Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope!
As for what is knowledge, nobody has provided a satisfactory explanation yet.
Erik said:
That concept was disproved in the 50s.
What is knowledge?
- Thread starter stormbind
- Start date
Nope!
As for what is knowledge, nobody has provided a satisfactory explanation yet.
That concept was disproved in the 50s.
I would say knowledge is just data/information. Awareness/consciousness is the ability to act on that data.
So then, what's wisdom?
warpus
In pork I trust
I would say that knowledge is the ability to make sense of & model data/information, as well as understanding the relationship between various sets of data.
Wisdom is having past experience in doing the above - leading to much more efficient understanding of data.
I can accept putting knowledge a level higher than data. I, in fact, do that at work daily: making sense of data; making it meaningful. And the transformation of data into knowledge takes consciousness.
No. Can you prove that your hand exists? You just really, really think it does. For that matter, prove you're not dreaming. Impossible as well.
warpus
In pork I trust
If you're the one defining the axioms, then yes.
I am 100% certain that 2+2=4 (in the usual vector space)
Not necessarily...can you prove 2 + 2 = 4 without relying on any "if" propositions? How do you know that the symbol "2" means what it does? That's a proposition that you must hypothesize, so you can't write anything in your proof. How do you know that addition even works the way it does? Only because it worked that way before, but you can't express the fundamental law that makes it so. The physics of the universe can change; in dreams you are 100% "certain" of things and act on them, but these things turn out to be silly in real life. So even just to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, you have to establish a lot of conditions that themselves aren't certain or provable, so the certainty of that "truth" is not really 100%.
warpus
In pork I trust
If you're the one defining 2, +, =, and 4, then you can be 100% sure that 2+2=4.
That's what I meant by what I said, and that's why math/logic is the only discipline in which we can be 100% sure of things - because we define all the axioms and assumptions.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nah. for 2+2=4, you have to possess memory of definitions, rules of inference, as well as the applicability of the rules of inference to the given definitions and propositional forms. memory and our inferential capabilities are both fallible. Its definitely not an instance of 100% certain knowledge.
I would say, however, that we have 100% knowledge of our own seemings at the time at which we apprehend them.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Brothah, I dun' get you and yer Professa Cracka talk! Put that by me in real language, mah homie!
Perfection
The Great Head.
When I put 1+1=2 into my C compiler it gives me errors.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
I'm now firmly convinced that the larger than life questions such as this one were intentionally designed to make me feel stupid
Damnyankee
Honest Abe
Everything is nothing, nothing is everything.
I actually thought I came up with that, but turns out it was an oriental saying, lol.
I actually thought I came up with that, but turns out it was an oriental saying, lol.
Perfection
The Great Head.
That's a stupid saying and I believe it has little relevance to the thread too.
But those definitions aren't provable. And to make it more problematic, how can you prove that you have memory of the definitions? You define 2, but can you prove two seconds later that 2 is the same thing that you originally defined? You can't prove any sense of continuity...it is an interesting thought experiment thinking that we could just be having our memory re-written all the time but thinking that the one history we have in our mind is the right one. For all you know, you just got blinked into existence 10 nanoseconds ago with all the memories you have pre-recorded (then another cool question is: does that make a difference?) And so on....
Damnyankee
Honest Abe
Similar threads
