GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=C Elegans], <snip>
EDIT: Oh, I just saw Xandax has replied with 1/10 as many words as I Why can't I keep myself short? *sigh* [/QUOTE]
We like to read your posts.. Too bad there's no voice to read along in our head.

PS> Any luck with that PM thing? Mine are on and I received one from someone else last night after I left.

Theory of Knowledge is a subject I've been taking for two years now, and it deals exclusively with the question you are asking, Ekental. Compulsory part of the IB, as a matter of fact - that's why I previously asked you if you were taking the that course- repeating the same things you will find in your book will probably not be very enlightening

However as you haven't replied yet, I find the topic interesting and for once have something to contribute ( ), I'll chime in anyway.

"So what exactly is knowledge?"
Short answer: Knowledge is belief that is both true and justified.

Long answer: Obviously, knowledge is not equivalent to belief. Even if I believe the sky is pink, I can't say I know the sky is pink, because the sky is not pink. It is blue. To know something I must believe it and it must be true. But those two are not enough. A blind man who's never been told the sky is blue and has never seen the sky cannot know it is blue, even if he believes it. To give another example, if I haven't seen John for a long time, but believe he is well (which as a matter of fact he is) I wouldn't know he is well.

The above definition of knowledge was first developed by Plato, IIRC. However, it leaves two large gaps. If knowledge needs to be both true and justified, we must know what truth and justification are.
Truth has three characteristics.

1. It is public:
   --If a is true, it is true for anyone, anywhere.
   --If a is false, it is false for everyone, everywhere.
2. It is independant of anyone's beliefs
   --a may be false even if everyone believes it to be true. And vice versa.
3. It is eternal
   --If a is true, it is true until the end of time. And possibly beyond.

Strictly speaking, the only place where truth and subsequently knowledge exists is mathematics, because it is a closed system built entirely on definitions and deductions based on those definitions. It is completely abstract and in theory, an alien civilisation in an alien universe should be able to come up with the exact same mathematical equations as us. Consider Euler's equation:
e^(iπ) + 1 = 0
e is related to the integral of 1/x on a flat plane. It doesn't exist in real life. i is the square root of -1. You can't get any more abstract than that. π is a the the ratio of the circumference to the diameter. A circle itself is an abstract concept, and so is π.
Natural sciences come close to truth, but they never quite reach it. The scientific method is, as CE previously said, is the best method for collecting knowledge in an open system (i.e. in a system not defined by humans), but the closest to truth you can get is having a theory which has not yet been proven wrong. To quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove a theory to be correct; a single experiment can prove it to be false".
Moving further away from absolute truth, there come the social sciences. Truth, or anything resembling it is very hard to find within them, but there is a general consensus. Different economists will give you very different explanations of events based on their own leanings
The areas of ethics and aesthetics are on the furthest end of the truth spectrum, if I can call it that. Looking back at the definition of truth, they fail on all three points. The truth is not public, what is ethical or aesthetical at one place is not so in another. Both are highly subjective, and are subordinate to the whims of time.

I could also go into the pragmatic, coherence, and correspondence theories of truth if anyone is interested, but I think I'll stop at the moment. I also didn't cover the second part of what makes a belief apart from it being true (i.e. it being justified using the ways of knowing - reason, emotion, perception, language), but that would make for another long-ish post, and I don't have the time/energy at the moment.

To conclude, knowledge, in its purest form, does not exist outside of closed systems such as mathematics.

The sky is pink sometimes, does that count?

[QUOTE=jopperm2]The sky is pink sometimes, does that count?[/QUOTE]
Well, if the sky is currently pink, I believe it to be pink, and I believe it to be pink because I've seen it and it is pink, I can say "I know the sky is pink at the moment" and be partially* correct in saying so.

I hope that was sufficiently confusing




*Partially, because there are a lot of shades of pink (it might be closer to red...), and colors might just be percieved differently by different people as discussed above. I might also be color-blind.

