Philosophy Now Forum

We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

When we cannot produce the answer to a question, to say that we know the answer is a wishful belief. Only when we produce the answer can we honestly say that we know it.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

When we cannot produce the answer to a question, to say that we know the answer is a wishful belief. Only when we produce the answer can we honestly say that we know it.

You didn't get my point.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:38 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

When we cannot produce the answer to a question, to say that we know the answer is a wishful belief. Only when we produce the answer can we honestly say that we know it.

You didn't get my point.

Perhaps the title of the thread was where I should have looked before mouthing off. Would you care to clarify what your point is?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

Watch the stillness from which thought arises. Witness each one.

The thinking mind isn't in control of anything. It just thinks it is. The best it can do is describe what is happening.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:38 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:28 pm

When we cannot produce the answer to a question, to say that we know the answer is a wishful belief. Only when we produce the answer can we honestly say that we know it.

You didn't get my point.

Perhaps the title of the thread was where I should have looked before mouthing off. Would you care to clarify what your point is?

Suppose that I ask you whether you know which day is tomorrow. You answer yes. I then ask you which day it is. You answer Monday for example. As you see you know the answer to the first question before you retrieve the answer from your collective memory. You retrieve the answer to the second question after I ask it. So there are two steps in here: 1) The knowledge that you know the answer and 2) Retieriving the answer. I am wondering how we could possibly have the knowledge that we know the answer before retrieving the answer.

roydop wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

Watch the stillness from which thought arises. Witness each one.

The thinking mind isn't in control of anything. It just thinks it is. The best it can do is describe what is happening.

I think that is the mind that constructs thought from collective memory. I can choose whether I should think on this subject or another. That is the duty of mind too. Thoughts sometimes pop up into my awareness. These sort of thoughts cannot come from nothingness. Therefore, they come from other minds.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

It's not that we "do" anything - it's just the opposite, it would take "doing" something for it to be any other way.

For a person to (lie about) something, they have to either construct it, or "retrieve" it from somewhere (including the mind).
For a person to (speak) the truth, they don't have to "retrieve" anything - it is already present (ie. in/as one's own temperance).

Replace (lie about) with (believe in).
Replace (speak) with (know).

True knowledge is always immediate - it is the absence of any/all obstacles otherwise making it 'unknown' and/or 'absent'.

If one assumes that the default 'state' is all-knowing, belief-based ignorance is a gradation therefrom. Thus, to clarify/resolve any/all belief-based ignorance is to approach the same state of all-knowing. If one knows one knows not, the same is immediate. It would take a believer to believe they know something they know not - hence, human ignorance wherein belief takes the place of knowledge. Thus, being no longer immediate, temperance is compromised and such people are likely to break-down if/when their "beliefs" are undermined (if even by true knowledge).

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

It's not that we "do" anything - it's just the opposite, it would take "doing" something for it to be any other way.

For a person to (lie about) something, they have to either construct it, or "retrieve" it from somewhere (including the mind).
For a person to (speak) the truth, they don't have to "retrieve" anything - it is already present (ie. in/as one's own temperance).

Replace (lie about) with (believe in).
Replace (speak) with (know).

True knowledge is always immediate - it is the absence of any/all obstacles otherwise making it 'unknown' and/or 'absent'.

If one assumes that the default 'state' is all-knowing, belief-based ignorance is a gradation therefrom. Thus, to clarify/resolve any/all belief-based ignorance is to approach the same state of all-knowing. If one knows one knows not, the same is immediate. It would take a believer to believe they know something they know not - hence, human ignorance wherein belief takes the place of knowledge. Thus, being no longer immediate, temperance is compromised and such people are likely to break-down if/when their "beliefs" are undermined (if even by true knowledge).

I don't understand how what you said is related to our discussion.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

It’s the other way around. First we find the answer in memory, or create the answer either emperically or rationally, then we know that we know the answer. Likewise, if we cannot find or create an answer, we know that we don’t know the answer.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:12 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:14 pm We are all been in a situation when we are asked a question. We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

It’s the other way around. First we find the answer in memory, or create the answer either emperically or rationally, then we know that we know the answer. Likewise, if we cannot find or create an answer, we know that we don’t know the answer.

