Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 25th, 2017, 4:03 am 

I am going to quote Husserl here from 'Crisis'. There are posts on this forum now which I think will benefit from this in regard to Consciousness and the opposing/complimentary approaches of Rationalism and Empiricism.

In this thread I will try and be as brief as possible and run through Husserl's view of this from Descartes through Hume, Locke and Berkeley, and maybe onto Kant (but deserves a separate thread because Husserl goes into much more depth).

I will post full section first because it is short:

Crisis Part II

Section 21. Descartes as the starting point of two lines of development, rationalism and empiricism.

If we now follow the lines of development which proceeded from Descartes, one, the "rationalistic," leads through Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, and the Wolff school to Kant, the turning point. Here the spirit of the new kind of rationalism, as implanted by Decartes, thrusts forward enthusiastically and unfolds in great systems. Here the conviction reigns, then, that through the method of mos geometricus as absolutely grounded, universal knowledge of the world, thought of as a transcendent "in-itself," can be realized. Precisely against the new science as having such a scope as to extend to something "transcendent", indeed finally against this "transcendent" itself, English empiricism reacts - even though it is likewise strongly influenced by Decartes. But it is a reaction similar to that of ancient skepticism against the systems of rational philosophy at the time. The new skeptical empiricism already sets in with Hobbes. Of greater interest for us however because of its immense effect on psychology and the theory of knowledge, is Locke's critique of the understanding, together with its subsequent continuations in Berkeley and Hume. This line of development is especially significant in that it is an essential segment of the historical path on which the psychologically adulterated transcendentalism of Descartes (if we may already so call his original turn to the ego) seeks, through unfolding its consequences, to work its way through to the realization of its untenability and, from there, to a transcendentalism which is more genuine and more conscious of its true meaning. The primary and historically most important thing here was the self-revelation of empirical psychologism (of sensationalistic, naturalistic cast) as an intolerable absurdity.

- Part II, Section 21, P.83-4, Crisis (trans. by David Carr)


Husserl is noting here a rift between rationalism and empiricism due to Descartes dualistic notions. These too positions solidify the idea of dualism and this has even been carried through right to the present day (by both positions!).

Now I will be more selective with next section and not type it all out (even though it is only 2 pages!):

Sections 22. Locke's naturalistic-epistemological psychology.

It is in the empiricist development, as we know, that the new psychology, which was required as a correlate to pure natural science when the latter was separated off, is brought to its first concrete execution. Thus it is concerned with investigations of introspective psychology in the field of the soul, which has now been separated from the body, as well as with physiological and psychophysical explanations. On the other hand, this psychology is of service to a theory of knowledge which, compared with the Cartesian one, is completely new and very differently worked out. In Locke's great work this is the actual intent from the start. It offers itself as a new attempt to accomplish precisely what Descartes's Meditations intended to accomplish: an epistemological grounding of the objectivity of the objective sciences. The skeptical posture of this intent is evident from the beginning in questions like those of the scope, the extent, and the degrees of certainty of human knowledge. Locke senses nothing of the depths of the Cartesian epoche and of the reduction to the ego. He simply takes over the ego as soul, which becomes acquainted, in the self-evidence of self-experience, with its inner states, acts, and capacities. Only what inner self'experience shows, only our own "ideas," immediately, self-evidently given. Everything in the external world is inferred.

- Part II, Section 22, P.84
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 25th, 2017, 3:03 pm 

Before we get into discussing the Empirical or Rational approach to consciousness (or to anything for that matter), let’s first ask - How can we know ‘real’ truths? And once we (hopefully) agree to this, then we can discard most (if not all) of the words of the past great thinkers that you list above.

If we are truly interested in knowing ‘real’ (objective) truths, then how do we go about this? How do we discern the ‘real’ from the ‘not-real’?

If we define Empiricism as ‘post-experiential’ [a posteriori] truths, then Empiricism can never yield ‘objective’ truths. Any truths that are products of our 'subjective experiences' can only be ‘subjective truths’ at best. This includes science. Although we commonly refer to scientific conclusions as ‘objective’, they are by no means truly objective. Any truths that are reliant upon the ‘uncertain’ objects of our experiencing can never be trusted to tell us anything certainly truthful.

If we define Rationalism as ‘pre-experiential’ [a priori] truths, then Rationalism (e.g. logical deduction) is our only hope at objectivity; and thereby our only hope of knowing ‘real’ truths.

So again - How can we know ‘real’ truths?

Is the answer wholly with Rationalism? No, not wholly. As Badger has accurately pointed out (in an earlier post), Rationalism (deductive logic) is only as good as the truthfulness of its premises. Starting with a flawed (untruthful) premise can only yield a flawed (non-certain) conclusion. In other words, we can’t claim to have found (concluded) a ‘real’ truth using a false/flawed (non-true) premise, ...or simply GIGO (garbage in = garbage out). We must start with something ‘true’ (a real truth) so as to then build/conclude another something ‘true’.

So how do we solve this problem? How can we know ‘real’ truths if it first requires a starting premise that contains ‘real’ truth? This same dilemma was recognized by Descartes when he proposed his “clean slate” method. His method was to discard EVERYTHING that is possibly doubtable, until the last item of un-doubtable-ness was left standing. This single item of ‘certainty’, would then serve as the ‘seed’ from which to grow (via logical deduction) the ‘true’ tree of knowledge.

Descartes 'seed', was his “I think” premise, which he (incorrectly) claimed as an “un-doubtable” truth. But, because of his obvious handicap, he was psychologically unable to recognize the doubtable-ness of this premise. And because of his fateful error; this 'garbage' seed has only produced 'garbage' truths (i.e. fantasies; non-real truths).

And like all the great philosophers that followed in Descartes footsteps; have likewise produced their versions of fantasy (i.e. non-real, “garbage” truths).

So again - How can we know ‘real’ truths?

Answer - We can finish Descartes work (method)! We can take his “I think” premise, and further break it down to its core premise -- “experiencing exists”. And then, from this new starting seed, we can now logically build/grow the ‘REAL’ truths/tree of knowledge.