So in otherwords it is really hard to KNOW much of anything unless you are

A> nearly godlike

or

B> Able to say with scientific preciseness.. "This exact patch of sky is visible as light that is this exact wavelength" AKA C Elegans(see A )

Nope. Re-read Vicsun: "Strictly speaking, the only place where truth and subsequently knowledge exists is mathematics, because it is a closed system built entirely on definitions and deductions based on those definitions. It is completely abstract and in theory, an alien civilisation in an alien universe should be able to come up with the exact same mathematical equations as us."

In other words, to truly know, you have to be outside the ordering of the system you wish complete knowledge of, and dealing in deductive, theoretical abstractions.

Which is pretty much what I said above, except that I had more fun breezing through my opinions, while Vicsun had more fun showing off his background. That left both of us fairly pleased, you betcha.

I had fun reading and enjoying both.

Would this be a fair summary?

The only knowledge is that which can be entirely objective and quantitative.

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Would this be a fair summary?

The only knowledge is that which can be entirely objective and quantitative.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that the second part is necessary, or even possible within the framework of knowledge. Mathematics doesn't require quantification to represent truth. The knowledge that a thing can be labeled is itself knowledge not requiring awareness of the given name.

That's true, I didn't think about that. You don't necessarily need numbers for math.

[QUOTE=jopperm2]That's true, I didn't think about that. You don't necessarily need numbers for math.[/QUOTE]

And a good thing, too, if you've ever seen me try to leave a 15% dinner tip.

Aww.. Come on, you gotta bump it up to 20%.. I thought you were a liberal! j/k

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Aww.. Come on, you gotta bump it up to 20%.. I thought you were a liberal! j/k[/QUOTE]

By no means. I work through my views without regard for isms, as I've already said, and many of them would drive liberals screaming from the territory. Others are traditionally associated with conservatives, still others with a different systems that can't be pigeon-holed. And yes, I know you're joking, but I know you're not.

To bring us back to the theme, I found this excellent image by Ciro Marchetti on the Web. It gives a perfect sense of what I envision each human like when they contemplate the universe:

[QUOTE=Vicsun]Theory of Knowledge is a subject I've been taking for two years now, and it deals exclusively with the question you are asking, Ekental. Compulsory part of the IB, as a matter of fact - that's why I previously asked you if you were taking the that course- repeating the same things you will find in your book will probably not be very enlightening
[/QUOTE]

Yes... I am basically repeateating the question in the book... the point wasnt to take credit for an idea, but to throw out the question as it was to see what the various reactions were. I'm sorry if you somehow found that offensive to the IB program or yourself.

I've taken TOK for two years as well, and the way I like to discuss the various issues that pop up isnt by wading through my textbook but by discussing it with friends and others who have had some influence on the particular topic.

I'll voice my own views on the subject if it hasn't been voiced after a set peiod of time, but I prefer to see what everyone else thinks first.

[QUOTE=Ekental]Yes... I am basically repeateating the question in the book... the point wasnt to take credit for an idea, but to throw out the question as it was to see what the various reactions were. I'm sorry if you somehow found that offensive to the IB program or yourself.

I've taken TOK for two years as well, and the way I like to discuss the various issues that pop up isnt by wading through my textbook but by discussing it with friends and others who have had some influence on the particular topic.

I'll voice my own views on the subject if it hasn't been voiced after a set peiod of time, but I prefer to see what everyone else thinks first.[/QUOTE]
Amazing A fellow IB'er!

'sup buddy!



the world lit draft awaiting me tells me I shouldn't be posting

@Vicsun & Ekental: What is IB? Informationsbehandling?
EDIT: I think I found it, is it this?
http://www.norreg.dk/ib/ibnorregframe.htm

[QUOTE=fable]
To bring us back to the theme, I found this excellent image by Ciro Marchetti on the Web. It gives a perfect sense of what I envision each human like when they contemplate the universe:[/QUOTE]

Ah, that's a lovely picture, I feel just like that every day. All my professional life is a rollercoaster of struggling like a little ant to contribute your little piece to the gigantic jigsaw nobody knows what it depitc, throwing away said piece because it was useless, feelings of hopelessness towards the futility, awe and inspiration toward the greatness and yet again continue to fit another bloody piece together.

Last week I was totally depressed 2 days because of the discovery of a molecule in the blood brain barrier, that really threatens to destroy the reliability of our measurements. Then I overcame it because my new students were so incredibly enthusiastic and demonstrated so much motivation and willingness to seek knowledge, so I immediately felt hope for the future

CE, the universe is the single most humbling thing there is. That's one of the reasons I'm so regularly astonished by people who profess, either through statement or intent, in a holy book or a political platform, that they have all the answers on anything.

[QUOTE=fable]CE, the universe is the single most humbling thing there is. That's one of the reasons I'm so regularly astonished by people who profess, either through statement or intent, in a holy book or a political platform, that they have all the answers on anything.[/QUOTE]

Yes...
And I have to admit.. while I truly do understand that quest for knowledge and understanding, there is a part of me that, in a way, does not want to know all the answers. If that makes sense at all?
When I stand at the surf, and feel the waves crash into everything I am... when I reach the crest of a hill while on a hike, and see mountains and valleys passing into infinity before me.. I feel a sense of awe and mystery, and I feel very small. But, that feeling of smallness is a comfort... knowing that there is something greater than me, the power of nature, whatever you want to call it, it stirs something deep inside.

@DW: I share your sense of awe and feeling of being very small in similar situations, and I love it too, but the mystery part is not needed for me. On the contrary, knowing more makes me even more fascinated, it just increases the level of detail in my subjective experience. When I look at the bright night sky in the mountains or in the desert, I envision the roomtime for my inner eye, I see particles rushing through it, I contemplate that the photons that hits my retina have travelled hundreds or thousands of lightyears...I know that I see back in time, that I see things that have already passed at that it is the only way we humans have to see the past.

When I study a brain, I get the same sense of awe and fascination, and often I envision all these 100 billions neurons, each with about 10 000 synapses and hitherto over 100 known different neurotransmitter substances, each one with its' subsystems of receptors that all have different function...I contemplate memory, consciousness, identity, creatitivy, perception...the mitochondria, the DNA, the Golgi apparatus, the many complex mechanisms we know and the many, many more we do not know. All that these cells fathom and that together makes a human being.

To me, the greatness of nature is not dimished by knowledge about natural phenomena, it is sharpened

@CE, I do understand where you are coming from I identify, as well, with your response to those particles of light. I feel much the same when I gaze into the night sky, aware that the light from the planets and stars so many lightyears away is, in fact, a part of history... Perhaps long since faded at its source.. Indeed, some of those stars are likely now dead.

Perhaps it is just that my academic and creative background is very different. Also, while I consider myself to be secular and largely agnostic, I guess some of my experiences in the last number of years have made me far more aware of that which is intangible

Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico Philosophicus' is an extremely coherent theory explaining precisely what we can and cannot know which I reccomend, it is also a miracle of brevity and concision, not something metaphysical philosophy is known for. 'The world is the totality of facts, not of things' it opens.
However, I don't believe in 'facts' existing in the universe, I believe the universe is one brute fact, only divisable in linguistic terms, not in ontological terms i.e. I do not think one can correctly claim that there are different things in the universe, one can only claim that there are different things in our language. What there is (more specifically than just THE UNIVERSE ITSELF) depends on what words we have to divide up the universe. Therefore we can never know anything about the universe itself, because the universe is not in its own way divided into concepts, forces or objects, it is only divided in our way, and therefore we can only ever know anything about the ontological schema that we are committed to by whatever language we speak.