Epistemology - Truth, Knowledge, Belief

This thread is a continuation of recent discussions....However, it will be open to anyone wishing to respond.

Epistemology is defined as the investigation into the nature of "knowledge". Hence, "knowledge" will be the primary discussion point within this thread.
However, at some point I'm assuming it will digress back to the original discussion points at which point I'll probably be forced to either A) start a new thread or B) resume recent discussions on previous thread....

So....
First discussion points:

What constitutes "knowledge"?
What constitutes a "belief"?
How do we obtain "knowledge" and would that be a priori or a posteriori?
Is "knowledge" even possible?
Can "knowledge" be certain?
Can "belief" be derived from "knowledge"?
and finally
What is the criteria for "reasonable belief"?

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


The lance which Santa Claus holds when he rides his lucky unicorn is something I can describe in great detail. In my minds eye, I am zooming in to the place where it flares out protectively, in a bell shape, the grip coming from the inside of the bell. On this part of the lance, there is a silver coating, decorated with mistletoe inlays. Very pretty.

Of course it doesn't exist outside of my mind. So is that knowledge? Sure it is.

The hard question for me is ontology, what is true knowledge, what does that mean. True knowledge has a consistency with experience, that's all I can say about it.

Anyway, those are my two cents on this thread.

Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

The lance which Santa Claus holds when he rides his lucky unicorn is something I can describe in great detail. In my minds eye, I am zooming in to the place where it flares out protectively, in a bell shape, the grip coming from the inside of the bell. On this part of the lance, there is a silver coating, decorated with mistletoe inlays. Very pretty.

Of course it doesn't exist outside of my mind. So is that knowledge? Sure it is.

The hard question for me is ontology, what is true knowledge, what does that mean. True knowledge has a consistency with experience, that's all I can say about it.

Anyway, those are my two cents on this thread.

Interesting take on the matter. I can't really say much about Santa's lance but I will speak briefly about "true knowledge".....and what I will say may or may not surprise you.

I personally don't believe "true knowledge" exists, minus a few exceptions such as mathematics(which, whether or not is considered "knowledge" is a whole different story) but....as for observational "true knowledge" and the like....it would require an absolute set of data...which we could never possibly acquire...That is to say, if were to say that the Sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the west, we would need an absolute set of data, or in other words, we would have to observe the Sun for an infinite amount of time......

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


What constitutes "knowledge"?

---Remembering

What constitutes a "belief"?

---Metacognition, but you cannot know what you know until you have experienced it from a higher rung of the ladder.

How do we obtain "knowledge" and would that be a priori or a posteriori?

---All knowledge is rediscovered. There are octaves to climb. Each time you reach Do, you unify the lower seven aspects of the previous scale steps, but knowledge of music theory is understanding of the law. Higher axioms unify lower in sets of seven. Knowledge is not found, it's rediscovered. Knowledge is seeing and hearing, but wisdom orchestrates the symphony. Wisdom is doing. The best way to obtain knowledge is to find the wisdom of each step. Higher axioms can then unify lower. Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

Is "knowledge" even possible?

---Only by looking down from higher axioms with understanding.

Can "knowledge" be certain?

---Lower axioms cause perceived contradictions, but only because of missing higher axioms. A train engineer and a friend argue over the fact of the train whistle changing pitch. The Engineer says it does not change pitch. The friend hears it go by each day and he says it changes. Knowledge of the Doppler Effect unifies the contradictions. If you can unify previous contradiction and paradox, then you can be certain you have risen in the harmony.

Can "belief" be derived from "knowledge"?

---Belief is assurance of a hope that can be demonstrated as evident. What do you hope for and what is most evident? Wisdom unifies lower indeterminate states from multiplicity to unity. What are you determined to do and is it working toward unity or flowing away? Centripetal and centrifugal force is applied to all of us equally. Find the mean.

and finally
What is the criteria for "reasonable belief"?

---Belief is founded on truth and what is most evident. You get from the beginning to the end in the water and rise to new life from the old.

Truth is Aleph, Mem, Tav. Once there are no contradictions or paradoxes, you have arrived at the end. The highest axiom is Love. Knowledge is merely knowing the law. The law starts with love and is there to govern the thief. Love others and you can never be a thief. You have overcome the law, which is wisdom of the highest order. Be sure, there are always higher axioms. Knowledge is not necessary to know the wisdom of love. As a matter of fact, it gets in the way if it engages pride. Why?

