Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Psycho Economist · 01-09-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ieyeasu
How about a more real translation? Less exact, more ideal?

How do you mean "ideal"? Do you mean conversational? There's still two distinct words for "to know" (awareness and matter of fact), same as for "to be" (for permanent and temporary states of being). It's not like the formal and informal versions of "you", they're different verbs. Even informally, you couldn't get away with saying someone was permanently sick or talking on the phone. You wouldn't say they were temporarily Mexican or female (unless you knew they were planning to emmigrate or get a sex change

).

Conosczo matematicas. I know (am familiar with) Math.
Yo s� que dos y dos es quatro. I know (for a fact) that two and two is four.

It's true that putting the second clause of the sentence in subjunctive is something more often encountered in writing (in speaking, you could get away with everything being infinitive, or the subjunctive clause being conjugated in the indicative), but doesn't change meaning.

Mr. Sammi · 01-09-2003, 02:01 PM

This is not a question of syntax. Everyone after my last post have not given the paradox a strong enough reading. Do any of you think centuries of thought would have passed over linguistic syntax.

If one has no knowledge of what is unknown then there is no sufficent reason to seek out the unknown.

It is a static view of the world. You know what you know AND you do not know what you do not know SO you live with what you know.

The paradox seems to say that getting to know about our universe is almost accidental, one only stumbles across things which will become known.

After the stumbling and the knowing then it becomes pointless to enquire because one knows. This points to life as an accidental process AND incidental knowledge should not be necessary in an accidental world.

Sammi Na Boodie (eat, drink and be merry AS Meno commands)

Keith Russell · 01-09-2003, 02:18 PM

Sammi:

If I understand you correctly, I disagree.

The fact that we so often discover new things strongly suggests that there remain many things yet to find, to discover, to 'know'.

We shouldn't search making a priori assumptions about what we expect to find.

But, I still think we should search.

Just because we don't know, doesn't means we shouldn't want to know.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi · 01-09-2003, 02:32 PM

Keith Russell,

If you understood me correctly you were disagreeing with MENO, I was just the medium to pass on the message. However within probabilistic limits you probably understood me correctly.

Why people want to know will probably be the greatest knowledge of all. I mean this philosophically and not by cause to evade personal discomfort OR to use knowledge to be mean to people.

But then again Keith, for what will you be searching? Looking for an accident to occur? I heard black holes have a nice touch to it...

Rev all your motors, here comes...

Sammi Na Boodie (call me when you find the time machine)

Keith Russell · 01-09-2003, 02:42 PM

Sammi:

Fair enough, which is why I included the qualifier in my post; I wasn't sure I understood you correctly.

One can't look for a specific unknown, which is probably Meno's point.

All one can do is look. Whatever one finds, is known, that moment it is found, by virtue of having been found.

Keith.

Tani · 01-09-2003, 07:32 PM

one of the thing i read from meno's paradox is that if you don't know it, then you don't know that you've found it even when it's standing in front of you waving. but on the other hand, if you know where to find it, you're already expecting yourself to find something and you're merely comparing the findings with your expectations. so in a sense you have it all figured out, you're really testing it to see if it's really the way it is. this paradox also prompted me asking in the latter half of the post which seems to have been ignored: if we are rational, then we can't change what we believe, but if we aren't rational, it'd mean we can change our minds but it also means it's not rationality that prompts us to change our minds. note: this is also based on that one can never lie to oneself, because you either know it or you don't. if not knowing is due to ignorance, then knowledge is not there to begin with and hence no lie. on the other hand, since one must know the truth first in order to construct a lie that is contrary to the truth, therefore lying to oneself is a contradiction.

but let's get back to meno. let's use the star example. finding a star is not what i would say as to knowing. you know there can be something in the empty space and there can be nothing in the empty space, you know all the possible conditions that can be assigned to an empty space in that sense, discovering something in the empty space does not add anything to what you can know already, it's actually a subset of what you're capable to know, or rather, allows you to narrow down what you want to look at. it doesn't widen the scoop so to speak for there is nothing new added to what you know. what i mean by knowing, which would make meno's paradox a real issue, is to think of what one knows as something close to what hume would suggest as something you can imagine, you can imagine a gold mountain without ever seeing one, but you can't imagine a valley without any mountains.

now my problem with it is that if there is something that completely defies what you're capable to imagine - something that you cannot at all piece together even in your imagination because nothing like that, in part or in full, is known to you at all, then would you be able to regonize it? if you can't even imagine it, then how can you begin to look for it?

admice · 01-09-2003, 07:42 PM

MAybe I'm not getting the philosophical part here, but I agree with ieyeasu about degrees. You can know something about something without knowing everything. You can follow the logic and realize there is more to learn. And as Sammi said corroboration. When we find a piece of information (however acquired) conflicts with another piece or more, we try to reconcile, sometimes by searching for more information, till we reach a balance point.

If, indeed I'm not getting the philosophical part, lemme know. I'm starting to wrok my way thru a philosophy book now.

Tani · 01-09-2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

MAybe I'm not getting the philosophical part here, but I agree with ieyeasu about degrees. You can know something about something without knowing everything. You can follow the logic and realize there is more to learn. And as Sammi said corroboration. When we find a piece of information (however acquired) conflicts with another piece or more, we try to reconcile, sometimes by searching for more information, till we reach a balance point.

it's not so much about the "philosophical" part, but what exactly is new there that you're learning? this seems to dictate knowledge to be not just knowing, but also it being the best shortcut for one to map one's mind unto one particular world in all possible worlds.

sweep · 01-09-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

if you can't even imagine it, then how can you begin to look for it?

I guess I would stumble upon it, which would essentially mean I was lucky to find it.

