The Theory of Knowledge

[tonyrey]

LOL! The fact that you can repeatedly recite a bunch of abstract formulations does not show that you have made your position clear. The fact that you are unable to respond to questions about your abstract formulations suggests that your position is *not *clear, not to me, and not to you.

Socrates pointed out that the person who knows that he doesn’t know is at least better off than the person who claims to know but doesn’t, i.e., who doesn’t even know that he doesn’t know. (And people who thought they knew got upset with Socrates too…) Please just be honest here: if you have no answers, just admit it. (And you dismiss my questions by claiming that they are puerile?! You *really *don’t have very high rational standards, do you?)

“We start with nothing but our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions from which we infer everything else” = abstract formulations! Who are you trying to kid?

 

[Betterave]

“We start with nothing but our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions from which we infer everything else” = abstract formulations! Who are you trying to kid?

Are you playing “if I don’t look at it, then it doesn’t exist”? Can you answer my questions or not? If they are more than abstract formulations, if they are true claims that you are actually capable of defending, why not just go ahead and cooperate with my request for clarification? Looks a little suspicious, mr. rolly-eyes. “Who are you trying to kid,” indeed!

Please note that the game here is not “let’s make abstract assertions which we will then refuse to defend or explain.” Try to play by the rules. (FYI: “Pooh-pooh” is not a defense, and repetition is not an explanation.)

 

[tonyrey]

If they are more than abstract formulations, if they are true claims that you are actually capable of defending, why not just go ahead and cooperate with my request for clarification?

Unlike you I am quite prepared to give a detailed explanation of my view of knowledge.

1. When we are fully conscious we are directly aware of what we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and other mental activities, such as making decisions and receiving intuitions.
2. From the moment of birth (and probably to some extent even before we are born) we are aware of our mental experiences.
3. As we develop we learn that our perceptions of shapes, colours, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations represent physical objects such as human bodies, other forms of life and inanimate objects.
4. This interpretation of our perceptions is initially derived from those who care for us and confirmed by our manipulation of physical objects.
5. Our belief that there are physical objects is primarily due to habits we develop and associations we make in childhood.
6. Few people question the reality of physical objects because those habits and associations are deeply ingrained since childhood and they are confirmed by our success in using them.
7. Our perceptions of the **qualities **of physical objects are the result of stimuli communicated to the brain.
8. All our knowledge of physical objects is due to inferences from our perceptions.
9. These inferences are the basis of all scientific knowledge.
10. At no stage do we have direct knowledge of “things in themselves”.

 

[Betterave]

Unlike you I am quite prepared to give a detailed explanation of my view of knowledge.

So what was with your last five or so posts here? Nothing but evasion when I asked for the details of your ‘explanation’ (or rather, non-explanation) of knowledge. And now instead of answering my questions so as to clarify your position, you go for a general reformulation of your view. Weird. So how will you respond this time if I ask you to explain your claims? Should I even bother? Or will I just get more of the same?

 

[tonyrey]

  	 		 	 	 Unlike you I am quite prepared to give a detailed explanation of my view of knowledge.

Which of my statements do you fail to understand? Which you wish me to clarify?
And, far more to the point, which do you consider to be false?

 

[tonyrey]

Also, I tend to think that all knowledge starts with the senses and that even mathematical truths would not exist if we did not have sense experience. Am I wrong?

I believe our knowledge starts with the **interpretation **of the stimuli we receive from our senses. Initially we are confronted with a mass of data we don’t understand: colours, shapes, tastes, smells, sounds and tactile sensations. We gradually associate these impressions with external objects because they keep recurring in patterns which become recognisable, predictable and usable. Eventually our inability to manipulate or control - and our direct awareness of - our continuous stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions teaches us to distinguish our mental experiences from the intermittent and varied stimuli from physical objects. That is why from the dawn of history human beings have intuitively recognised the reality of both mind and matter. Solipsism, idealism and materialism are far less common than dualism. It is ironic that in our secular society the current obsession with tangible things overlooks the fact that physical objects are less accessible, significant and valuable than intangible reality!