*******

Sidenote: We can also know 'non-real' truths (i.e. falsehoods), but this requires a different method. And is another topic altogether.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby TheVat on May 25th, 2017, 5:50 pm 

Before we get into discussing the Empirical or Rational approach to consciousness (or to anything for that matter), let’s first ask - How can we know ‘real’ truths? And once we (hopefully) agree to this, then we can discard most (if not all) of the words of the past great thinkers that you list above.



Old Rasp: A reminder: this is the OP's thread, and its purpose is not necessarily your purpose. Please respect those at PCF who value past thinkers in the field and are not always here to "discard" their approach. Also be careful about making flat statements with the implication that "we" will all come to agreement on them.

Also curious....who have you read, post-Descartes? Since you seem fairly certain that they indulge in fantasy, I assume you're familiar with them and have specific critiques of specific schools of philosophy.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 25th, 2017, 6:31 pm 

BadgerJelly » Thu May 25, 2017 1:03 am wrote:Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

1) To be able to 'approach' (the One Universal) Consciousness, one must be able to exist 'beyond' Consciousness.
That is not possible as all exists 'within/as' Consciousness!
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

2) 'Logic' (empiricism/rationalism...) exists in/as thought/ego which exists in (as a feature of) Consciousness.
Consciousness is 'unconditional', transcendental.
Logic/thought is 'conditional', dependent, thus being able to be defined, unlike Consciousness.
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 25th, 2017, 6:55 pm 

Old Rasputin » Thu May 25, 2017 12:03 pm wrote:...How can we know ‘real’ truths?

Your question ignores the primary question of 'how do we Know?'
Then we need to discern if there is such as 'real truth' vs 'false truth'.

A premise;
Everything exists!
(Thought exists as does the 'content'... unicorns! Unicorns also exist in literature and art...)
Reality is [predicated on that which exists!
Thus Existence and Reality are ALL inclusive!
If so, and it is so, then 'Truth' is based on that which exists/Reality!
Thus, Truth is ALL inclusive!

Since everything is Truth, where are 'falsehoods' found?
All such 'dualities' as 'life/death', 'time/space', true/false.. exist in/as 'thought/ego'.
Beyond thought/ego, these dualities cannot be perceived, do not exist otherwise.

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

Every moment of Universal existence is a unique moment of Self! (Universal) Knowledge.
Knowledge of Truth!

For 'duality' to be perceived (in/as thought) one needs a very truncated picture of Reality, ignoring the vast amount of Reality that we do not perceive at the moment, with our 'vs'/duality/thought built on that ignorance!
If we saw all Perspectives equally, there would be no 'vs', but a 'silence' of the Middle Way (equidistant from all Perspectives);

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
Win/win!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

The new heuristic is that Truth is ALL inclusive, the way to find that Truth which (from here) seems/appears to be outrageous nonsense is to find the Perspective in which it becomes obvious, and pay attention/be mindful.

tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 25th, 2017, 7:37 pm 

Braininvat wrote:Old Rasp: A reminder: this is the OP's thread, and its purpose is not necessarily your purpose.

Yes, I agree. If the author of this OP says I am off target, then I will respectively cease my comments. No problem.

Braininvat wrote:Please respect those at PCF who value past thinkers in the field and are not always here to "discard" their approach.

I respect ALL the PCF members, …even those that don’t value the approaches of the past thinkers. Don’t you?

Braininvat wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:And once we (hopefully) agree…

Also be careful about making flat statements with the implication that "we" will all come to agreement on them.

...you must have missed the word “hopefully” above.

Braininvat wrote:Also curious....who have you read, post-Descartes? Since you seem fairly certain that they indulge in fantasy...

Yes, starting from a point in fantasy is "indulging in fantasy".

Braininvat wrote:I assume you're familiar with them and have specific critiques of specific schools of philosophy.

Let’s just say I have read enough about many of them to allow me to make the following blanket statement:

ALL the 'great thinkers' of the past were psychologically unable to deny the very thing that made them 'great'.

If I have erred, and have missed one of the “great thinkers” that has actually denied their own ability to “think”, then I will happily concede that point to you, AND will happily stand and bow to you in front of everybody here! But until then, my statement stands.

Please prove me wrong.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 26th, 2017, 5:31 am 

OR -

I don't mind a slight transgression from the OP. I think you may have missed the point of this though. Rationalism and Empiricism certainly don't need to be "defined" because we all know what they are (or so I assume!).

Rationalism and Empiricism deal precisely with what we know and how we know it. The "real" is framed in different ways depending position. It is real and true to say 1+1=2 in mathematics, but it is not real and true to say "1" exists as a physical object. you seem to be caught up in ideology rather than investigation.

I am very puzzled by what you are referring to as "objective truths" and I've had the very same issue with Neri and I am starting to see you both as positing two opposing positions (one more inclined to empiricism and the other more inclined toward rationalism - neither seem very able to view the transcendental approach and its attempt to create some kind of unity between these. Of course I may be mistaken and it could just be a case of terms and positions not being fully exposed and communicated!)

My view is that the rationalism and empiricism are views that adhere to the old tradition of dualism. Both, in some way, deny the other rather than see them as spectra of one singular issue (that of approaches to knowledge)

The "objective" is what we all agree upon. We can all look at a table and say it is a table. We all know the table as an objective truth (note: this is regardless of whether or not there is an actual table there. We all KNOW what a table is!) This is use of sensory experience. The mathematics of 1+1=2 is an abstract truth KNOWN only by way of experiential application. We cannot KNOW 1+1=2 without being able to apply such a thing to an objective ("out there") world. One something and one something make two somethings. The "thingness" is needed to register the logical proposition.

A non-experiential truth is complete nonsense. We cannot have a "truth" without experience. Being a person in the world and living under assumptions brought to me through education and a certain way of viewing the world I am inhibited to some degree. The subjective is still experience and known through experience. To try and redefine 'Rationalism" as prior to experience is nonsense and is showing where your confusion is here. You are taking very well known terms and trying to justify using them in a completely non-conventional way. If you mean something other than "Rationalism" then use another term!


