How do we know that we know what we know?

[infamous]

Infamous,

Very good point about the inclusion of the other senses. I would have to agree with you. I pose to you another question: if people perceive stimuli in different ways, who exactly is "right" - the person who tastes broccoli as one would taste chocolate cake, or the person who tastes broccoli as one tastes a bitter vegetable? Furthermore, who/what gives us the right to decide who is right and who is wrong in conceptualizing reality?

 

Exactly; My reality is my possession, it belongs to nobody but me. I can't force it on anyone nor in fact can I even give it away. Likewise can nobody share theirs with me, my reality and my being are truly alone in this universe. We are best of friends, my reality understands myself and myself understands my reality. The greatest question mankind can conjure, can one human really share anothers mind. I have my doubts.

[ricolo41]

The greatest question mankind can conjure, can one human really share anothers mind. I have my doubts.

 

I am also doubtful, infamous. However, there are many aspects of people's experience that bring people together. After really thinking about the initial question I posed (How do we know that we know what we know?), I can honestly say that we really aren't sure about what we know and how we know it. Nonetheless, human emotions and feelings of social acceptance and well-being can truly allow us to sympathize with one another. Look at this forum itself; we know that we are communicating and that our thoughts are being translated in such a form that many people can perceive it. It is unlikely that the sentences we type in these forums constantly hold ambiguity. I mean, sure there are some phrases we utter that require clarification (especially in the absence of context), but overall there is a consistent interpretation.

 

Any thoughts now, on the philosophy of language? What can give rise to meaning in language?

[infamous]

I am also doubtful, infamous. However, there are many aspects of people's experience that bring people together. After really thinking about the initial question I posed (How do we know that we know what we know?), I can honestly say that we really aren't sure about what we know and how we know it. Nonetheless, human emotions and feelings of social acceptance and well-being can truly allow us to sympathize with one another. Look at this forum itself; we know that we are communicating and that our thoughts are being translated in such a form that many people can perceive it. It is unlikely that the sentences we type in these forums constantly hold ambiguity. I mean, sure there are some phrases we utter that require clarification (especially in the absence of context), but overall there is a consistent interpretation.

 

Any thoughts now, on the philosophy of language? What can give rise to meaning in language?

 

Yes; language falls very short in expressing the visions of the mind. Maybe someday when mankind learns to exchange thoughts telepathicaly we will be able to really understand anothers thoughts.

[BEAKER]

We know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know what we know know by the scientific method. B)

B) Or do we?B)

[Doctordick]

You guys need to read the article "Color Perception Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder" B)

 

In case it disappears, this is an extract! Note the "40 times"

It's In The Brain

 

First-ever images of living human retinas have yielded a surprise about how we perceive our world. Researchers at the University of Rochester have found that the number of color-sensitive cones in the human retina differs dramatically among people—by up to 40 times—yet people appear to perceive colors the same way. The findings, on the cover of this week's journal Neuroscience, strongly suggest that our perception of color is controlled much more by our brains than by our eyes.

...(omitted text) ...

"That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is."

 

In a related experiment, Williams and a postdoctoral fellow Yasuki Yamauchi, working with other collaborators from the Medical College of Wisconsin, gave several people colored contacts to wear for four hours a day. While wearing the contacts, people tended to eventually feel as if they were not wearing the contacts, just as people who wear colored sunglasses tend to see colors "correctly" after a few minutes with the sunglasses. The volunteers' normal color vision, however, began to shift after several weeks of contact use. Even when not wearing the contacts, they all began to select a pure yellow that was a different wavelength than they had before wearing the contacts.

"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

Resolution of this issue is exactly the driving issue of almost all my posts on this forum: exactly how do we manage to comprehend our experiences at all. Every year, millions of new fertilized eggs arrive on the scene knowing absolutely nothing of the universe around them. They begin possessing with utterly no mental model of the universe (not even of their own senses) and yet in a few short years, they manage to solve a problem the scientific community long ago declared impossible: they come up with a mental model their universe, they manage to model the source of totally undefined data (the universe is undefined until they comprehend it) transcribed by an undefined process (their senses, which are only defined after the model is created). B)

 

I have no idea how this is actually done; but I do know how it could be done: I can show a logical solution to that very problem. If you are interested in knowing an answer, I suggest you take a look at my discussion with "turtle" in the thread " Defining the nature of rational discussion!" B)

 

By the way, do "we all share the same world" or is that just an assumption we make? The question is a lot deeper than it appears. B)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Turtle]

B) Or do we?:)

___This quote refers to Beaker's expanded quote in post #21 of my original quote somewhere earlier. Therin, my singular quote is repeated over & over as a demonstration of what it describes. A rather nice demonstration at that, inspite of the fact it is meant as a demonstration that contradicts itself.