If you're lost in a wood then go the opposite way that you think the way out is, and you'll get there.

get lost sweep: ( (its alright, I already am)

Mr. Sammi · 01-10-2003, 07:31 AM

Tani, as you may have realised : ... this seems to dictate knowledge to be not just knowing, but also it being the best shortcut to map one's mind... this is termed the intelligence of knowledge acquisition WHICH IS a little different from knowledge.

To have emperical intelligence in (KA) Knowledge Acquisition, one must be able to gather information concerning the methods one uses to acquire knowledge, then massage it until one can wrest knowledge about the process. Using poisson rates on the knowledge one acquires about methods used to acquire knowledge can lead to Intelligence in KA. Hope it is not too too too confusing, but good point anyway.

* * *

admice, I like your balance point, is this gained emperically, or through extrapolation. Waiting with tamed breath.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

01-09-2003, 02:01 PM	#12
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	fool's gold. This is not a question of syntax. Everyone after my last post have not given the paradox a strong enough reading. Do any of you think centuries of thought would have passed over linguistic syntax. If one has no knowledge of what is unknown then there is no sufficent reason to seek out the unknown. It is a static view of the world. You know what you know AND you do not know what you do not know SO you live with what you know. The paradox seems to say that getting to know about our universe is almost accidental, one only stumbles across things which will become known. After the stumbling and the knowing then it becomes pointless to enquire because one knows. This points to life as an accidental process AND incidental knowledge should not be necessary in an accidental world. Sammi Na Boodie (eat, drink and be merry AS Meno commands)

01-09-2003, 02:32 PM	#14
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Meno not ME Keith Russell, If you understood me correctly you were disagreeing with MENO, I was just the medium to pass on the message. However within probabilistic limits you probably understood me correctly. Why people want to know will probably be the greatest knowledge of all. I mean this philosophically and not by cause to evade personal discomfort OR to use knowledge to be mean to people. But then again Keith, for what will you be searching? Looking for an accident to occur? I heard black holes have a nice touch to it... Rev all your motors, here comes... Sammi Na Boodie (call me when you find the time machine)

01-10-2003, 07:31 AM	#20
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Intelligence of knowledge acquisition Tani, as you may have realised : ... this seems to dictate knowledge to be not just knowing, but also it being the best shortcut to map one's mind... this is termed the intelligence of knowledge acquisition WHICH IS a little different from knowledge. To have emperical intelligence in (KA) Knowledge Acquisition, one must be able to gather information concerning the methods one uses to acquire knowledge, then massage it until one can wrest knowledge about the process. Using poisson rates on the knowledge one acquires about methods used to acquire knowledge can lead to Intelligence in KA. Hope it is not too too too confusing, but good point anyway. * * * admice, I like your balance point, is this gained emperically, or through extrapolation. Waiting with tamed breath. Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2003, 02:18 PM	#13
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Sammi: If I understand you correctly, I disagree. The fact that we so often discover new things strongly suggests that there remain many things yet to find, to discover, to 'know'. We shouldn't search making a priori assumptions about what we expect to find. But, I still think we should search. Just because we don't know, doesn't means we shouldn't want to know. Keith.

01-09-2003, 02:42 PM	#15
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Sammi: Fair enough, which is why I included the qualifier in my post; I wasn't sure I understood you correctly. One can't look for a specific unknown, which is probably Meno's point. All one can do is look. Whatever one finds, is known, that moment it is found, by virtue of having been found. Keith.

01-09-2003, 07:32 PM	#16
Tani Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 179	one of the thing i read from meno's paradox is that if you don't know it, then you don't know that you've found it even when it's standing in front of you waving. but on the other hand, if you know where to find it, you're already expecting yourself to find something and you're merely comparing the findings with your expectations. so in a sense you have it all figured out, you're really testing it to see if it's really the way it is. this paradox also prompted me asking in the latter half of the post which seems to have been ignored: if we are rational, then we can't change what we believe, but if we aren't rational, it'd mean we can change our minds but it also means it's not rationality that prompts us to change our minds. note: this is also based on that one can never lie to oneself, because you either know it or you don't. if not knowing is due to ignorance, then knowledge is not there to begin with and hence no lie. on the other hand, since one must know the truth first in order to construct a lie that is contrary to the truth, therefore lying to oneself is a contradiction. but let's get back to meno. let's use the star example. finding a star is not what i would say as to knowing. you know there can be something in the empty space and there can be nothing in the empty space, you know all the possible conditions that can be assigned to an empty space in that sense, discovering something in the empty space does not add anything to what you can know already, it's actually a subset of what you're capable to know, or rather, allows you to narrow down what you want to look at. it doesn't widen the scoop so to speak for there is nothing new added to what you know. what i mean by knowing, which would make meno's paradox a real issue, is to think of what one knows as something close to what hume would suggest as something you can imagine, you can imagine a gold mountain without ever seeing one, but you can't imagine a valley without any mountains. now my problem with it is that if there is something that completely defies what you're capable to imagine - something that you cannot at all piece together even in your imagination because nothing like that, in part or in full, is known to you at all, then would you be able to regonize it? if you can't even imagine it, then how can you begin to look for it?

01-09-2003, 07:42 PM	#17
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	MAybe I'm not getting the philosophical part here, but I agree with ieyeasu about degrees. You can know something about something without knowing everything. You can follow the logic and realize there is more to learn. And as Sammi said corroboration. When we find a piece of information (however acquired) conflicts with another piece or more, we try to reconcile, sometimes by searching for more information, till we reach a balance point. If, indeed I'm not getting the philosophical part, lemme know. I'm starting to wrok my way thru a philosophy book now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.