Define Knowledge

[Global Skeptic]

Well, I suppose so. Presupposing a computer program can be self-conscious, which I doubt very much.

That's not to say a computer program couldn't be sufficiently sophisticated to fool an outside observer (the Turing test?) into thinking it was.

But if I upload all my consciousness onto a computer (this is the thought experiment used by Daniel Dennett et al), my position is that this isn't me; i.e. the subjective experience that I have of myself is absent.

At bottom, what I'm getting at is the only thing of which I am 100% certain is the bare fact of my own existence.

I don't know what you mean by "you exist as you".

Even were it possible to exist as something else - a fully self-aware computer program - that would still be me. And my experience would still be that I existed as me. I don't see the difference.

Or would that mean I could exist in different instances of the program all over the place? Hence effecting multi-location.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Have you actually read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy?
The problem is this:
Did an evil demon(reality) create you 5 minutes ago and is right know tormenting you with the idea that it is so? In other words - are you really you if all your memories of the past, beyond your thoughts right now, has no direct relationship to reality?

 

[Borachio]

I did try to read it many many years ago. And I'm no philosopher, as you can tell.

I have come across the idea of being created 5 minutes ago, or even less. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea. And I have no idea how you could prove this not to be the case.

Makes no difference to me, though. Doesn't make me doubt the bare fact of my existence. Not a bit.

 

[Global Skeptic]

I did try to read it many many years ago. And I'm no philosopher, as you can tell.

I have come across the idea of being created 5 minutes ago, or even less. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea. And I have no idea how you could prove this not to be the case.

Makes no difference to me, though. Doesn't make me doubt the bare fact of my existence. Not a bit.

But it is not a known bare fact you exist as you including your past as your past.

3. Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology:

a. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, "There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v., the Omphalos hypothesis.)
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/what.shtml

 

[Borachio]

I don't agree. True, much of what I think of myself is my memory of myself.

But I'm talking about the "me" that exists now. This me is independent of my past. My memories, such as they are, are me only in so far as they are in my present consciousness. I have no way of knowing which, if any, of these memories are correct (assuming the standard narrative of continuity of existence). Nor does is it make any difference if all these memories have been ready made for me.

Honestly, I do really exist.

Or rather, since this is getting really solipsistic now:

What evidence do you have that I or anyone else exists?

I take it that you think you exist. What makes you think that I do? What makes you think that I'm not a complete figment of your imagination?

 

[Global Skeptic]

I don't agree. True, much of what I think of myself is my memory of myself.

But I'm talking about the "me" that exists now. This me is independent of my past. My memories, such as they are, are me only in so far as they are in my present consciousness. I have no way of knowing which, if any, of these memories are correct (assuming the standard narrative of continuity of existence). Nor does is it make any difference if all these memories have been ready made for me.

Honestly, I do really exist.

Or rather, since this is getting really solipsistic now:

What evidence do you have that I or anyone else exists?

I take it that you think you exist. What makes you think that I do? What makes you think that I'm not a complete figment of your imagination?

Well, since my internet handle is Global Skeptic it could be because I don't know that I exist.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification
First published Mon Feb 21, 2000; substantive revision Mon Jun 14, 2010

Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.
...

I.e. I am not a foundationalist, I am a global skeptic.

 

[Borachio]

Who is it, then, who doesn't know he exists?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Who is it, then, who doesn't know he exists?

Something which is either me or not me.

 

[Borachio]

Who thinks this? You?

 

[Global Skeptic]

Who thinks this? You?

Something thinks this!!! To know who/what this something is, is not the same as something exists and thinks. Metaphysics is easy, epistemology is hard.

Borachio, how do you know that you are you?

 

[Borachio]

Who else am I? What else could I be?

I am that I am. (Who said that?)

edit: Actually, I'll rephrase:

If you are not yourself, who else are you?

You are that you are. (Did you say that?)

 

[Global Skeptic]

Who else am I? What else could I be?

I am that I am. (Who said that?)

edit: Actually, I'll rephrase:

If you are not yourself, who else are you?

You are that you are. (Did you say that?)

Sorry wiki this time.
How do you know as such?

Münchhausen Trilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Münchhausen Trilemma (after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by his own hair), also called Agrippa's Trilemma (after Agrippa the Skeptic), is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. It is the name of an argument in the theory of knowledge going back to the German philosopher Hans Albert, and more traditionally, in the name of Agrippa.
...

Trilemma

If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to be accepting the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists are relying on the axiomatic argument. Views that accept the infinite regress are branded infinitism.

 

[Borachio]

How do you know as such?

You know this because what meaning does the statement: "I do not exist" have?

Who is making the statement?

It's not axiomatic (as such, in that you assume it), more a sine qua non;

i.e. you must assume it.

The fact that you can ask the question "Do I exist?" demands that you do in fact exist.