 

[tonyrey]

I like your reference to manifestations of divine love. And that science doesn’t get us to the very heart of things. Personal encounters, or what Martin Buber calls I-Thou relationships, gets us closer to that heart. By the way, a wonderful phenomenology of I-Thou relationships is provided by a French philosopher, Levinas, whose focus was the Face. I don’t know if you have heard of him. I’ve taken my “handle” from him. In a way, Levinas transcends Aristotle who never addressed the issue of “person”.

 

[tonyrey]

Eventually our inability to manipulate or control - and our direct awareness of - our continuous stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions teaches us to distinguish our mental experiences from the intermittent and varied stimuli from physical objects.

I may have given the impression that we have no control whatsoever over our mental activities which, of course, is not the case! What is true is that we cannot normally escape from our thoughts and feelings while we are awake whereas we can and do become unaware of our physical surroundings. Our mental life has an immediacy which distinguishes it from empirical knowledge.

 

[Betterave]

Which of my statements do you fail to understand? Which you wish me to clarify?
And, far more to the point, which do you consider to be false?

You could just go ahead and answer my “puerile” questions from post 78. Or do you wish to retract the statement that led to those questions and substitute some other formulation/version of your view?

 

[tonyrey]

You could just go ahead and answer my “puerile” questions from post 78. Or do you wish to retract the statement that led to those questions and substitute some other formulation/version of your view?

There is one(or whatever you like to call it) - the positer, the person who is reasoning and interpreting reality.

What makes this an “irreducible concept”? (What constitutes an “irreducible concept” as such, and why is this an instance of one?)

An irreducible concept is one that cannot be reduced to other concepts. Knowledge presupposes a knower, i.e. an indivisible entity, a person who knows - unless you can explain how Hume’s view that we are “bundles of impressions” is consistent with your claim to be a Catholic…

It is not necessary to swallow Quine’s view lock, stock and barrel to recognise the fact that we are all in the egocentric predicament.

       So what *is* necessary to recognize this??

 The fact that we do not have direct knowledge of things - unless you can explain how such a feat is achieved...

His empiricism may overlook the primacy of our stream of consciousness as** the sole source of direct knowledge**

…
I’m not sure what this means.

We are directly aware of what we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and our other mental activities, such as making decisions and receiving intuitions, but we infer the existence of everything else.

 

[Betterave]

You could just go ahead and answer my “puerile” questions from post 78. Or do you wish to retract the statement that led to those questions and substitute some other formulation/version of your view?

Please actually answer my questions. I’m not interested in chasing you around while you peevishly prevaricate and equivocate as to what your real position is and while you pretend to answer questions by quoting my question and then writing a couple of sentences that in fact do nothing to answer my question.

 

[tonyrey]

Please actually answer my questions. I’m not interested in chasing you around while you peevishly prevaricate and equivocate as to what your real position is and while you pretend to answer questions by quoting my question and then writing a couple of sentences that in fact do nothing to answer my question.

I have answered all your questions but you are making false allegations in an attempt to conceal your failure to refute my statements. I leave others to decide who has presented a more satisfactory explanation of our knowledge of physical objects:

1. When we are fully conscious we are directly aware of what we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and other mental activities, such as making decisions and receiving intuitions.
2. From the moment of birth (and probably to some extent even before we are born) we are aware of our mental experiences.
3. As we develop we learn that our perceptions of shapes, colours, sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations represent physical objects such as human bodies, other forms of life and inanimate objects.
4. This interpretation of our perceptions is initially derived from those who care for us and confirmed by our manipulation of physical objects.
5. Our belief that there are physical objects is primarily due to habits we develop and associations we make in childhood.
6. Few people question the reality of physical objects because those habits and associations are deeply ingrained since childhood and they are confirmed by our success in using them.
7. Our perceptions of the **qualities **of physical objects are the result of stimuli communicated to the brain.
8. All our knowledge of physical objects is due to inferences from our perceptions.
9. These inferences are the basis of all scientific knowledge.
10. At no stage do we have direct knowledge of “things in themselves”.