All elements have electrons, neutrons and protons. Hydrogen starts out with one proton and one electron, positive and negative in balance. The neutral is with the proton in the nucleus. These are the three aspects comprising the foundation of all natural law. Active, Passive and Neutral action will describe most minds seeking or ignoring Truth. Finding the mean in the middle is the path and way to wisdom. Don't be the electron. Find the middle. Wisdom brings repose. Knowledge is the journey. Remember what you previously knew.

You are baptized into the material world to rise to new life. Suffering is the central point of life. You cannot give a gift unless you earn it (Suffer first). The thief will suffer debt from what he takes. Which suffering brings reward? Which suffering is the result of taking reward?

Look up 'bread of shame'.

God's Instructional Design

Truth is pre-existent and comprises all knowledge and wisdom (Application of law).

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

IMO- Knowledge is the body of information agreed upon by a given society as "Truth" whereas Belief is information which individuals deem to be "Truth."

Truth is in quotation marks b/c it is in the mind of the beholder, varies, and is subject to change.

Examples: The world is flat. The world is round. The world is flat again. (Yes, the "Flat Earth" belief is alive and well in some people's minds!) Also, Hollow Earth vs. solid spinning core. You get the idea.

Related: Winston S. Churchill - "History is written by the victors." This is just so true!!! (Although I think a slight tweaking would be even better: "History is written by those in power who control the flow of information.")

reply to post by EnochWasRight


K, I like your take on this. Cool read.

ETA: Also reminded me of an epiphany I had regarding the words "understand" "knowledge" and "remember"...
You understand knowledge when you "stand under" the "know-ledge" of the universe. Then you "re-member" with it.

Fun word play, that!

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

The lance which Santa Claus holds when he rides his lucky unicorn is something I can describe in great detail. In my minds eye, I am zooming in to the place where it flares out protectively, in a bell shape, the grip coming from the inside of the bell. On this part of the lance, there is a silver coating, decorated with mistletoe inlays. Very pretty. (snip)

(snip)
I personally don't believe "true knowledge" exists, minus a few exceptions such as mathematics(which, whether or not is considered "knowledge" is a whole different story) but....as for observational "true knowledge" and the like....it would require an absolute set of data...which we could never possibly acquire...That is to say, if were to say that the Sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the west, we would need an absolute set of data, or in other words, we would have to observe the Sun for an infinite amount of time......

A2D

Okay, well here's a basic question: Let's say you could visualize Santa's lance from my description, really well. In fact maybe you came up with some parts of it, and after describing them to me, I visualized them really well, and our two visualizations matched. Is Santa's lance then real, now that it exists in the minds of two people?

reply to post by tridentblue


It's really a tough answer for me....Part of me wants to say yes and part wants to say no

The imagination is the mind functioning on a non-local quantum level....and when we imagine something, whatever it may be, it seems to take us into a completely different reality than our current physical one....so, yes in a way....
But when we imagine ourselves dancing, singing, walking, etc etc.....the brain actually reacts as if you were actually doing it....but you AREN'T actually doing it......so, no, not really......

It's 12:30 at night here so I will definately come stop back in tomorrow with (hopefully) some additional insight.....Good question though...it'll probably keep me awake for another hour or two...

A2D

Continuing from a previous discussion, for which this thread was made:

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Then I invite you to start a thread. If you choose not to, and also choose to terminate this discussion, I will respect that. In closing however, I would like to point out that you are the one who claimed that your belief constitutes as knowledge, or serves as a precursor to such inevitable knowledge. This was in response to my questioning your credibility in making any sort of authoritative statement regarding cosmic powers and their responsibilities. If I misunderstood your claims, then I apologize.

edit on 4-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Yes, I know what has been said

However I did not state I was an expert! I simply stated that beliefs are derived from knowledge....now what knowledge actually IS, is a completely different topic....Hence the new thread....and why I think we may have a misunderstanding and ultimately come to disagreement.....

Not all beliefs are derived from knowledge. But what knowledge are your beliefs derived from, and how do you come by this knowledge?

What constitutes "knowledge"?
What constitutes a "belief"?
How do we obtain "knowledge" and would that be a priori or a posteriori?
Is "knowledge" even possible?
Can "knowledge" be certain?
Can "belief" be derived from "knowledge"?
and finally
What is the criteria for "reasonable belief"?

What reason do you have to believe? And no, I'm not wasting my time with the rest of your silly questions.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Why even join the discussion if you're not willing to participate? Why should I answer any of your questions if you completely refuse to answer any of mine. Debates and discussions are two-sided....This is not an interrogation....So can we atleast agree to the arrangement and have a two sided discussion?