So when you say :

If we define Rationalism as ‘pre-experiential’ [a priori] truths, then Rationalism (e.g. logical deduction) is our only hope at objectivity; and thereby our only hope of knowing ‘real’ truths.


I can only say, BUT we don't define rationalism like that! If there is no experience to which to apply logical method then there is no logical method.

This is a huge problem for you. The issue is you read the OP and decide to apply your own meanings to the terms used rather than try to understand them (or so it seems?)

To repeat, Husserl is trying to expose a tradition of dualism that enabled empirical science to be so successful, yet he is saying (so I believe from later sections of this work) that this was at a cost to other lines of investigation. One he tries to draw attention to ... is he correct? I don't know. But I do find his views interesting and someone inline with many of mine.

The question is not about How can we know real truths? What you seem to be avoiding is asking what you mean by "REAL TRUTHS". I say the concept is deeply flawed and only applicable to abstracted "rules"/"laws" given through experience. I have a few more pages to go over here and will mention the thing "in itself" (something that bizarrely Neri seems to think we can KNOW? and which you also think we can KNOW, only you both seem to be in opposing positions on this subject, one saying I can know it from a more rationalistic position and the other from a more empirical position.

I can understand vaguely what you are saying because I see the "objective" as being "inter-subjective", meaning what we call "objective" is in fact a culmination of "subjective" views that agree with each other. From here scientific method looks deeper and deeper into more and more objectively viable "truths" by using techniques of "measuring". The "measuring" being an agreed premise from which to declare "truth" (or rather probability) about the world. Of course the success of science is not in saying anything as being 100% accurate, the theories are further and further intricated to produce more and more accurate predictions.

See this issue applied to what you say here:

If we define Empiricism as ‘post-experiential’ [a posteriori] truths, then Empiricism can never yield ‘objective’ truths. Any truths that are products of our 'subjective experiences' can only be ‘subjective truths’ at best. This includes science. Although we commonly refer to scientific conclusions as ‘objective’, they are by no means truly objective. Any truths that are reliant upon the ‘uncertain’ objects of our experiencing can never be trusted to tell us anything certainly truthful.


Empiricism does yield "objective truths" it is just that you fail to understand what is meant by "objective truth" regarding empiricism. You seem to believe in some form of "ABSOLUTISM"? This harks all the back to Platonic ideal forms, like saying there is an ideal form of dog and asking what this means. Or saying we can know the "thing-in-itself".

In saying this I will re-quote the last line form Husserl to show you I see where you are looking and ask you to read carefully through what Husserl has written and try to understand it and not get caught up in prejudices of terms like "soul" which may very well be considered as "mind" or "thought".

Everything in the external world is inferred.


So here it is being said that everything is inferred not known. AND we infer things with rationalism. So we require the experience to apply logic to. To me it makes little sense to say either that logic grows from experience or that experience grows from logic. They are part of the same thing for I cannot KNOW if one or the other has no reality, which could lead one toward extreme skepticism if you then say I CANNOT KNOW anything, and this is true in an ABSOLUTE sense. The KNOWING is framed within "rules" (premises). Language is always a good example to use because we can infer meaning from each others language by ostensive means. We can agree upon the experience of say "yellow" even though our speech of this experience differs. We can know "yellow" by inference and ostensive means, which necessarily require both experience (common experience in this case) and application of rationality to gain insight into "other" subjective views to ground a sense of the "objective truth".

In the absolute sense of a OBJECTIVE truth, it simply cannot be known to us only regarded as a proposition to work towards (a proposition that has expanded our knowledge and allowed us to do many things such as make computers and such). We cannot truly "possess" this objective, as I believe you call it "fantasy"?, but it is "known" as negative noumenon and presents us with a limit from which knowledge abounds. The "objective truth" you seem to be posing to us is just this. It is "negative noumenon" because it cannot be "positive noumenon". We cannot know what we cannot know.

After all of this then there is the greater problem and endless task of applying our communicative capacity (like here in these words) be best express and exchange our views and further look about ourselves and learn to bring ourselves to ideas that are presently ideas of "others" (such as me or you or Biv or Neri). FULL agreement is to have no knowledge at all. Yet we require an abstract agreement from which to develop communication and use our rationality from. Some things we can universally agree upon such as 1+1=2.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby dandelion on May 26th, 2017, 11:01 am 

This thread seems to have some really nice thoughts, Badger.

Some people have said that the origins of western philosophy began with this- “In Plato's Apology, Socrates and his friend Chaerephon visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle's answer is that Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, and yet Socrates claims that he lacks knowledge and wisdom.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/)

With Socrates maybe saying something like, "I know one thing; that I know nothing"
Given your interest with number, or one and many etc., I thought you might like that.

You might find the critiques involved here interesting too, perhaps- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_an ... of_Madness .
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 26th, 2017, 5:53 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:It is real and true to say 1+1=2 in mathematics, but it is not real and true to say "1" exists as a physical object.

Yes, I agree. Mathematical and logical relationships are “true and real”. These are what I equate to as “objective truths” (aka “logical truths”, “mathematical truths”).


BadgerJelly wrote:I am very puzzled by what you are referring to as "objective truths" and I've had the very same issue with Neri and I am starting to see you both as positing two opposing positions (one more inclined to empiricism and the other more inclined toward rationalism - neither seem very able to view the transcendental approach and its attempt to create some kind of unity between these.

I don’t see any “unity” between these two terms. From my view these are on opposite sides of the fence. The fence (demarcation line) is the ‘experiential’ line. I see it as follows:

Rationalism vs Empiricism
Pre-experiential vs. Post-experiential
Logical truths vs. Experiential truths
A priori truths vs. A posteriori truths
Independent of experiences vs. Dependent on experiences
Objective vs. Subjective


BadgerJelly wrote:The "objective" is what we all agree upon. We can all look at a table and say it is a table. We all know the table as an objective truth (note: this is regardless of whether or not there is an actual table there. We all KNOW what a table is!) This is use of sensory experience.

