Philosophy Now Forum

Who, if not a philosopher, could believe and argue that the maker of an artefact knows it less well than its user? Try that next time your car breaks down and needs to be repaired. Plato was right in stressing the importance of both kinds of knowledge, and he was wrong to argue that the user's knowledge should be preferred to the maker's. (p. 35) -- Luciano Floridi

Starting from this Platonic tradition, philosophers considered knowledge a passive process of discovery, although there were some exceptions (e.g., Francis Bacon). Contrary to the representational view of the world, knowledge is acquired through the creation of the right sort of semantic artefacts; it is "information modelling": "we are the builders of the infosphere we inhabit, Bacon's 'intellectual globe'" (p. 36).

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:30 pm Taken from the linked article:

Starting from this Platonic tradition, philosophers considered knowledge a passive process of discovery, although there were some exceptions (e.g., Francis Bacon). Contrary to the representational view of the world, knowledge is acquired through the creation of the right sort of semantic artefacts; it is "information modelling": "we are the builders of the infosphere we inhabit, Bacon's 'intellectual globe'" (p. 36).

Denoting knowledge as a 'process of passive discovery' and/or 'information modeling' generally captures the problem of philosophy as an enterprise.

Knowledge is immediate, thus not a process (of discovery).


The process of discovery can be observed as a subset of immediate thus necessitating that as we immediately observe knowledge its is discovered time and time again in light of new angles of awareness.

Immediacy does negate the process of discovery if we keep in mind that discovery is the observation of something "new"; this "newness" being ground in the observation of one phenomenon in light of a new context. This new context allows for the phenomenon being new in the respect it is a variation of it's original form.


The latter refers to the use of conscience (disciplined or not) which allows one to arrive at (ie. discover) 'knowledge' which,

Conscience is a binding. By binding I mean the conscience observes unity.
By this I mean one conscience is hurt if one commits an action that causes seperation (ie breaking a diet which is part of one's habit or the breaking of a friendship).

It is sustained by unity as well (ie keeping with a diet put of habit or the keeping of a friendship).


Conscienceness is grounded with the keeping of the truth.

again, is immediate. Modeling information is not knowledge: it would take knowledge to 'know' if/when any model has a limitation(s) that fall short of true 'knowledge' which, if such limitations are overlooked, represents ignorance, rather than knowledge.


All knowledge is definitive by nature, thus the modeling of knowledge is the creation of knowledge.

For example: Newton's Principia Mathematica is an attempt to "model" (ie. explain) the (forces that govern the) physical universe, and contains some validity, but also contains several false propositions to which the "model" collapses.

It is an interpretation, hence definition and therefore knowledge.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is another attempt to "model" the physical universe, and contains some validity, but contains several false suppositions to which it also collapses.

Whereas one may see these "models" as something to do with "knowledge", seeing the limitation(s) of these models tends more towards true "knowledge" as the models can also be seen as dogmatic viz. institutionalized ignorance.

Thus philosophers would do better to understand knowledge as more of a matter of perception that is attained to by way of passive discovery: a point in a circle can be perceived by 360 different degrees, with knowledge being a discovery of the single degree that yields the least obstructed viewpoint. This can only be truly 'known' by assuming each degree of perspective until any/all obstructive perspectives are discarded in favor of the least obstructing. Thus, knowledge relies on disciplined of use of conscience.

Knowledge by way of passive discovery is strictly knowledge as assumed for a passive formless state through which knowledge is imprinted on the psyche differs little from the imprinting of a form on something formless (empty mind). In this respects knowledge is assumed.

The quality of any conscience is invariably reflected in the questions (ie. inquiries) it can form and/or address. Conscience collapses once the focus of any situation is forfeited to "us vs. them" mentalities. This invariably results from people being overly attached to "models" (ie. 'idol worship') adopted as (a part of) their own individual identity, which takes both secular and religious forms: what Jesus and/or Muhammad are to religious "mercy upon mankind" idol worshipers, Newton and/or Einstein are to secular "men of genius" idol worshipers. The same idolatrous pathology exists irrespective of the existence/non-existence of god.