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Answer my question and answer your own questions and we'll work from there. I want to know what your answers to your questions are. And maybe one of us can google these questions as well, maybe find an expert opinion.

My reluctance is due to my forseeing a tedious debate centering around useless squabbles over etymology and epistemology. I fear it will be a rehash of the discussion we just left in the other thread.

Knowledge = information gained from the five senses which allows a living creature to purposely move, or act, or consider action or state of being in a purposeful way.

Belief = an idea regarding any state of being or possible results of proposed action--for which enough knowledge has been accumulated for a reasonable guess, but not enough to have a undeniable(or nearly so) surety of the absolute condition or absolute result of proposed action.

Dogma = imposed beliefs with threats of punishment.

Reasonable Belief = As belief above, but for which few or no demonstrable inconsistencies have been demonstrated.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


As I stated, understanding our particular views concerning epistemology is key in understanding why we come to disagreement. It's not going to be a useless squabble for nothing....It's actually very useful information and WILL go back to the original discussion....but without having even a simple definition of what you consider knowledge or how it is obtained or even whether a belief in deity is REASONABLE(and what actually constitutes reasonable belief) then we're left with nothing to even discuss....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Knowledge is that which is held to be true without speculation or interpretation.

knowledge is determined through repeatable self inclusive processes which eliminates assumption and external influence or interpretation which compromises the objective value of the results found therein.

the above definitions are a rough estimate of my understanding.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Very reasonable explanations...

Question:
Do you think human beings can be born with innate knowlege, that is knowledge that is NOT derived from experience.....and if so, how does that affect what you define as knowledge? How does it affect how knowledge can be obtained? And....would this open the door for indemonstrable knowledge, or knowledge that one can't prove or explain how they have it?

(The blue brain project has shown that neurons can make connections within the brain independently of the subject's experience.

The researchers were able to demonstrate that small clusters of pyramidal neurons in the neocortex interconnect according to a set of immutable and relatively simple rules.......
These clusters contain an estimated fifty neurons, on average. The scientists look at them as essential building blocks, which contain in themselves a kind of fundamental, innate knowledge – for example, representations of certain simple workings of the physical world. Acquired knowledge, such as memory, would involve combining these elementary building blocks at a higher level of the system. “This could explain why we all share similar perceptions of physical reality, while our memories reflect our individual experience”, explains Markram.

Source

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Knowledge is that which is held to be true without speculation or interpretation.

knowledge is determined through repeatable self inclusive processes which eliminates assumption and external influence or interpretation which compromises the objective value of the results found therein.

the above definitions are a rough estimate of my understanding.

Thank you for working with me. I respect that.

Not all beliefs are derived from knowledge. But what knowledge are your beliefs derived from, and how do you come by this knowledge?

I don't agree with the first point, but we won't get into that.
My beliefs are derived from several sources of knowledge, almost none of which fit your definition. This is key in understanding why we come to disagreement, as many people do. Not even people of the same ideologies can often agree on a complete set of beliefs....

My beliefs are the conclusions I have come to after inference and revelation. The physical universe, human nature, human culture, human history...all these bear evidence for my belief system....
Also, philosophical and scientific reasoning has stripped many of the "branches" off my personal belief system....
and personal revelation....

I think the very central point of my belief, is my reasoning for the existence of the Universe....Don't know of any other options but I see 3 choices for existence....
1)The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2)The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3)The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.

I examined these choices carefully. The first option is not supported by either the big bang theory nor does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second and third options were a little less easy to eliminate. However, the third, to me atleast, seems more reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible for it to come to existence with no cause, just less likely than actually having a cause....What this cause is....Is what I initially called God...

The term "God" has come to mean several different things to me...most of which don't closely resemble what most of today's "Christians" call God, but that is a moot point.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


it seems to me that your understanding differs from mine because the world means something different to you because reality mean something different to you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well it's not exactly rational to think any given pair of individuals would have the same perception of reality. This is clearly demonstrated by viewing how the "general" view or model of reality has changed over time....

As Stephen Hawking put it - "There seems to be no single mathematical model or theory that can describe every aspect of the universe. Instead, there seems to be the network of theories, With each theory or model, our concepts of reality and of the fundamental constituents of the universe have changed."

As a side note on perception of reality...even things such as depression(depression can cause an individual to perceive colors differently than than those who are not depressed) can have an effect on our view of reality.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


You never explained your understanding of knowledge and belief and reasonable belief and how one obtains them?