It is a peculiar case. I know of nothing like it. It is the cogito ergo sum of Descartes.

 

[Global Skeptic]

You know this because what meaning does the statement: "I do not exist" have?

Who is making the statement?

It's not axiomatic (as such, in that you assume it), more a sine qua non;

i.e. you must assume it.

The fact that you can ask the question "Do I exist?" demands that you do in fact exist.

It is a peculiar case. I know of nothing like it. It is the cogito ergo sum of Descartes.

You are doing it again. I have never claimed that I know I don't exist nor have I claimed that I know that I exist.

In other words you have to separate the difference between existence and knowing something exists. Existence and knowing existence are not the same; the former is metaphysics(and ontology) and the latter is epistemology - they are not the same.

Okay, so here is a wall of words. I am not an Objectivist as per Ayn Rand but her metaphysics will do the trick here:
1st Axiom: Existence exists and derived from that, non-existence does not exist. Note, they are self-evident, but existence exists is also vacuous. From the claim that existence exists doesn't logically follow that you or I exist.
2nd Axiom: Anything that exists as something different from something else follows the 3 laws of logic. Note, this is problematic because Ayn Rand mixed metaphysics and logic.
3rd Axiom: That you are aware of something, do not create it or reality as such. This is the primacy of existence over consciousness; i.e. it is reality that causes you to be conscious and not you(consciousness) that causes reality.

So cogito ergo sum in this interpretation means there exists something, which is aware; and thus not - I think, therefore I cause my existence. In other words what you are, is caused by reality as such to be however you are.
Now we just need to figure out if you are you or you are something else. Right there epistemology kicks in and thus:

3. Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology:

a. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, "There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v., the Omphalos hypothesis.)
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/what.shtml

In other words - this universe is a test run by God, he started it 5 minutes ago and he will turn it off in another 5 minutes.
So you, I and everybody else exist however we exist on the total mercy of reality as such. Hence religious humans have faith in that God isn't doing that. Atheist like me sometimes use this one:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

The fact that you can ask the question "Do I exist?" demands that you do in fact exist.

No, it demands that something exists, that can ask that question. From there doesn't follow with any strong logic that I, you or anybody else exist in the real reality or the 5 minute variant; that requires a posteriori synthetic knowledge to settle that.
I.e. I am is not the same as I am with all my memories of the past and right now writing this on a computer, which is there objectively as the computer(das Ding an sich).

 

[Borachio]

Well, there it is, then.

I no longer know what you think. Or even whether we disagree. You tell me.

I can only reiterate what I have said - that the bare fact of existence is the only certainty*. Never mind what I am really, beneath it all. Could be a brain in a vat. Could be a thing only just switched on and about to be switched off. As far as I can tell there's no way of knowing for sure.

And I'm not even sure it makes any difference.

*if you're sure it's worth the effort, you're welcome to try (or to continue trying if that's what you have been doing - I'm not sure of anything as a rule) and convince me that I don't exist.

On the other hand, how you might convince me that I - or any other than yourself - must exist is an interesting one. But I'm guessing you wouldn't take that on.

It's quite possible, and indeed very likely, that I simply don't understand what you are saying.

Or it could be, which would interest me a great deal more, that you can deduce other certainties.

Anway, I'm sure I've tried your patience enough already.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Well, there it is, then.

I no longer know what you think. Or even whether we disagree. You tell me.

I can only reiterate what I have said - that the bare fact of existence is the only certainty*. Never mind what I am really, beneath it all. Could be a brain in a vat. Could be a thing only just switched on and about to be switched off. As far as I can tell there's no way of knowing for sure.

And I'm not even sure it makes any difference.

*if you're sure it's worth the effort, you're welcome to try and convince me that I don't exist.

It's quite possible, and indeed very likely, that I simply don't understand what you are saying.

Or it could be, which would interest me a great deal more, that you can deduce other certainties.

Anway, I'm sure I've tried your patience enough already.

I will try. Existence is vacuous when it comes to knowing what exists. Existence is multilevel abstract mental word that we in the western world take for granted in everyday use, but the moment you ask what is existence and more over how do we know something at all, we enter the la-la land of theoretical philosophy. So yes, existence is, but it is not that same as knowing what actually exists.

*if you're sure it's worth the effort, you're welcome to try and convince me that I don't exist.

I won't try to convince you that you exist or that you don't exist, because I don't know neither as a fact. That is what it means to be a global skeptic. I differentiate in the most strong sense between knowing and assuming. I assume that you exist, but that is not proof of the fact that you either exist or don't exist as you, but rather exist as something else.

 

[Borachio]

I won't try to convince you that you exist or that you don't exist, because I don't know neither as a fact. That is what it means to be a global skeptic. I differentiate in the most strong sense between knowing and assuming. I assume that you exist, but that is not proof of the fact that you either exist or don't exist as you, but rather exist as something else.

That's not what I was getting at. I really meant can you convince me to take seriously the proposition that I should seriously* consider the possibility that I don't exist?

Skepticism is well and good. I'm all in favour of questioning everything. But this is seriously new territory for me.

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to doubt your own existence? Which surely you must do if you say you have no grounds to know whether you exist or not.

*repeating the word here is bad form - but what else can I do?

 

[Global Skeptic]

That's not what I was getting at. I really meant can you convince me to take seriously the proposition that I should seriously* consider the possibility that I don't exist?

Skepticism is well and good. I'm all in favour of questioning everything. But this is seriously new territory for me.

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to doubt your own existence? Which surely you must do if you say you have no grounds to know whether you exist or not.

*repeating the word here is bad form - but what else can I do?

Yes, that is what you do in the tradition I am a part of within philosophy; i.e. global skepticism and other strong variants which deny any epistemological foundationalism.
So here is the difference: Assuming that I exist is not the same as knowing that I exist and since skeptics are nothing but epistemology, we differentiate strongly between what it means to say: I think/feel/believe/assume/take for granted that I exist and I know that I exist.

Okay, here is an example. Look at the world and you will notice the following - there are at least two humans in the world which hold contradictory world views for which one of them is false according to the law of non-contradiction. So now you just have to figure out how you Know which one is true!!! When you start doing that you will end here:

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty = foundationalism)
The denial of that knowledge (and truth) is possible for the everyday world (i.e. you have become a strong skeptic)

With regards

 

[GoodGame]

But usually the question's like "Do you know?" and "Are you certain?" don't have an implicit no answer.

You can turn to statistics to try to answer these questions.

For example, basic statistics parameters (means, variances) will help you decide what you know, out of a large mass of data.

For example, calculating confidence intervals around measured parameters, can help you decide how certain your knowledge is.
Constructing a CI in fact has a degree of arbitrariness, since the choice of the degree of confidence to calculate is arbitrary.
Would you be satisfied with 50% confidence in your knowledge (that's like gambling)?
Would it matter to you to be 99% confident or 99.5% confident in your knowledge (would you go to great lengths for an extra 0.5%?)?

How many different things can "know the capital of Canada" mean?

Now that is just semantics. You can know the name, or know sections of town "first-hand". In other words the difference between the abstract/theoretical and the empirical. You might abstractly know the capital and a map of the capital, but never have had empirical knowledge of it. On the other hand you can use empirical knowledge to judge the accuracy of an abstract representation (map)



Another question to ask: is our knowledge and the means of our knowledge, fallible?

 

[Borachio]

Yes, that is what you do in the tradition I am a part of within philosophy; i.e. global skepticism and other strong variants which deny any epistemological foundationalism.
So here is the difference: Assuming that I exist is not the same as knowing that I exist and since skeptics are nothing but epistemology, we differentiate strongly between what it means to say: I think/feel/believe/assume/take for granted that I exist and I know that I exist.

Okay, here is an example. Look at the world and you will notice the following - there are at least two humans in the world which hold contradictory world views for which one of them is false according to the law of non-contradiction. So now you just have to figure out how you Know which one is true!!! When you start doing that you will end here:

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty = foundationalism)
The denial of that knowledge (and truth) is possible for the everyday world (i.e. you have become a strong skeptic)

With regards

Well, just so. Largely.

But look at what you say:

there are at least two humans in the world

My position doubts this. And I presume yours does too.

What my position does not doubt is that there is at least one person in the world - however I conceive it. And that is me. And, I presume, in your case, that is you.

Do not forget that all the words you are reading here are a product of your own mind.

So if any of them make no sense, blame yourself for "writing" them.

Best wishes

 

[GoodGame]

Nowadays, the earth is thought to go round the sun. Do we know this for certain? I suggest that we do not. In the same way that we believe our ancestors were mistaken in believing the sun went around the earth, it is not inconceivable - and I would suggest almost inevitable (though of course, this I do not know) - that our descendants will believe that we are mistaken.

Do you see the sort of ground I'm working on, here? Neither out ancestors, ourselves, nor our descendants can be said to have known, to know, or will know for certain.

I hope you were not being sincere in the above.

Yes some peoples in the past believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the Earth. Those ancestors included quality astronomers (Ptolemy) who made observations and calculations and still held geocentric views. Later ancestors (Copernicus) forwarded a heliocentric model; it was proposed for being more eloquent in explanation power than the geocentric model. It wasn't a completely clean evolution---there was an attempt to reconcile the two into one model by Tycho Brahe. And then comes along Galileo with an improved observation device (built using math)---a better telescope.

We of course know as well as we can, and know better through continued observation. The same can be said for people before us and after us.