Okay, so here is where our understandings differ. It seems that I hold the word “objective” to a higher standard than you.

Just because we all agree that we see a table does not mean that it ‘objectively’ (really) exists. If we see it, then it ‘subjectively’ exists; as it is just a product of our sensory experiences.


BadgerJelly wrote:The mathematics of 1+1=2 is an abstract truth KNOWN only by way of experiential application. We cannot KNOW 1+1=2 without being able to apply such a thing to an objective ("out there") world. One something and one something make two somethings. The "thingness" is needed to register the logical proposition.

The a priori relationships involved in Math and logic are truths that exist REGARDLESS of anyone experiencing such. They are NOT DEPENDENT on an ‘experiential being’ for its TRUTHFULNESS.


BadgerJelly wrote:A non-experiential truth is complete nonsense. We cannot have a "truth" without experience.

What about “logical truths”? …aren’t these relational truths independent of one’s experiences?

I agree with you that the experiential ‘usage’ of these ‘truths’ is experiential. But the ‘truth’ of logic/math itself still holds regardless of its usage, which means that these ‘truths’ are non-experiential (i.e. “pre-experiential”).

An analogy is a calculator. The calculator is a truthful device. Our usage of the calculator is experiential, but its ‘truths’ (accuracies/algorithms) are not dependent upon our experiential usage.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 27th, 2017, 1:39 am 

OR -

Okay, so here is where our understandings differ. It seems that I hold the word “objective” to a higher standard than you.


You know objectivity from a subjective position. All objective positions are known by a subject. I am a subject and so are you. What we come to understand and communicate to each other is an objective reality. We never truly come to know the "objects" of reality only to adumbrate them. The use of abstractions, such as mathematics, can be used to ground our understanding in. This is what science does by making measurements and refining the accuracy of our individual subjective perspectives and coming to an agreement (which we call objectively true).

EVERYTHING you know is subjective at its heart. In the sense that all you know is know by you and is not fully aware of the perspectives of others. Objectivity is probably better called inter-subjectivity. Further still these different subjective positions need not be exclusive to sentient beings. In relative terms a ball or table has a subjective position (meaning here it is somewhere). Now the issue becomes a trickier one when we then ask what makes a table a table. A table is defined by us as humans living about the world. The table is objectively agreed upon as an object in space we can sense, but beyond that there is a communal understanding, an intersubjective understanding, of what table means. This is where language holds some sway over sensibility.

You are talking about the idea of ABSOLUTE. Absolutes exist only within set rules/laws we give. The rules/laws of the universe remain hidden and will also remain so because we are not omnipotent - our "intuitions" are limited to space and time.

All this you are saying about "real" and "truth" has not been defined by you. To just say "real" and "true" like that is enough in and of itself doesn't work. You cannot prove the "existence" of reality prior to experience ... does it even really make any sense to pose such a proposition? I don't think so. It is like saying before time.

The a priori relationships involved in Math and logic are truths that exist REGARDLESS of anyone experiencing such.


Prove it. If your proof is logical and reasoned then so what? Does giving a logical proof of logic make it any more "true" or "real"?

I would add here (AGAIN) that experience is required to appreciate such truths exist. You defeat your own position and reveal the great problem the rest of us are talking about. Catch up ;) Or rather stop and listen and put aside your personal views. Look at what people say as correct not opposing everything you say. Humility will open you to new ways to look at things. Dogma is just dogma.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby TheVat on May 27th, 2017, 9:55 am 

User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 27th, 2017, 12:59 pm 

BJ and OR,

First, I believe that we should be clear as to the meaning of certain expressions.

“Objectivity” refers to experiences that are common to all mankind. They are sometimes called “public.”

“Subjectivity” refers to experiences had by a certain individual. They are sometimes called private.

According to Plato, knowledge is a justified true belief. Knowledge of the truth may be thought of in two ways:

(1) Propositions that correspond to the world as it really is [absolute truth] and

(2) Propositions that correspond to the way that all humans experience the world [objective truth].

Philosophy may concern it self with (1), (2) or some combination of the two. Continental philosophy since Kant has focused principally on (2).

I use the expression, “realism” to refer to (1) and "anti-realism" to refer to (2).

A proposition may be called apodictic if there is no way that anyone can deny it. However, this may be the case with respect to both truth as (1) or as (2)—with one exception, consciousness itself. In other words, it is not possible that we only seem to be conscious. We are either conscious or we are not.

Thus, Descartes believed this was the immoveable foundation upon which all knowledge could be based. In a way Husserl held the same belief.

The rationalists believed that knowledge as (1) could be constructed upon a priori truths such as, “the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.” Because these were said to be necessary, universal and independent of the senses, whatever was deduced from them was true as (1).

The empiricists believed that all knowledge was based on experiences that are derived from sense impressions. Thus, the proposition, “all things have a cause” is not necessarily true, because it is based on experiences that are subject to change over time. Because the empiricists applied this reasoning to all so-called a prior truths, they denied that truth as (1) was possible. In this sense, they may be considered skeptics.

Kant denied that it was possible for us to have knowledge as (1) but argued that only knowledge as (2) was possible. He argued that there were “a priori judgments” but maintained that these were necessary, universal and independent of the senses only because it is impossible for the human mind to believe otherwise. That is, they were not based on sensory experience but rather upon the constitution of the human mind. Thus, knowledge could be expanded upon a priori judgments yet could never reach the stage of knowledge as (1).

Thus, Kant was a skeptic in the same way as the empiricists but accepted the notion of a priori truth as objective but not absolute [in the sense I have used these expressions].

The phenomenologists are very much in the tradition of Kant. [The expression “phenomenon” was used by Kant to designate the limited sphere of human knowledge—referring to how things appeared to the senses (2) and not to how they really were (1)].