That is the first step. We then might be asked whether we know the answer to a question. We first can answer yes or no without retrieving the answer from our collective memory. My question is how we can do that.

if knowledge is nothing but linguistic agreement, perhaps we can find it...

I don't think that suffices, but I don't know...

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:32 pm I don't understand how what you said is related to our discussion.

You asked the question:

We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

We know we know the answer to the question because there is a lack of needing to do anything. Addresses: "how do we do that?"

We do not "do" anything when knowledge is present. It's already there (hence: immediate). The point was: it would take doing something to indicate not knowing (ie. to make things up) and thus provided the example of a person who lies (ie. requires either making something up or retrieving an existing fabrication) whereas a person who tells the truth requires doing nothing but relaying.

I'm myself confused as to how the question in the topic "How do we know that we know and how do we know that we don't know?" even relates to the post, as it is not immediately obvious they are even related to one another.

Is there another/better way to frame the problem/question?

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:12 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:32 pm I don't understand how what you said is related to our discussion.

You asked the question:

We know that we know the answer to the question even before we retrieve the answer from our collective memory. How do we do that?

We know we know the answer to the question because there is a lack of needing to do anything. Addresses: "how do we do that?"

We do not "do" anything when knowledge is present. It's already there (hence: immediate). The point was: it would take doing something to indicate not knowing (ie. to make things up) and thus provided the example of a person who lies (ie. requires either making something up or retrieving a existing fabrication) and a person who tells the truth (ie. requires doing nothing but relaying).

I'm myself confused as to how the question in the topic "How do we know that we know and how do we know that we don't know?" even relates to the post, as it is not immediately obvious they are even related to one another.

Is there another/better way to frame the problem/question?

Let me illustrate it further. Suppose that you know the answer to a question, you learn it, you found or experience it yourself. I ask you whether you know the answer without requesting the answer. You reflect on the question and tell me that you know the answer to that question without retrieving the answer. I then ask what is the answer. You then reflect and retrieve the answer from your collective memory. So there are two steps here: 1) The knowledge that you know the answer even when the answer is not present in your conscious mind and 2) The appearance of the answer in your conscious mind. I am wondering about the first step. How could we know that we know the answer even when the answer is not present to us?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:24 pm Let me illustrate it further. Suppose that you know the answer to a question, you learn it, you found or experience it yourself. I ask you whether you know the answer without requesting the answer. You reflect on the question and tell me that you know the answer to that question without retrieving the answer. I then ask what is the answer. You then reflect and retrieve the answer from your collective memory. So there are two steps here: 1) The knowledge that you know the answer even when the answer is not present in your conscious mind and 2) The appearance of the answer in your conscious mind. I am wondering about the first step. How could we know that we know the answer even when the answer is not present to us?

Understood - admittedly I did get a very different impression from the OP.

I will think about this for some time and return.

(after ~20 minutes)



Energy, frequency and vibration all imply resonance. If I am asked a question I know the answer to, I know prior to retrieving the answer based on the (particular) question having a certain familiar vibrancy which naturally resonates with (what I denote for finding no suitable equivalent) one's own body of knowledge. A sudden familiarity is aroused thus with immediacy, indicating the first ascertainable knowledge needing no further consideration beyond a simple 'yay' or 'nay'.

As a crude example: if numbers were each their own harmonic such that odd numbers represented a 'body of ignorance' and even numbers represented a 'body of knowledge', questions pertaining to even numbers would invariably resonate, whereas odd-numbered questions would not resonate. The same would be questions asked to a being who either readily know (due to having already attained to the same), or know not (due to a practical ignorance of the same): in any case, it is a matter of resonance (or lack thereof) due to the presence/absence of the concerned knowledge excited by the question.

Intuition, if/when viewed in this kind of way, is like a sudden internal resonance (ie. "flash") due to some kind of stimuli: be it a question(s) one is pondering, or the occurrence of some otherwise arbitrary event (such as an apple falling on one's head). If one retries the two-person dichotomy from your example and simplifies it to a single being practicing question-and-answer, sparking intuition in such a scenario is simply a matter of asking the right question such to generate the same "flash".

Perhaps there is a practical potency behind the simple expression "seek, and ye shall find" if/when taken as: "ask/inquire, and it will come".