Knowledge as Justified Belief

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.


It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

[Sculptor]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.


It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

Words are collections of letters; salads are collections of lettuce; letters sound like lettuce; your post sounds like word salad.

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.


It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

Words are collections of letters; salads are collections of lettuce; letters sound like lettuce; your post sounds like word salad.

Apparently you are projecting your need for a higher fiber intellectual diet....still waiting for your definition of logic which appears blocked up inside of you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.

It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

To some extent I can agree to the above.
However I disagree the "assumptions" stated within knowledge is primary.

What is primary with knowledge is the Framework or Model the knowledge is justified and abstracted from.
Within any Framework it is necessary to state any assumptions used if needed.

• E.g. scientific knowledge is justified and abstracted from the scientific framework and its model of the Scientific Method with peer review.
  As necessary, whatever assumptions, limitations and other conditions used within the Scientific Method is stipulated.

Whatever knowledge and truths abstracted from specific Framework and Model of Knowledge will have different grades of truth where the confidence level of the truth is dependent on the reliability and consistency of the model.
Example, scientific truths are more reliable than legal truths.
In addition, within the same framework and model of knowledge, there are also different grades of truths, e.g. generally accepted scientific principles [Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM] and unverified theoretical truths.

Often when propositions are claimed and presented, they are often not qualified to the conditions they are in. Such claimants of truth are either lazy, ignorant or psychological desperadoes like theists.

Thus whatever knowledge and truths are claimed and presented, the full conditions, i.e. the framework used, the assumptions, and other conditions must be expressed as well.

[Sculptor]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.


It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

Words are collections of letters; salads are collections of lettuce; letters sound like lettuce; your post sounds like word salad.

Apparently you are projecting your need for a higher fiber intellectual diet....still waiting for your definition of logic which appears blocked up inside of you.

I never promised that.
Look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what it is.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words are collections of letters; salads are collections of lettuce; letters sound like lettuce; your post sounds like word salad.

Apparently you are projecting your need for a higher fiber intellectual diet....still waiting for your definition of logic which appears blocked up inside of you.

I never promised that.
Look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what it is.

I never said you promised that, I said I am waiting for your definition of what logic is (or is not).

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.

It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

To some extent I can agree to the above.
However I disagree the "assumptions" stated within knowledge is primary.

Assumption is imprinting. Imprinting is the reception of form into a new form.
What has form is inverted into another form by what is formless. For example a rock has form. Sand is formless. The rock projects into the sand where the sand receives the form of the rock. The form of the rock imprints into the sand, the form of the rock is repeated through the sand.

The same occurs through the consciousness where what is formless, the subconsciousness, is imprinted through the form of sensory experience or thought.


What is primary with knowledge is the Framework or Model the knowledge is justified and abstracted from.
Within any Framework it is necessary to state any assumptions used if needed.

• E.g. scientific knowledge is justified and abstracted from the scientific framework and its model of the Scientific Method with peer review.
  As necessary, whatever assumptions, limitations and other conditions used within the Scientific Method is stipulated.

Whatever knowledge and truths abstracted from specific Framework and Model of Knowledge will have different grades of truth where the confidence level of the truth is dependent on the reliability and consistency of the model.
Example, scientific truths are more reliable than legal truths.
In addition, within the same framework and model of knowledge, there are also different grades of truths, e.g. generally accepted scientific principles [Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM] and unverified theoretical truths.

Often when propositions are claimed and presented, they are often not qualified to the conditions they are in. Such claimants of truth are either lazy, ignorant or psychological desperadoes like theists.

Thus whatever knowledge and truths are claimed and presented, the full conditions, i.e. the framework used, the assumptions, and other conditions must be expressed as well.

[Sculptor]

Apparently you are projecting your need for a higher fiber intellectual diet....still waiting for your definition of logic which appears blocked up inside of you.

I never promised that.
Look it up in a dictionary if you don't know what it is.

I never said you promised that, I said I am waiting for your definition of what logic is (or is not).

You never asked.
You just said I owe you: I do not.
It's not relevant to what I 've been saying. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief. The nature of belief, through knowledge, is an acceptance of patterns. Knowledge, as the replication of patterns through analysis, is justified belief with this justification being the replication of the very same patterns which form it.

It is through continual justification, under which new patterns arise, that reflects all knowledge as incomplete in light of further patterns deemed necessary for this very same justification. Analysis is pattern creation, pattern creation is knowledge, knowledge is thus dynamic.

It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

To some extent I can agree to the above.
However I disagree the "assumptions" stated within knowledge is primary.

What is primary with knowledge is the Framework or Model the knowledge is justified and abstracted from.
Within any Framework it is necessary to state any assumptions used if needed.