Thus, Husserl set aside the question of (1) and considered only the question of (2). However, his method was not a scientific one. In fact, he set aside the question of whether or not there was even such a thing as the human brain, in order to concentrate on “pure consciousness.” That is, he employed only introspection to arrive at what he considered apodictic principles of human experience. No scientific data was considered, because such things, he argued, depended, in the first place, on the nature of experience.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 27th, 2017, 2:04 pm 

Neri -

Thanks for that contribution. I am trying to accommodate OR because he is being extremely liberal with his use of terminology. He has said on a few occasions to me that he doesn't have time to study these things in depth so I respect and hope to fill in the gaps where I can in how he expresses himself.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 27th, 2017, 2:14 pm 

CONTINUATION OF OPENING POST...

“Section 22 Locke’s naturalistic-epistemological psychology. (continued)

… Locke makes no use of the Cartesian first introduction of the cognitatio as cognitatio of cogitata – that is, intentionality; he does not recognise it as a subject of investigation (indeed the most authentic subject of the foundation-laying investigations). He is blind to the whole distinction. The soul in something self-contained and real by itself, as is a body; in naïve naturalism the soul is now taken to be like an isolated space, like a writing tablet, in his famous simile, on which psychic data come and go. This data-sensationalism, together with the doctorine of outer and inner sense, dominates psychology and the theory of knowledgefor centuries, even up to the present day; and in spite of the familiar struggle against “psychic atomism,” the basic sense of this doctrine does not change. Of course one speaks quite unavoidably, [even] in the Lockean terminology, of perceptions, representations “of” things, or of believing “in something”, willing “something,” and the like. But no consideration is given to the fact that in the perceptions, in the experiences of consciousness themselves, that of which we are conscious is included as such – that the perception is in itself a perception of something, of “this tree”.


It is also of interest that the Lockean skepticism in respect to the rational ideal of science, and its limitation of the scope of the new sciences (which are supposed to retain their validity), leads to a new sort of agnosticism. It is not that the possibility of science is completely denied, as in ancient skepticism, although again unknowable things-in-themselves are assumed. [But] our human science depends exclusively on our representations and concept-formations; by means of these we may, of course, make inferences extending to what is transcendent; but in principle we cannot obtain actual representations of the things-in-themselves, representations which adequately express the proper essence of these things. We have adequate representations and knowledge only of what is in our own soul.”


It is this last part where I see something of what you say OR. You seem to be equating your “objective truth” with this idea of “things-in-themselves”, what is unknowable to us. In thinking you can know what you cannot know you are stuck perhaps?

We have representations OF something. The something is necessarily unobtainable. Husserl above in the first paragraph touches on the old tradition of thought that delineates between “inner” and “outer” sense. I would even extend this (and I think it is Husserl’s intent too) to rationalism and empiricism. The stark distinction people fall prey to (as it seems you have by saying the are opposite) is to apply dualistic notions to the idea of inner and outer, rational and empirical, like they are body and soul distinctions in line with dualism (which a few, maybe more than a few, on this forum seem to dispute yet I keep seeing that they have fallen prey to this tradition of linear distinctions).

I must admit a mistake above in my wording (regarding your last reply). It would have been better to say “reconile” rather than “unite”. A small difference, but hopefully one that shows both my resistance to say they can be “unitied” (or should be!), and also should expose why I am always pressing for clarity. A subtle difference in one mind may be a huge difference to another … this statement reminds me of my physics teacher who said to explain everything precisely as if you’re trying to explain to someone utterly ignorant of the basic facts (I also find this a good exercise because I can then look at my own words and see better where things can be misinterpreted and ready myself to respond if need be or refine my language). I would accuse you of this in regard to politcal use of language too by saying “fantasy” as if to cast derision on anyone who says anything opposite to your view rather than making an attempt to understand their view and see what there is to gain and help you refine your exposition better for them and possibly for others (and yourself too maybe).

Anyway, I will move on with haste save we get too distracted from the heart of the text I am quoting. Please take note that you do seem to echo Locke where you say “fantasy” he says “fiction”, read on …

Section 23. Berkeley. David Hume’s psychology as fictionalistic theory of knowledge: the “bankruptcy” of philosophy and science.

Locke’s naivetes and inconsistancies lead to a rapid further develpoment of his empiricism, which pushes toward a paradoxical idealism and finally ends in a consummated absurdity. The foundation continues to be sensationalism and what appears to be obvious, i.e., that the sole indubitable ground of all knowledge is self-experience and its realm of immanent data. Starting from here, Berkeley reduces the bodily things which appear in natural experience to the complexes of sense-data themselves through which they appear. No reference is thinkable, [according to Berkeley,] through which conclusions could be drawn from these sense-data about anything but other such data. It could only be inductive inference, i.e., inference growing out of the association of ideas. Matter existing in itself, … according to Locke, is [for Berkeley] a philosophical invention. It is also significant that at the same time he dissolves the manner in which rational natural science builds concepts and tranforms it into a sensationalistic critique of knowledge.

In this direction, Hume goes on to the end. All categories of objectivity – the scientific ones through which an objective, extrapsychic world is thought in scientific life, and the prescientific ones through which it is thought in everyday life – are fictions.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 27th, 2017, 7:22 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:The a priori relationships involved in Math and logic are truths that exist REGARDLESS of anyone experiencing such.

Prove it.

Okay. But first let me ask you - Do you believe what you say makes sense?

If you say “yes”, then you have proved my point. If you say “no”, then why should I or anyone listen to you?

Note: there is no way to “make sense” without a ‘means’ to make sense. Logic is our innate (a priori) means to make sense. Therefore logic exists.


BadgerJelly wrote:I would add here (AGAIN) that experience is required to appreciate such truths exist.

I don’t disagree. But you seem to be (falsely) implying that the knowing of a truth disqualifies it as a truth.


BadgerJelly wrote:You defeat your own position and reveal the great problem the rest of us are talking about.

Huh? …don’t you have this backwards? -- Your position of “no truths” only defeats the very 'truthfulness' of what you say!