___If I may presume to say so, everyone accepts, nay believes, & in everyway relies on, the idea of 'A priori'. First Principle, Starting Point, Singularity, The Word, etc.. Why? Because we must. Doesn't matter what the topic, religion, government, physics, medicine, etc.., it must start. A beginning demands [implies] movement. Never mind what moves or how, but a start is no start unless something has moved from it.

___Now in words that describe these two facts, something is always somehow askew so as to give the appearence of non-sense. That appearence is an illussion. Why do we find so many re-phrasings? In order to describe the two facts without giving the illusion of non-sense. My end is my beginning; the first in is the last out; the self-sustaing field; the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing; Yin-Yan & so on ad nauseum.

___Not 5 Blind Men & an elephant; millions & billions of variously time-disposed sensorially impaired people clutching at the world. Consider a magnet & its invisable field. As if that is not amazing enough, you cannot 'use up' a magnet. No matter how long it clings to a fridge, it is never diminished. No matter how many pins, or wrenches you magnetize with a magnet, the magnet is not diminished in its magnetism while having added magnetism to 'other' things. It is a moving self sustaing field, moving at right angles to itself sixfold with the result that the field lines move into one end (pole) & out the other end (pole). The Ancients understood as can we all by witnessing it. In my End IS My Beginning; The first chosen is the last to go; Yin Yan & all around the cobblers bench the monkey chased the weasel.

___Let those who have I's see.B)

[BEAKER]

Let those who have I's see.B)

That's all really tremendously profound Turtle. - Really! :) I see. You're absolutley right of course. without some frame of reference, how can two people discuss a topic of any nature? Truly the point of this entire website; increasing common frames of reference about virtually every topic known to man, globaly!

 

Cheers!B)

[BEAKER]

By the way Turtle, I totally dig your use of the magnatism metaphore, I'm really into that. I've been working on a "perpetual motion" machine for a long time - although I really don't believe in perpetual motion - I do believe in sustained motion throgh magnetism, contrary to comon physics principals. Of couse I haven't actually got any of my prototypes to fully achieve my goal - yet. Anyway, I like your choice of examples.B) (My son picked the emoticon)

[Turtle]

By the way Turtle, I totally dig your use of the magnatism metaphore, I'm really into that. I've been working on a "perpetual motion" machine for a long time - although I really don't believe in perpetual motion - I do believe in sustained motion throgh magnetism, contrary to comon physics principals. Of couse I haven't actually got any of my prototypes to fully achieve my goal - yet. Anyway, I like your choice of examples.B) (My son picked the emoticon)

 

___Excellent! I have started looking at it again for the first time. Consider this scanned image of pins in a magnetic field:

http://hypography.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=619&c=3&userid=796

___Yes, the magnet is on the scanner & yes I knew it might louse it up & yes I did it anyway. No apparent aberations yet. Anyway, notice in the image that all the pins align at right angles (90 degrees) to the 'center' (the very one we just discussed). Now further see that no pins actually reach - or lay - in the center;- what you are 'Seeing' then is that the magnet both pulls in (to the edge) & pushes out (from the center).

___Also observe that it doesn't make any difference which end of a pin has a head in regard to the field. Further see how straight lines at right angles give the 'illusion' of a curve line as the pins 'round' the corners of the magnet.

___I actually don't recall ever using pins but rather the standard isssue 'iron filings' Yet again I surprised myself with more information than I anticipated.

___Now here is just a touch more to prompt more experiments; how is it when you break/cut/separate a magnet into two, you get two magnets? Or do it again to them for 4 magnets. No matter how many turtles down you go, everyone has all the field properties of the first.

