 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:10:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
>
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.
I am not so certain about that. But what you said (which I replied to
later in the thread) actually more closely approximates what I'm trying
to say here. It's hard to explain.
>> I've
>> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
>> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
>> do in your life".
>
> I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is
> defined.
>
> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
>> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to have this
>> kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes it
>> "knowledge" from their point of view.
>
> I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just
> diluting the term.
>
> What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent
> with the real world? I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?
Learned knowledge. But more to the point, instinctive knowledge isn't
necessarily exclusive of learned knowledge. I can instinctively know
that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
knowledge.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.
I'm sorry.
>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>
> Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to say
"that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
> I can instinctively know
> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
> prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
> knowledge.
That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.
Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk about
knowledge as "instinctive". What is it that everyone (modulo birth defects
etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how to *learn* a
language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a falling pebble's
compliance with the laws of gravity caused by instinctive knowledge of
gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing how to learn a language
"knowledge"? Does yanking your hand out of the fire have anything to do with
knowing it's hot?
And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other such
stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a natural
tendency?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
>
> I'm sorry.
Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with
not being certain about some things.
>>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>>
>> Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
>> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
>
> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
> justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
Exactly my point. People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
or it may coexist peacefully with reality. There is a lot of uncertainty
in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that
there's something bigger out there. That's fine with me; I don't
necessarily need that sort of certainty that we're here for a purpose or
whatever.
>> I can instinctively know
>> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
>> prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
>> knowledge.
>
> That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.
I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
cues. I just knew it. But the actual example isn't really the point,
the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:52:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
>
> Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk
> about knowledge as "instinctive". What is it that everyone (modulo
> birth defects etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how
> to *learn* a language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a
> falling pebble's compliance with the laws of gravity caused by
> instinctive knowledge of gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing
> how to learn a language "knowledge"?
There are good ways and bad ways to learn language. That we have an
instinct for it now without being taught how to learn a language implies
an instinctive knowledge.
> Does yanking your hand out of the
> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
make he pain go away. Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
knowledge.
> And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
> instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
> passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other
> such stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a
> natural tendency?
Some people come to that conclusion without formal training. I know
several who are in that category. I myself always had a particular idea
about how the universe worked that nobody taught me, nor really that I
figured out myself, I just seemed to know it. Then I found that there
were others who had a similar view and that it had a name. Since then,
I've kinda drifted because the "formal" part of that line of thinking
didn't mesh as well as I thought it did.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I am not so certain about that.
>> I'm sorry.
>
> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with
> not being certain about some things.
I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-) It sounded like you
were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned
instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.
>> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
>> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
>> justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
>> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
>
> Exactly my point. People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be
religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.
> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
> or it may coexist peacefully with reality. There is a lot of uncertainty
> in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that
> there's something bigger out there.
Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge." I think using "knowledge" to
mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless for
discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no
justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented
evidence", and that's "faith".
> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
> cues. I just knew it.
You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes
yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.
It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc. That's
why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to play with.
That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first half a year,
children don't even realize that things exist they aren't looking at, let
alone that smaller things are farther away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development
I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about 18
to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for example)
kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just banging the dolls
on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly start thinking of
other things (and people and animals) as having thoughts and personalities,
rather than as parts of the environment they can't easily predict.
> But the actual example isn't really the point,
I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame on
me! :-)
> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to a
large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> an instinctive knowledge.
What is the benefit of tacking the word on the end of that? Why is it
"instinctive knowledge" and not just "instinct"?
>> Does yanking your hand out of the
>> fire have anything to do with knowing it's hot?
>
> It certainly has something to do with knowing "I'm in pain" and how to
> make he pain go away. Pain avoidance is IMHO a form of instinctive
> knowledge.
OK, so what everyone else calls "instinct" (or "reflex"), you call "knowledge".
> Some people come to that conclusion without formal training.
Sure. But I specifically said "Christians" rather than something else to
imply a substantive agreement with parts of the bible as written. I don't
think it's unusual to have a tendency towards religion. Even atheists have
days when they're convinced God hates them. ;-)
And I don't think you instinctively knew (or know) how the universe works. I
think you learned it and didn't pay attention to having learned it, so
you've forgotten you learned it. Not that we'll ever know for sure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
>
>> andrel wrote:
>> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
>> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
>> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
>> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>> to be understood .... :)
>
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. I've
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
> do in your life". I've not completed my own pontifications on this
> definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.
>
> Jim
Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
People that act on such certainties tend to die, doing stupid things,
which they where *certain* would work. The point of knowledge is, in
part, to make you stop and go, "Huh, could I possibly be wrong about
this?" lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
>
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.
>
Not even that you are hungry. Some people never really are hungry, so
what they say when describing starving is not the feeling of needing
food, but of just not having a full stomach, which is *not* the same
thing. By the same token, someone with say, Downs Syndrome, among other
diseases, is **incapable** of feeling hungry, even when they are eating
themselves to death. Even instinctive processes can be distorted by
real/false knowledge, or misinterpreted to say something entirely
different than what is really transpiring. What *I* might see as a flash
of incite, from myself, a religious person might, due to their
perception of events, as the hand of god handing them an answer. And, we
could say, with fair certainty, that the later was simply wrong, if we
caught the *event* using a brain scan. We can even presume that its
wrong, because we do know how such things happen, and that there has
never been a case of *visible* outside intervention, which requires
explanations beyond how the brain processes information.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
> cues. I just knew it. But the actual example isn't really the point,
> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
>
> Jim
That you don't recall it isn't relevant, the process and stages by which
such processes arise, how they work, and where they are in the brain, as
well as how they can be derailed, destroyed, distorted, or disabled,
temporarily or otherwise, are some of the ***most*** well studied
aspects of cognitive processing we have. The issues neurology has, at
this point, isn't, "How do you learn that distant objects look small?",
its, "How do you decide that its still big enough to shoot at, *and*
make the decision to do so?" You are talking about stuff that we
actually use to make cameras and computers smarter, because we *know*
how they work, and why. And, you don't have the ability from birth. You
have to teach yourself how to tell that a distant object is the same as
a close one, even though it *has* changed sizes. At a few weeks old, you
didn't have the slightest clue, and neither does any other baby.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