BadgerJelly wrote:Catch up ;) Or rather stop and listen and put aside your personal views. …Humility will open you to new ways to look at things. Dogma is just dogma.

Umm, …don’t you have this one backwards too? ...look in the mirror good friend.

*********

Neri wrote:First, I believe that we should be clear as to the meaning of certain expressions.

“Objectivity” refers to experiences that are common to all mankind. They are sometimes called “public.”

Thanks for nice explanation of your usage of “objectivity”. I hold my usage of “objectivity” to a higher standard (…one that is more in-line with Wikipedia, …one that is INDEPENDENT of subjective experiences).
Wikipedia wrote:Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.


Neri wrote:According to Plato, knowledge is a justified true belief. Knowledge of the truth may be thought of in two ways:

(1) Propositions that correspond to the world as it really is [absolute truth] and

(2) Propositions that correspond to the way that all humans experience the world [objective truth].

Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone that loves Plato, but Plato only adds nonsense/confusion. Knowledge is anything that we ‘know’. And that which we know may be an:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 27th, 2017, 10:55 pm 

OR -

But you are saying number (1) and number (2) are the same? If not then start a thread explaining the difference and give an example of an absolute truth and an objective truth and explain why each is 'true'.

Also I would appreciate it if you commented on the quotes I took the time to type.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 28th, 2017, 11:46 am 

Old Rasputin wrote:1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth

BadgerJelly wrote:But you are saying number (1) and number (2) are the same? If not then… …explain the difference and give an example

No, they are not the same.

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

    Example: “Experiencing Exists” --- the undeniable/undoubtable truth

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

    Example: “Experiencer Exists” --- logically derived; for without an Experiencer, said Experiencing could not exist (happen). Something can’t happen without some-thing happening.

    Caution: this “experiencer” is just a physical ‘substrate’; a body/thing/entity upon which experiencing (reactions) occur, and nothing more! ...don't infer anything else.

Subjective (#3), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.


BadgerJelly wrote:Also I would appreciate it if you commented on the quotes I took the time to type.

Section 22 and 23, contain so many ‘suspect’ (fantasy and assumed) concepts/terms (e.g. “soul”, “consciousness”, psychic atomism”, etc. etc.) that it is hard for me to take any of it seriously. There is no ‘concrete-ness’ to what is being said. Sorry, I know to you, this is very meaningful stuff, but to me it is just feel-good (and wasteful, imo) fantasy talk. No offense.
Last edited by Old Rasputin on May 28th, 2017, 11:57 am, edited 3 times in total.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 28th, 2017, 11:57 am 

BJ,

Having reviewed all recent posts, I think these matters can be put more simply.

Berkeley maintained that the real world consisted of naught but souls while matter and all things spatially extended were illusions.

Locke argued that there were real things outside the mind, for our consciousness consisted not only of an inner sense (reflection) but also an outer sense (sensation). Things outside the mind had primary qualities such as solidity, spatial extension and the ability to move. They also had secondary qualities such as color, taste and smell. Because our senses could only detect secondary qualities, the real nature of things outside of the mind was only a matter of opinion.

For this reason, Locke’s idea of knowledge was essentially coherence rather than correspondence [the perception of the agreement or disagreement of any of our ideas].

Locke rejected the idea of a priori judgments as built into our consciousness [by God or nature]. Instead he argued that the mind was a tabula rasa that gathered such judgments through experience. This, of course is the empiricist’s credo.

Hume argued that knowledge consisted of two types, relations of ideas and matters of fact. The claim to truth of the former consisted in its internal coherence. This yielded a kind of apodictic truth. Mathematics fell into this category.

The claim to truth of matters of fact was based on sensory experience and the inductions derived from it. These, says Hume, cannot make the same claim to certainty as relations of ideas.

Inductions are general principles derived from particular experiences, which are, of course, derived from the senses. Chief among these is causation, for all of science depends on causation.

When all our experience reveals a constant conjunction of two events, we say that the first “caused” the second--by which we mean that there is a necessary connection between the two, such that it will always be seen in the future. However, Hume argued that this projection is not guaranteed, because we really do not know what the future holds. Thus, any scientific hypothesis is subject to falsification by the discovery of new data, and none really deserves the status of an immutable law of nature.
Last edited by Neri on May 28th, 2017, 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 28th, 2017, 3:39 pm 

Neri » May 29th, 2017, 12:05 am wrote:Moderator,

Please delete the first and third duplicate posts. The introductory phrase, "having reviewed all recent posts," was added because of your reluctance to accept the post.


Thought you were driving home the point quite severely! :P
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 28th, 2017, 3:55 pm 

OR -

No offense taken. The idea was for you to read it and try to avoid dismissing what is said because you don't understand the terminology being used. I am trying to understand what you are saying so I politely ask you, because I think it will benefit you/us, to not give a knee-jerk reaction and try to grasp the heart of what is being expressed. It can be hard to take things said by others seriously. I found Kant, Derrida, Heidegger and Husserl hard to take seriously in places. That said each has helped in some way to give me a better and fuller perspective of differing philosophical approaches.

So I will ask again for you to comment on them and simply skirt around the bits you find obtuse - give leeway and assume there is a point being made.

There are things you say that touch on what these people have said.

To ask you to further examine what you've said above in regard to 1,2 and 3, I would like to know how these relate. If they do relate then how so? It actually reminds me of something Heidegger did with language to try and show something that he says "appears" to be circular logic, but isn't ... maybe I'll dig it out sometime in the week.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 28th, 2017, 4:51 pm 

OR,

You have offered a somewhat redundant form of Descartes’ cogito: “Thinking exists. I think. Therefore I exist.” Because Thought cannot exist in a vacuum [i.e. thought necessarily requires a thinking subject], the matter was properly stated by Descartes as “I think therefore I am.” (Cogito ergo sum).

No one, regardless of philosophical persuasion, can deny that this is truth as type (1) [Although Kant did claim that we only know the mind as it appears to us and not as it really is].

However, Descartes adds: Because the will affirms the cogito as true and refuses to deny it, the intellect contains not only the content of all thought but also the will.