B)

[BEAKER]

You can't learn about this stuff from a book. It's a little explored, raw, and largely untested area of exploration. It's very exciting to me. -Anyway, we should probably take this to another thread.B)

[Turtle]

You can't learn about this stuff from a book. It's a little explored, raw, and largely untested area of exploration. It's very exciting to me. -Anyway, we should probably take this to another thread.B)

 

Acknowledged on all your points. You know what you know quite handily Beaker. Make the thread & they/we/I will come.B)

[BEAKER]

B) Here ya' go Turtle...http://hypography.com/forums/science-projects/4643-crackpot-science-quest-impossible.htmlB)

[Turtle]

B) Here ya' go Turtle...http://hypography.com/forums/science-projects/4643-crackpot-science-quest-impossible.htmlB)

I am on it like a pin on a magnet. B) Transferring field lines.... Now!

[Bio-Hazard]

I assume that a person can never know anything.

Therefore, everything is an assumption.

However, the agreeing part does come into place.

 

The blues are never interpreted the same. Nothing is the same in the universe. Things may be whole, but never the same. May "look" the same, but never the same. Even to the finest degree of our human competence, something may look, but never be.

 

If two things were exact in the universe, they would be in the same place. However if this is true, then perhaps you could copy and paste an object in this dimension however it's current quantum properties would change. Thus, it wouldn't be the same when you start copying it, because you will be changing it's position in time/space.

 

The belief that people can agree on something is because they can't go much further with their knowledge on how to discern this blue from that. Complete transhumanism would allow more a better view, but with that level of cognitive processing, even the understanding that no two blues are the same will be achieved.

 

Only with an abstract world can we call things equal. This is because they are abstract.

 

1 + 1 = 2

 

abstract number system to represent the "real" world.

No, it's just abstract, we don't know how the universe started, created, formed.. therefor it's an abstract interpreation of how things can be put into meaning with our mind in which we reach an agreement.

 

You may have different shades of blue infront of you, and you could probably get people to agree it is still blue. However delve further and you notice that light is missing, thus making this a shadier blue. Dive even farther and notice that the temperature and chemical composition and wave emission of this blue is different than that blue.

[Turtle]

I assume that a person can never know anything.

Therefore, everything is an assumption.

However, the agreeing part does come into place.

 

The blues are never interpreted the same. Nothing is the same in the universe. Things may be whole, but never the same. May "look" the same, but never the same. Even to the finest degree of our human competence, something may look, but never be.

 

If two things were exact in the universe, they would be in the same place. However if this is true, then perhaps you could copy and paste an object in this dimension however it's current quantum properties would change. Thus, it wouldn't be the same when you start copying it, because you will be changing it's position in time/space.

 

The belief that people can agree on something is because they can't go much further with their knowledge on how to discern this blue from that. Complete transhumanism would allow more a better view, but with that level of cognitive processing, even the understanding that no two blues are the same will be achieved.

 

Only with an abstract world can we call things equal. This is because they are abstract.

 

1 + 1 = 2

 

abstract number system to represent the "real" world.

No, it's just abstract, we don't know how the universe started, created, formed.. therefor it's an abstract interpreation of how things can be put into meaning with our mind in which we reach an agreement.

 

You may have different shades of blue infront of you, and you could probably get people to agree it is still blue. However delve further and you notice that light is missing, thus making this a shadier blue. Dive even farther and notice that the temperature and chemical composition and wave emission of this blue is different than that blue.

 

Poppycock. Can't, can't, can't. Yes you can. Either you yourself believe you are reading this -looking at symbols you understand, ie. abstractions - or you don't. Each of you. Each 1 (one) of YOU. There is no reply but yes. You Bio are your own center. You each of you deciding if you are reading this or not are you own center. The sound of one hand clapping is the sound of all hands clapping. Each from their own center.:naughty:

[Bio-Hazard]

Now that was senseless. :naughty:

One hand can not sound off all hands. It does not have the properties of all hands but perhaps a similiarity in relationship to a type of formation, a subject, yet subjects are not equal.

[Turtle]

Now that was senseless. :xx:

One hand can not sound off all hands. It does not have the properties of all hands but perhaps a similiarity in relationship to a type of formation, a subject, yet subjects are not equal.

 

Here is how it is so. You are correct that subjects are not equal. A thing can not be another thing. But we can & do come to agreements with the world, visa vi, this back & forth posting. So the parts we agree on have a sense of equality. But, we may agree we are here, but differ on agreement about whether a peach tastes better than the plum.

So because we have 1 single disagreement, we both leave a discussion of the same opinion. What remains - the residue - behind is our original agreement. A residue, is a remainder; from basic division you have a dividend, a divisor, & a remainder. When remainders agree it is a congruence relation.

Ok so far?

 

 

 

:naughty: