How I KNOW

[ReluctantProphet]

It seems pointless to discuss “How to know” something, so I thought I might offer for discussion “How I know anything.”

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn’t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn’t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.

But having said that, how do I know?

I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?


If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone else’s word in faith.

 

[Marz Blak]

Interesting. How do you answer these questions?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Interesting. How do you answer these questions?

As much as I would like to just "get to the point", it is pointless for me to try to figure out what words and concepts to relay if I don't know who I am talking to. When I say "who", I mean "how the other person is currently thinking."

Communication is really a 2 way process where both parties have an obligation to attempt to match their words to the understanding of the other. I have seen that probably 90% or more of those online do not think in terms that are consistent with each other but the presumptions are that everyone knows what is meant by everything said.

It appears obvious to me that those claiming to be reasoning people are not and those claiming to be spiritually minded are not. In reality most people understand neither of those concepts and are actually a broken up mixture of both.

This leaves anyone in a position of realizing that anything they say is going to be mistranslated into something they didn't really intend to say. A mixture of 2 thinking methods is not easily identified because the mixture varies from person to person.

Given any one person, I can explain the very origin of time, the universe itself, the God concept, spirit, logic, the mind, and even where it all must lead with absolute certainty.

But as it stands, in effect, no one is really listening. It appears as though everyone merely wants to either convince and inspire everyone of their cause or merely add conflict and doubt just for the fun of it.

If "just having fun" is the popular goal, then I have more important things to do. If convincing me of your cause is your incentive for being here, then you have a serious challenge at hand in that you must first learn of how I personally think as well as most others just to do that.

Thus I offer "how I personally think" just to maybe allow for some progress at me and maybe allow for some real communication to take place at least between myself and anyone desiring to convince me of anything.

I would still prefer showing at least someone why a few things are extremely important to them and the world so they might attend to them and get something accomplished to the benefit of all concerned, but it seems that is a lost cause.

So in short, I would like to know how others respond to these questions and what rationale they use to justify their answers before I even bother to try to express my own. But I will answer each of the questions regardless of how pointless it will probably turn out to be.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?

By counting, all the while carefully observing the process of counting. I will notice that I cannot arrive at a different answer. Through abstraction, I know that this applies to all other situations.

2) How do you know that a ball is red?

Balls are not red. (That would be nieve realism.) I may see a particular ball as red under certain lighting conditions. My perception validates the statement "this ball appears red to me at the moment" as knowledge.

3) How do you know that anything exists at all?

Cogito ergo sum.

4) How do you know what good is?

Through understanding that certain facts of human nature give rise to the cognitive need for the concept "good", and then following that lead. This is sufficient for knowledge.

Note, I'm not claiming infallibility here. I don't believe I must be 100% certain of my conclusion in order for there to be knowledge. I'm simply saying that I think the approach I take towards knowledge in these areas is valid, and may be rationally accepted until proven wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Marz Blak]

Very well.

Let me start out by saying that, overall, my metaphysics runs toward the existential, even maybe (a bit) nihilistic, so I suspect that you take these questions much more seriously than I do.

I thus *hope* that you won't see discourse with me as a waste of your time, but acknowledge the possibility that such might turn out to be the case.

If you would still like to have a conversation with me after receiving this caveat, I would look forward to it as well, I think.

This all said, I will start the ball rolling, as it were:

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
Depends on what you mean by 'know' and what you mean by '2' '+' and '4'.

As abstractions, I know them analytically, because they are sort of implicit in the definitions of numbers and arithmetic operations (in mathematics).

Empirically, I know because I can hold up two fingers, hold up two more of them, and count them all and come up with four. I've done this so often with so many numbers for such a long time now that I don't really have to hold the fingers up any more: I can do it in my head or using symbols. But every time I do it, that's basically what I'm doing mentally.

2) How do you know that a ball is red?
I see a ball, it's a color, I've learned through experience that that color is one people call red. How do I know that what I see as 'red' is the same thing everyone else sees? No way to know that, no point in thinking about it.

3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
Existence exists. Cognito ergo sum, though I don't necessarily believe there is an 'I', per se.

4) How do you know what good is?
I don't. I have beliefs about good, but I would in no way characterize them as knowledge.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Very well.

Let me start out by saying that, overall, my metaphysics runs toward the existential, even maybe (a bit) nihilistic, so I suspect that you take these questions much more seriously than I do.

I thus *hope* that you won't see discourse with me as a waste of your time, but acknowledge the possibility that such might turn out to be the case.

If you would still like to have a conversation with me after receiving this caveat, I would look forward to it as well, I think.

I appreciate your attitude and forgiveness for any perceived arrogance on my part.

In the following, and throughout, please realize that any time I say or imply "correctness" I mean it only as being correct from my particular mental construct.

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
Depends on what you mean by 'know' and what you mean by '2' '+' and '4'.

As abstractions, I know them analytically, because they are sort of implicit in the definitions of numbers and arithmetic operations (in mathematics).

This, I would consider to be all necessary to have correctly answered (1).

You know that elemental mathematical statements are correct simply because they are defined as such. ALL thought begins by the defining of concepts. This takes place in even the least intelligent entity. Naming those concepts is a part of the conscious process so as to communicate sometimes only within itself.