Descartes defines truth as that which is so clear and distinct that the will cannot help but affirm it. For this reason (as the rationalist that he was) Descartes maintains that pure reason gives the highest kind of truth. These include the a priori principles (that we cannot but affirm) and whatever is deduced from them, as well as the axioms of mathematics as expanded by pure reason.

Second to pure reason is practical knowledge through the senses, which is “good enough” to provide understanding of immediate benefits and harms.

Third is the truth of the natural sciences, which is based upon both pure reason and sensory observations.

This hierarchy was necessitated by the fact, as Descartes saw it, that we cannot err in the proper exercise of pure reason, but we can sometimes be fooled by the senses. Because science depends upon confirmation by sensory observations that do not have the clarity and distinctiveness of immediate sensory impressions, scientific knowledge, he thought, was less reliable than immediate sensory knowledge.

Descartes did not really have a concept of type (2) knowledge. To him, all real knowledge was type (1). Type (2) knowledge found its full realization in Kant who roundly criticized pure reason.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby TheVat on May 28th, 2017, 6:55 pm 

BadgerJelly » May 28th, 2017, 12:39 pm wrote:
Neri » May 29th, 2017, 12:05 am wrote:Moderator,

Please delete the first and third duplicate posts. The introductory phrase, "having reviewed all recent posts," was added because of your reluctance to accept the post.


Thought you were driving home the point quite severely! :P


I am not aware of any mods being "reluctant" to accept a post. The process is automatic, so it's likely Neri experienced some server glitch. Clearly, there is no empirical support for assigning teleology to web servers. ;-)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 29th, 2017, 2:18 am 

Old Rasputin » Sat May 27, 2017 4:22 pm wrote:Knowledge is anything that we ‘know’.

My grade school teachers wouldn't accept a definition like that.
Here's one;

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

To perceive/experience 'thoughts' is to Know thoughts.

And that which we know may be an:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)...

You seem to be conflating 'truth' with 'knowledge'.
Knowledge does not need to be 'validated' (nor does Truth) to be Knowledge (or Truth).
(See definition.)

'Knowledge' is the unique moment to moment, perception of the One, unchanging, ALL inclusive Truth/Reality/Self!...!
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 29th, 2017, 9:57 am 

nameless wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:Knowledge is anything that we ‘know’.

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Nameless, I don’t disagree. But to be more all-encompassing and exacting, we could simply say: Knowledge is anything that we ‘recognize’.

nameless wrote:You seem to be conflating 'truth' with 'knowledge'.

Not so. Knowledge can be a Non-truths (type 5).


BadgerJelly wrote:So I will ask again for you to comment on them and simply skirt around the bits you find obtuse - give leeway and assume there is a point being made.

Fair enough. But I will need more time than I currently have to respond. Possibly tomorrow.

BadgerJelly wrote:To ask you to further examine what you've said above in regard to 1,2 and 3, I would like to know how these relate. If they do relate then how so?

These truths (absolute, objective, and subjective) are wholly distinct from each other, ...no overlap. The relationship is their level of ‘certainty’. Absolute is ‘certain’, Objective is ‘conditionally certain’ (dependent on the certainties of logic/math), and Subjective is ‘not certain’.


Neri wrote:You have offered a somewhat redundant form of Descartes’ cogito: “Thinking exists. I think. Therefore I exist.” Because Thought cannot exist in a vacuum [i.e. thought necessarily requires a thinking subject], the matter was properly stated by Descartes as “I think therefore I am.” (Cogito ergo sum).

No one, regardless of philosophical persuasion, can deny that this is truth as type (1) [absolute truth]

I certainly DENY this. This is Descartes big and fateful error. Although this premise (“I think”) appears to be an Absolute Truth (type 1), it is actually a Non-truth (type 5).

“I think” is just an ‘assumed’ premise from the more truthful “I experience thoughts”. “Experiencing” thoughts does NOT mean “thinking” (creating/authoring) thoughts. In other words, we are not/never aware of “thinking” thoughts, we are ONLY aware of “experiencing” thoughts, ...a HUGE difference, especially if we are looking for this elusive ‘seed’ premise (absolute truth) to build/grow all true knowledge!
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 29th, 2017, 10:55 am 

OR and Nameless,

The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB). Here are a few examples to chew on.

Based upon atmospheric conditions and the convergence of all computer models, a meteorologist predicts that it will rain on a certain day. However, when that day arrives, it does not in fact rain. When the meteorologist made the prediction, he did not know that it would rain; for, although his prediction was justified, it turned out not to be true.

A person claiming to have magical powers predicts that it will rain on a certain day because of his knowledge of magic. When that day arrives, it does in fact rain. The magician did not know that it would rain on that day; for, even though it did rain, his prediction was not justified at the time it was made.

If one believes that 2+2=4, his belief is both justified and true, for no other possibility exists. If one believes “I think therefore I am,” his belief is both justified and true for the same reason.

If one believes that all things have a cause, his belief is justified because there is no observed instance where such is not the case. However, the belief is not necessarily true, for it is not possible to experience all things.

If one believes that God exists, he does not know that to be the case, for even if God does exist, the belief is not justified.

The proposition that there is a physical world outside the mind is justified by the senses; yet, because there is no way one can know that the senses present the world as it really is, one does not know the proposition to be true.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 29th, 2017, 12:25 pm 

Neri wrote:The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB).

Yes, and it is now time to toss out (discard) this “classical definition”.

Even very ‘smart’ men, like Plato, can say very ‘stupid’ things. Equating “knowledge” as “educated opinions” (aka “justified true beliefs”) seems very non-smart, imeo.

Knowledge is ANYTHING we ‘know’. Knowledge is the content/information that we recognize/perceive/experience, that we then can use, to form our so-called “justified true beliefs” (aka “educated opinions”).

"True knowledge" is the knowing of that which exists with 'certainty'; i.e. is 'real'.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 29th, 2017, 5:10 pm 


OR,

Here are some questions for you.