There is one(or whatever you like to call it) - the positer, the person who is reasoning and interpreting reality.

What makes this an “irreducible concept”? (What constitutes an “irreducible concept” as such, and why is this an instance of one?)

An irreducible concept is one that cannot be reduced to other concepts. Knowledge presupposes a knower, i.e. an indivisible entity, a person who knows - unless you can explain how Hume’s view that we are “bundles of impressions” is consistent with your claim to be a Catholic…

It is not necessary to swallow Quine’s view lock, stock and barrel to recognise the fact that we are all in the egocentric predicament.

       So what *is* necessary to recognize this??

 The fact that we do not have direct knowledge of things - unless you can explain how such a feat is achieved...

His empiricism may overlook the primacy of our stream of consciousness as** the sole source of direct knowledge**

…
I’m not sure what this means.

We are directly aware of what we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and our other mental activities, such as making decisions and receiving intuitions, but we infer the existence of everything else.

I believe our knowledge starts with the **interpretation **of the stimuli we receive from our senses. Initially we are confronted with a mass of data we don’t understand: colours, shapes, tastes, smells, sounds and tactile sensations. We gradually associate these impressions with external objects because they keep recurring in patterns which become recognisable, predictable and usable. Eventually our direct awareness of our continuous stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions teaches us to distinguish our mental experiences from the intermittent and varied stimuli from physical objects. That is why from the dawn of history human beings have intuitively recognised the reality of both mind and matter. Solipsism, idealism and materialism are far less common than dualism. It is ironic that in our secular society the current obsession with tangible things overlooks the fact that physical objects are less accessible, significant and valuable than intangible reality…

 

[Betterave]

I have answered all your questions…

LOL! Yeah, you have: by calling them puerile and refusing to answer them - but that’s not really an answer to my question, Tony. Please look up the word ‘prevaricate.’ If you’re going to insist on being this disrespectful, dishonest, and irrational, fo-getaboutit!

 

[tonyrey]

LOL! Yeah, you have: by calling them puerile and refusing to answer them - but that’s not really an answer to my question, Tony. Please look up the word ‘prevaricate.’ If you’re going to insist on being this disrespectful, dishonest, and irrational, fo-getaboutit!

You are expert at slanging people but when it comes to producing a rational explanation of our knowledge of physical objects - or refuting another person’s explanation - you are lost for words. I leave you to continue with your irrelevant invective…

 

[Betterave]

You are expert at slanging people but when it comes to producing a rational explanation of our knowledge of physical objects - or refuting another person’s explanation - you are lost for words. I leave you to continue with your irrelevant invective…

I’m also an expert at recognizing prevarication (of course, you make it too easy).

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, post 78: I ask a bunch of specific questions about Tony’s claims.

Tony, post 79: “You have not made one positive statement! This is a classic example of inability to refute the other person’s statements and attempting to conceal the fact by asking questions. By way of contrast I have made my position clear:
[Tony repeats his position.]
You have not produced any explanation whatsoever of our knowledge of physical objects. Until you do so I shall not waste any further time or energy in answering puerile questions.”
[Ouch! Tony: that hurt.]

B80: “The fact that you are unable to respond to questions about your abstract formulations suggests that your position is not clear, not to me, and not to you.”

T81: Tony *repeats *himself, *doesn’t *answer any questions, concludes with rolly-eyes

B82: “…Can you answer my questions or not?..”

T83: Tony again repeats his position, still *doesn’t *answer any questions.

B84: I ask why Tony still hasn’t answered any of my questions.

T85: Tony *still *doesn’t answer any questions; instead he innocently asks: “Which of my statements do you fail to understand? Which you wish me to clarify? And, far more to the point, which do you consider to be false?” - as if my questions in post 78 just never happened!

etc…

 

[tonyrey]

Betterave, post 78: I ask a bunch of specific questions about Tony’s claims.
T81: Tony *repeats *himself, *doesn’t *answer **any **questions, concludes with rolly-eyes

Indisputably false!

Your Post 78: What makes this an “irreducible concept”? (What constitutes an “irreducible concept” as such, and why is this an instance of one?)
My Post 79:
An irreducible concept is one that cannot be reduced to other concepts.
There is one irreducible concept (or whatever you like to call it) - the positer, the **person **who is reasoning and interpreting reality.

Can you show why this answer is false?

Your Post 78:

It is not necessary to swallow Quine’s view lock, stock and barrel to recognise the fact that we are all in the egocentric predicament.

       So what *is* necessary to recognize this??                         
My Post 79: The fact that we have direct knowledge solely of our thoughts.

Can you show why this answer is false?

Your Post 78: I’m not sure what this means.
My Post 79: We start with nothing but our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions from which we infer everything else.

Can you show why this answer is false?

With every post you write you are making it more and more evident that:

1. You do nothing but ask questions - apart from making false allegations
2. You fail to refute my statements
3. You fail to produce an alternative explanation

 

[Betterave]

Indisputably false!

Your Post 78: What makes this an “irreducible concept”? (What constitutes an “irreducible concept” as such, and why is this an instance of one?)
My Post 79:
An irreducible concept is one that cannot be reduced to other concepts.
There is one irreducible concept (or whatever you like to call it) - the positer, the **person **who is reasoning and interpreting reality.

Can you show why this answer is false?

LOL! You inaccurately refer to post 79 to show that a statment about post 81 is “indisputably false”? LOL! Wow. You sure are feisty, I’ll give you that much.

Your Post 78: So what is necessary to recognize this??
My Post 79: The fact that we have direct knowledge solely of our thoughts.

Can you show why this answer is false?

LOL! Seriously Tony: take a deep breath. The ‘fact’ you refer to is the egocentric predicament, is it not? How can it also be that which is necessary *to recognize *the egocentric predicament??

Your Post 78: I’m not sure what this means.
My Post 79: We start with nothing but our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions from which we infer everything else.

Can you show why this answer is false?

I just realized something: post 79 may have been an attempt to answer my questions in post 78! Is that what you’re claiming, Tony? Wow! I never would have guessed. Could you repost 78, making it clear this time which of your seemingly random statements was intended to answer which of my questions?

 

[tonyrey]

LOL! You inaccurately refer to post 79 to show that a statment about post 81 is “indisputably false”? LOL! Wow. You sure are feisty, I’ll give you that much.

LOL! Seriously Tony: take a deep breath. The ‘fact’ you refer to is the egocentric predicament, is it not? How can it also be that which is necessary *to recognize *the egocentric predicament??

I just realized something: post 79 may have been an attempt to answer my questions in post 78! Is that what you’re claiming, Tony? Wow! I never would have guessed. Could you repost 78, making it clear this time which of your seemingly random statements was intended to answer which of my questions?

 

[tonyrey]

I just realized something: post 79 may have been an attempt to answer my questions in post 78! Is that what you’re claiming, Tony? Wow! I never would have guessed. Could you repost 78, making it clear this time which of your seemingly random statements was intended to answer which of my questions?

I have already enumerated them in my previous post - with the exception of questions like “What is knowledge?”,the answers to which can be found in any dictionary.

The fact that we have direct knowledge solely of our thoughts.
Can you show why this answer is false?

The ‘fact’ you refer to is the egocentric predicament, is it not? How can it also be that which is necessary *to recognize *the egocentric predicament??

Because a predicament is recognised by its causes and effects. We are isolated from everything and everyone else because we do not perceive them but their qualities. We can recognise we are in the egocentric predicament because we do not have direct knowledge of anything else - unless you can specify what that knowledge is and how we obtain it.

Do you believe we have indirect knowledge of our thoughts and direct knowledge of physical objects?