If something as fluid as water tends to flow in the path of least resistance, why should consciousness be any different? It is as Nikola Tesla pointed out: scientists are able to think deeply, but not clearly.

The process of discovery can be observed as a subset of immediate thus necessitating that as we immediately observe knowledge its is (?) discovered time and time again in light of new angles of awareness.

All knowledge is definitive by nature, thus the modeling of knowledge is the creation of knowledge.

It is an interpretation, hence definition and therefore knowledge.

Knowledge by way of passive discovery is strictly knowledge as assumed for a passive formless state through which knowledge is imprinted on the psyche differs little from the imprinting of a form on something formless (empty mind). In this respects knowledge is assumed.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:33 pm

The process of discovery can be observed as a subset of immediate thus necessitating that as we immediately observe knowledge its is (?) discovered time and time again in light of new angles of awareness.

(!)

All knowledge is definitive by nature, thus the modeling of knowledge is the creation of knowledge.

One can no more 'create' knowledge than one can 'destroy' ignorance: the only definitive nature of knowledge is the definite negation of ignorance (ie. ignorance exists, but only encumbers ignorant people lacking knowledge otherwise negating it). It is the same as trying to "get rid of" belief: it is neither practical nor desirable, as belief(s) are the steps needed to be taken to reach the summit. In this way, belief in god is just a "stepping stone".

Knowledge is self created though it's own reciprocal nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3vIkvhBWM

It is an interpretation, hence definition and therefore knowledge.

Recall LORI: 'it is impossible to infer an unknown by way of an unknown.' Implies: it is possible to infer an unknown by way of a known. Knowing the degree(s) to which an interpretation merely holds is knowledge, as it implies knowing the degrees to which it does not.

False I can infer an unknown through an unknown simply by stating there are things I do not know and I am unsure about how much I know.


Interpretations are not knowledge. Definition is merely a local phenomena subject to all limitations of the definer.

False, all knowledge is interpreted by angle of awareness.


Example: Aristotelian identity law A = A is limited to the same local limitation as Aristotle (himself).

A = A (?)
√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A
∴ A ≠ A

Not a whole statement: ((A=A) = (-A=-A)) = (A=-A)

A(ristotle) carries an intrinsic assumption: motionless, and/or without orientation. Might as well be a dead statue (as Aristotle now is).

All variables assume all phenomenon, they are fixed assumptions.

Knowledge by way of passive discovery is strictly knowledge as assumed for a passive formless state through which knowledge is imprinted on the psyche differs little from the imprinting of a form on something formless (empty mind). In this respects knowledge is assumed.

Nonsensical - requires rephrasing.

Knowledge is attainable to if/when ignorance is assumed (tried, tested and falsified).

False, knowledge is still assumed as no fact exists in and of itself due to infinite regress.

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

See above.

Knowledge is self created though it's own reciprocal nature.

False I can infer an unknown through an unknown simply by stating there are things I do not know and I am unsure about how much I know.

False, all knowledge is interpreted by angle of awareness.

All variables assume all phenomenon, they are fixed assumptions.

False, knowledge is still assumed as no fact exists in and of itself due to infinite regress.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:25 am

Knowledge is self created though it's own reciprocal nature.

By trying it's own reciprocal: BELIEF.

Not necessarily considering all beleifs are grounded in knowledge.

False I can infer an unknown through an unknown simply by stating there are things I do not know and I am unsure about how much I know.

lol what?

Reread.

Your simply stating "there are things I do not know and I am unsure about how much I know", without somehow knowing you must first know: there are things you do not know... indicates you clearly don't know what you are talking about, hence LORI holds.

False, all knowledge is interpreted by angle of awareness.

Assumes: "awareness".