(1) How is saying that “knowledge is anything we know” different from saying that knowledge is knowledge? In other words, what is added to our understanding of knowledge by simply repeating a different form of the same word?

Is not the real question: What does it mean to know anything?

(2) If one declares that 2+2=4 is that proposition both justified and true? If so, does this mean it is only an “educated opinion”?

(3) If one declares, “I think therefore I am,” is that proposition both justified and true? If so, does this mean it is only an “educated opinion”?

(4) If, in a dream, one experiences what he recognizes as the tooth fairy, does this mean that he knows that the tooth fairy exists by reason of his experience and recognition?

(5) If one, while awake, experiences what he recognizes as a bear in a wood, but when he investigates he finds that it a black coat hanging on a post, did he know that it was a bear before he investigated, by reason of his experience and recognition?

(6) Suppose you are informed that a bomb has been hidden in your home. Does the mere fact that this information is part of your consciousness mean that you knew it to be true even if it is later discovered that there was no bomb?

(7) If a person is convicted of murder based upon relevant, facts demonstrating his guilt and the proper application of the law, is not the conviction justified? However, does this mean that the jury actually knew that he is guilty?

(8) Suppose [like our helpful moderator] you were a brain in a vat connected to a computer that created a virtual realty fed into you brain.

Suppose further that the motor centers of your brain controlling all the voluntary movements of a body were connected to the program in such a way that you appeared to move fingers, hands, arms, legs, head, face and eyes as you liked.

Suppose further still that the program created the appearance that you were able to speak to others depicted in the virtual world, even though you were actually speaking only to an advanced computer.

This whole business was so convincing that you believed beyond any doubt that what you were experiencing was in fact the real world.

(a) Because, apparently, you were able to “recognize/perceive/experience” [your words], does this mean that your belief that you were experiencing the real world was both justified and true?

(b) If that belief was justified but not true, in what sense did you know that you were experiencing the real world?
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 29th, 2017, 7:21 pm 

Neri wrote: The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB).

Old Rasputin wrote:Knowledge is ANYTHING we ‘know’. Knowledge is the content/information that we recognize/perceive/experience, that we then can use, to form our so-called “justified true beliefs” (aka “educated opinions”).

Neri wrote:(1) How is saying that “knowledge is anything we know” different from saying that knowledge is knowledge?

Note the key word “ANYTHING”, which means anything (and everything!) that we know. Yes, we can know our “beliefs”, but we can also know lots of other things too, ...true? So why limit knowledge to ONLY “beliefs”?

Can’t we possess knowledge of things ‘other’ than ‘beliefs’? Can’t we know our ‘thoughts’? Can’t we know our feelings? Can’t we know our sensations? Can’t we know our pains, pleasures, emotions, fears, etc etc.?

So again, why narrowly define (limit) "knowledge" to only just the knowing of “beliefs”?

And furthermore, what does “justified”, in this context, really mean? Everyone seems to have some reasoning, i.e. "justification", for what they believe. Although the justification may be downright foolish, weak, or non-sensical, aren't all beliefs in this respect, fully "justified"?

Look, in reality, we just believe what we believe, we feel what we feel. We don’t choose or “justify” our beliefs/feelings. Since none of us have any say-so in our beliefs, "justified belief" is just fantasy talk.

It is time to dump this old "classical definition" of knowledge!

Neri wrote:(2) If one declares that 2+2=4 is that proposition both justified and true? If so, does this mean it is only an “educated opinion”?

No, and no. This is a ‘logical truth’ and therefore not subject to beliefs (or opinions).

Neri wrote:(3) If one declares, “I think therefore I am,” is that proposition both justified and true? If so, does this mean it is only an “educated opinion”?

“I think, therefore I am” is a false proposition; it is flawed logic and a non-truth
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 29th, 2017, 9:01 pm 

Old Rasputin » Mon May 29, 2017 6:57 am wrote:
nameless wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:Knowledge is anything that we ‘know’.

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Nameless, I don’t disagree. But to be more all-encompassing and exacting, we could simply say: Knowledge is anything that we ‘recognize’.

To be Universal, my definition is necessary.
What if you do not 'recognize' something that you perceive?
Recognition requires ego/thought, perception does not, but certainly encompasses it (we perceive thoughts/feelings of 'recognition').

nameless wrote:You seem to be conflating 'truth' with 'knowledge'.

Not so. Knowledge can be a Non-truths (type 5).

Knowing what is perceived/experienced, all 'thoughts' (ego/duality) are Knowledge of thoughts.
A thought of a 'non-truth' is still knowledge of a 'thought', not any 'non-truth' beyond 'thought'.
Knowledge of the thought of fire, isn't fire.
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 29th, 2017, 9:08 pm 

Neri » Mon May 29, 2017 7:55 am wrote:OR and Nameless,

The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB).

No, you err, there are numerous halfassed 'classical' attempts at a definition!
There has been no Universal definition until Now!
This definition is ALL encompassing, with no oopses or uncertain corners, by which EVERY 'classical' attempt at a definition of 'Knowledge' fails!

I can refute your attempted definitions all over the place (demonstrate the non-Universality, incompleteness, of the attempted definition).
So far, no one has been able to logically refute the definition I offer.
Your attempted definition sincerely violates Occam's Razor, for a start...

Tossing 'belief' into the mix is an ignorant error. (Another violation of Occam's Razor)
A 'belief' is not a rationally decided upon thing to... 'believe', a 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the ego/thought.
'Beliefs' are spread and caught, like any 'malware'.
It is NOT a rationally decided thing!
Associating it with Knowledge (other than the knowledge of the 'belief', of course) is ignorance and unsupportable.
That is why the twisting and turning of the added 'justified' (everyone hosting 'beliefs' will find justification in all sorts of places; beliefs must be constantly 'fed') is an emotional need rather than intellectual!
And now it must be 'true'... all sorts of wavy gravy nebulous words to define another such word.
HUGE fail.
Again, I offer my (the only) Universal definition, of which Occam approves! *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests