Jade

<groan> This is too absurd to even continue discussing...
Use? What do you mean by "use"? If you mean "Is it useful with respect to cooking eggs if you don't remember having taken a rollercoaster ride?" then clearly the answer is no. But if you mean "Is it useful with respect to answering questions about how many times you have gone on rollercoasters" then clearly the answer is yes.
Let's not into temporal identity games. They are tedious in the extreme...
Your question answers itself, though I bolded the relevant word...
Yeah, sure -- I've realized that I am dreaming in the middle of dreams. It's a little weird, but not too uncommon.
See above.
Repitition does not make it clearer, or true.
If a belief is rationally justified (fully rationally justified), then the only way it can be false is if the universe is insane.

This definition of knowledge accords well with what people mean when they use the word. Other definitions of knowledge either collapse into gibberish or don't correspond to the typical use of the word.

Jade

Now why would you say a thing like that?

Darth Dane

What makes one belief rational and another not?

This seems as an important question, hmmm....

Well?

Darth Dane

What do you mean "fully"?

Is this the smell of the scotsman?

Jade

Sorry...happy hour turned into happy evening...

If you don't mind I am going to transfer this discussion to the thread in Philosophy.

Darth Dane

Hio Jade, do you plan on answering this?



What do you mean "fully"?

Is this the smell of the scotsman?




That wasn't the point. The fact that you know you have a headache, doesn't explain who it is that has the headache.

I am having a headache....who is the 'I Am'?

To know who has the headache, one has to be fully conscious




It also puts a spin on the:

Accept/love me for who I am

expression


Sure, but who are you, do you know who it is that I should Love?

If you don't know who it is, how should I?

Jade

A fully rational justification rests on and stems from a firm solution to the regress problem in epistemology, with no irrational or weakly justified steps between that foundation and the justification in question.
Repitition does not make it clearer or more true.

Darth Dane

Jade I think we are speaking past eachother

Darth Dane

Let me ask another way. Jade are you fully conscious?

If the answer is no, then you do not know who it is that has the headache?

The headache is still experienced, but if a person is only partly conscious then you(in part, not fully consciously you) do not know who(in totality, fully conscious) it is that has the headache, you will know you(in part) that has the headache

Jade

I am conscious of a consciousness. I call that consciousness "Me". When I had the headache, I was conscious of having the headache -- the feeling or qualia of the headache existed within the field of the consciousness I call "Me".

The only thing I can imagine that you are trying to say is that maybe I am mistaken in thinking that the consciousness I experience is "Me", but frankly I have no idea what that means, and it sounds like an absurd violation of the Law of Identity (Myself is not Myself, A is not A).