Awareness: "assumes".

All variables assume all phenomenon, they are fixed assumptions.

A is not a variable (neither does it assume all phenomenon), on the contrary: it is a fixed assumption.
All assumptions are variables.

False, knowledge is still assumed as no fact exists in and of itself due to infinite regress.

Knowledge is not assumed, it is attained to.

False it is taken as is, thus assumed.

Knowledge-in-and-of-itself exists (CKIIT derives).
"Infinite regress" is not real phenomena - it is a strictly philosophical device used to highlight absurdity.

False it is continually analyzed through the perpetual "now". Infinite regress is proven by the nature of knowledge always being inverted from one state to another by its perpetual assumption through "now".

Not necessarily considering all beleifs (?) are grounded in knowledge.

Reread.

Awareness: "assumes".

All assumptions are variables.

False it is taken as is, thus assumed.

False it is continually analyzed through the perpetual "now". Infinite regress is proven by the nature of knowledge always being inverted from one state to another by its perpetual assumption through "now".

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:17 pm

Not necessarily considering all beleifs (?) are grounded in knowledge.

(!)

All beliefs are grounded in ignorance, not knowledge.

No, I may believe the sun will shine tomorrow because of past knowledge.

Reread.

"I know I do not know..." is a valid knowledge whence to infer.

You don't know what you do not know.

Awareness: "assumes".

All assumptions are variables.

False it is taken as is, thus assumed.

False it is continually analyzed through the perpetual "now". Infinite regress is proven by the nature of knowledge always being inverted from one state to another by its perpetual assumption through "now".

Nonsensical.

Nonsense Fallacy main page.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:01 pm

No, I may believe the sun will shine tomorrow because of past knowledge.

You don't know what you do not know.

Nonsense Fallacy main page.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:18 pm I may know that, unless something unexpected happens, the sun will shine tomorrow
as it has every single day, for as many years as I have been living.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:10 am The distinction between the "expected" and "unexpected" is subjective, and very much based on your past experiences.

For you it would be unexpected if the sun didn't shine tomorrow, but for some people it would be unexpected if it did.

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:53 pm No more or less than any other: it would reflect the same
as if one were to poll all people on the planet asking them
if they expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:53 pm I would thus rationalize that such expectation is irrational

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:53 pm given the sun has never failed so yet regardless of who is inquiring.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:08 pm And I expect such a poll to produce no different a result.

To the question "Will the sun raise tomorrow?" most people on Earth would answer "Yes".
The people who live in the North polar circle (which is currently experiencing a Polar night) the answer would be "No".

And I would rationalize that your rationalization is irrational.

It would be very unexpected if the sun came up during a Polar night...

That's what I am pointing out to you... if the person who is inquiring is somebody who lives in the North polar circle (which is currently undergoing a Polar night) to that person (and all other people who live where they live) the sun is NOT going to come up to morrow.

Your perspective is simply biased because you live somewhere on Earth where the Sun does come up every day. But that's not true EVERYWHERE on Earth.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm The same speaks of nothing beyond as to whether or not there is night and day, as such an arbitrary circle/cycle is adapted to the locale, for the locale, according to how it universally operates.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm Hence, a need for logic that allows the universality of such a phenomena.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm Aristotle's A is unequipped to handle a simple in/out motion less the use of exterior language/symbology: mathematical operators (+) and (-). By building the in/out as a universal and natural motion A requires in order to be A, the problem is circumvented.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm It would be very irrational, thus rationally unexpected, if the sun came up during a Polar night...
...it has its own relative Polar day counter-part.
I neither would expect the sun to come up at 2:00AM in my own locale.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm The day/night duration is adaptable to the region - my perspective is inclusive, not biased.

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:54 pm ...hence the need to reject Aristotle's A = A as it says nothing of the orientation of any body as it may relate to their relationship with the sun, which would be integral to the identity of any A used to describe any such being.