• E.g. scientific knowledge is justified and abstracted from the scientific framework and its model of the Scientific Method with peer review.
  As necessary, whatever assumptions, limitations and other conditions used within the Scientific Method is stipulated.

Whatever knowledge and truths abstracted from specific Framework and Model of Knowledge will have different grades of truth where the confidence level of the truth is dependent on the reliability and consistency of the model.
Example, scientific truths are more reliable than legal truths.
In addition, within the same framework and model of knowledge, there are also different grades of truths, e.g. generally accepted scientific principles [Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM] and unverified theoretical truths.

Often when propositions are claimed and presented, they are often not qualified to the conditions they are in. Such claimants of truth are either lazy, ignorant or psychological desperadoes like theists.

Thus whatever knowledge and truths are claimed and presented, the full conditions, i.e. the framework used, the assumptions, and other conditions must be expressed as well.

Assumption is imprinting. Imprinting is the reception of form into a new form.
What has form is inverted into another form by what is formless. For example a rock has form. Sand is formless. The rock projects into the sand where the sand receives the form of the rock. The form of the rock imprints into the sand, the form of the rock is repeated through the sand.

The same occurs through the consciousness where what is formless, the subconsciousness, is imprinted through the form of sensory experience or thought.

As usual you are always going off tangent from the point.
I talked oranges you deliberately talked apples.

Assumption is not primary to knowledge.
Say if we [both males] want to have knowledge of female behaviors.
I would say,
" assume you are a woman, what would you do in such and such a circumstances?"
You will not the assumption is not primary,
what is primary is the knowledge of female behaviors.

I predict you will go out of point again from the above, i.e. I talk oranges you deliberately talk apples.

[Eodnhoj7]

To some extent I can agree to the above.
However I disagree the "assumptions" stated within knowledge is primary.

What is primary with knowledge is the Framework or Model the knowledge is justified and abstracted from.
Within any Framework it is necessary to state any assumptions used if needed.

• E.g. scientific knowledge is justified and abstracted from the scientific framework and its model of the Scientific Method with peer review.
  As necessary, whatever assumptions, limitations and other conditions used within the Scientific Method is stipulated.

Whatever knowledge and truths abstracted from specific Framework and Model of Knowledge will have different grades of truth where the confidence level of the truth is dependent on the reliability and consistency of the model.
Example, scientific truths are more reliable than legal truths.
In addition, within the same framework and model of knowledge, there are also different grades of truths, e.g. generally accepted scientific principles [Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM] and unverified theoretical truths.

Often when propositions are claimed and presented, they are often not qualified to the conditions they are in. Such claimants of truth are either lazy, ignorant or psychological desperadoes like theists.

Thus whatever knowledge and truths are claimed and presented, the full conditions, i.e. the framework used, the assumptions, and other conditions must be expressed as well.

Assumption is imprinting. Imprinting is the reception of form into a new form.
What has form is inverted into another form by what is formless. For example a rock has form. Sand is formless. The rock projects into the sand where the sand receives the form of the rock. The form of the rock imprints into the sand, the form of the rock is repeated through the sand.

The same occurs through the consciousness where what is formless, the subconsciousness, is imprinted through the form of sensory experience or thought.

As usual you are always going off tangent from the point.
I talked oranges you deliberately talked apples.

Assumption is not primary to knowledge.
Say if we [both males] want to have knowledge of female behaviors.
I would say,
" assume you are a woman, what would you do in such and such a circumstances?"
You will not the assumption is not primary,
what is primary is the knowledge of female behaviors.

I predict you will go out of point again from the above, i.e. I talk oranges you deliberately talk apples.

As usual you are going off tangent again. I began the thread with "The nature of knowledge, as imprinting, is a nature of assumption. Assumption is acceptance and acceptance is belief." Assumption is the imprinting of patterns, thus is foundational in knowledge. When I assume something, I am being imprinted by a thought or empirical experience. Knowledge occurs through a process of imprinting.

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumption is acceptance, acceptance is belief. To disagree with the premise is still to accept the statement as existing and believe the senses are correct in observing it.

Knowledge is a series of connected assumptions, with this connection being the justification which allows for a much larger assumption to exist.

The continual breaking down of one assumption to another is the analysis which results in a series of phenomenon that where at one time connected. Analysis thus leads to a form of justification in these respects where seemingly seperate phenomenon where at one time and still are connected to form a whole.

To deny knowledge as justified belief is to break the argument down into a series of parts which in turn are connected into a series resulting in the very same justified assumptions. To disagree that knowledge is justified belief is to still use the same form of justifications and assumptions which lead to knowledge to begin with.