and/or correct.

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Unknown knowns is also a contradiction in terms. Incoherent. Just as known unknowns for much the same reasons...

No it is not; no more than know unknowns.

Yes it is, as is known unknowns. Something cannot be both known and unknown at the same time given the same creature capable of knowing. As already argued for without subsequent refutation, when one talks about a 'known unknown' s/he is talking about two different things. One is known. One is not. Unknowns are entirely incapable of being known. An example of an unknown will not be known... by definition alone. Coherency matters.

If coherency matters, then I suggest you try to understand it before you dismiss it.

Terrapin Station wrote:

ken wrote:If and when you do come to uncover by yourself for example what is actually right and wrong in Life,

I don't think there's anything "actually" right and wrong, by the way.

That is fine. You are free to choose to think that, and that thought is your preference. I just prefer to think the opposite.

Terrapin Station wrote:I think that's simply an issue of individuals having preferences about interpersonal behavior.

Do you think it could be possible that if all individuals coincidentally had the exact same preference about interpersonal behavior, then that commonly held shared preference could have come from an inner unconscious knowing of what is actually right and wrong?

Like an instinctual knowing?

If that could be possible, then could that commonly shared, yet to be fully recognized and fully understood, knowledge in any way be an 'unknown' known? 'Unknown' as in unconsciously known.

If that could be possible, then could that underlying within us all unconsciously known knowledge of right and wrong, not come to light until it is revealed to us individually?

I ask these questions of possibility in order to gain the perspective of where you are coming from, so that I can learn how to express and explain better so that you are able to see and understand what it is that I am trying to say.

Terrapin Station wrote:

why we all think and do what we do,

"Because that's the way each person's brain works" ultimately.

How exactly does each "person's" brain work?

Terrapin Station wrote:

and/or what is needed compared to what is just wanted,

In my view, needs always hinge on wants.

How do you propose needs always hinge on wants?

Any examples?

Terrapin Station wrote:

which shows why you/we are greedy,

I gave my view on that in the recent thread on it.

In summary what is your view?

Terrapin Station wrote:

and you also come to the realization that every other person could be in total agreement with you,

I think that's logically possible but it's obviously not contingently the case.

As long as you can see that it is logically possible is all that matters here. If it is contingent or not does not matter at all.

Terrapin Station wrote:

then you will KNOW how and why you always already (unconsciously) knew what is that you now do not yet (consciously) know.

So I guess that just won't make sense to me. :-p

Obviously it does not make sense to you now, but why will it not make sense to you at some future point?

By definition if you do come to a 'realization', then it has made sense. How could it not make sense at that point of 'realization'?

To you could there never be a possibility that for as long as that brain is producing thoughts you could never come across seemingly relatively "new" knowledge, which could also produce a similar realization as, "I already knew that" or "I have always known that"?

Terrapin Station wrote:(Also, I'm already in my 50s for what it's worth.)

Are any or all of your views above open to anything else or are they more or less fixed in the way that they are written?

creativesoul wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

creativesoul wrote: Rather, one knows that there are unknowns

Exactly. It's just another way of saying that.

You see that that is not a known unknown, right? We can know that there are things that we do not know. That which we do not know is unknown. We can know that there are unknowns. We cannot know an unknown. Thus, there is no such thing as a known unknown. It's a very sloppy and misleading(intentional in some cases) way to talk.

Any examples of the intended misleading cases? This may be interesting to see.

I totally understand what you are saying here, as well as what the others are saying also, it just depends on how we want to look at it, objectively or subjectively.

What you are now questioning is not if known unknowns and/or unknown knowns exist, but if we can know an unknown and/or not know a known. Adding the words 'an' and 'a' in between known and unknown changes what is being questioned and how we are actually looking at this.

Could it just be the case that from an objective viewpoint there are unknown knowns, and, known unknowns, so what others are getting at is right, but also from a subjective viewpoint you are right that an individual "cannot" know an unknown and not know an unknown known?

Also, if we want to look at sloppy or misleading writing, then we have to look at everything. Is "We cannot know an unknown" absolutely meticulous and not a misleading way at all to talk?

What is more truthful? "We cannot know an unknown" or "We may not yet know an unknown"?

Although we may not yet know an unknown, at a certain point in time, we can still learn and thus know an unknown, in the future. Therefore, we can know an unknown (in the future). Maybe to rid ourselves completely of any misleading or sloppiness in the way we talk we have to use the most accurate of language.

By the way, if some thing is known to you but is unknown to Me and we both know this, then is there any way that could be a known unknown to you and an unknown known to Me?