Do yourself a favor and never ever lose the connection between what you have named as a concept and what that concept originally was. Documentation is man's tool to assist the memory component of his intelligence. The only reason man can grow through the ages with any rapidity is because he learned to document his language and concepts so that even thousands of years later, his progress still had a chance of being saved and added to. Imagine how much better the Bible would have been taught and accepted if it had included a clear dictionary along with it.

Empirically, I know because I can hold up two fingers, hold up two more of them, and count them all and come up with four. I've done this so often with so many numbers for such a long time now that I don't really have to hold the fingers up any more: I can do it in my head or using symbols. But every time I do it, that's basically what I'm doing mentally.

This is where confusion begins to creep in. The question (1) is not really asking anything of reality. It did not ask if 2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples. Math is merely a tool expected to be used so as to better deal with reality. Math is the same even if it fit nothing in reality at all. It would simply be less useful and probably atrophy into the abyss.

Thus empirical evidence being sought so as to answer how you know that 2+2=4 is implying that it is up to reality to give evidence of something that has already been defined as being correct. This leads to a great deal of confusion as people begin to talk about whether your perception of reality is correct and dependable.

Mathematics is independent of perception but not of your ability to hold onto reasoning skills.

2) How do you know that a ball is red?
I see a ball, it's a color, I've learned through experience that that color is one people call red.

Stop right there. Once again, already correct. No more is needed.

This again is a matter of definition. But unlike the mathematics, this definition requires that someone show you what THEY call red. Once this is accurately shown, then the concept is identified and affixed to the word.

The accuracy of their showing is the only question. But the only concern is "what THEY call red". It is merely a word to identify to a relayed usage. "Red" is not a property of reality, but a label, thus no empirical evidence of correctness is required beyond their testimony as to whether what you perceive is indeed what they see and call "red". If they saw it and called it red, then you have proof that they indeed call what you have seen, "red".

Further evidence can be added merely by shifting other possible intentions of the other person around to ensure that what you thought they were intending to show was actually what you suspected. It doesn't take much of this investigation (even an animal can do it) for your confidence to grow beyond any reasonable doubt. The typical 10 year old gets enough evidence to cause him to insist that the ball is red regardless of any attempt to show otherwise or even rename it.

You are merely identifying a name or label with what you perceive.

How do I know that what I see as 'red' is the same thing everyone else sees? No way to know that, no point in thinking about it.

And once again, this is where confusion creeps in. There is no "what other people see as red". Others perceive something and call it red. You perceive what they are pointing to and accept their name for it. There is nothing to be "different" or "the same". There is only what was pointed to. There is nothing else to be compared such as to say "what I am seeing is different than what they are seeing".

Whatever you are seeing and identifying is all there is to the matter and is being called "red".

3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
Existence exists. Cognito ergo sum, though I don't necessarily believe there is an 'I', per se.

Well, you got half way.

You can not use the concept in question to usefully define or describe the concept. Thus the "existence exists" is an invalid response. It would be the same as someone saying that he defines God as "God, no more need be said".

You can know there is an "I" by the same process as (1). To ensure that your defining is useful, use (2).

What other people call "I" is a concern for communication and understanding what their mental constructs entail. It is not required for correctness in knowing reality for yourself.

4) How do you know what good is?
I don't. I have beliefs about good, but I would in no way characterize them as knowledge.

"I don't know" is probably the least used and yet most correct answer ever spoken by man.

I will leave this one for further discussion, but say that you can in fact absolutely know what good is.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to respond in earnest.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

"How do you know what good is?"

Through understanding that certain facts of human nature give rise to the cognitive need for the concept "good", and then following that lead. This is sufficient for knowledge.

Very good start just as you later state. But incomplete.

Earlier in man's growth you could say that no more is needed perhaps, but in today's lust to confound and force growth of understanding, most certainly more is required else you fall prey to the doubt casters concerning anything you might claim to be evidenced as good.

"Good" has a concept. There is a logical concern related to that concept. That concern has a logical path such as to lead to certain and absolute knowledge much like the defining effort.

This is not to say that "good" is merely whatever anyone defines it to be. The concept is already defined and commonly used accurately associated with the concept. But even though the concept of good is properly associated to the word, when trying to identify what portion of reality might associate to that concept, serious errors get involved.

The errors can be removed through clean reasoning (which is its purpose).

Note, I'm not claiming infallibility here. I don't believe I must be 100% certain of my conclusion in order for there to be knowledge. I'm simply saying that I think the approach I take towards knowledge in these areas is valid, and may be rationally accepted until proven wrong.

Noted and I very much agree that 100% correctness is not a requirement for usefulness. But eventually anything not 100% correct gets taken down. Thus the sooner man can see correctness in his reasoning, the sooner he can stop falling down just to have to try again.

Edit:

I might add that the idea that "good" is merely relative is an incomplete thought and extremely dangerous. This one thought of good being relative is literally causing the death and even murder of very many people and will continue to do so until corrected. If there is one thing that you want to do to help the world in a very serious way, get that idea out of society.

If you don't think it is really doing damage, then ask yourself why you are bothering to argue with religions. If their ideas about which things are good are not causing any harm, then why not just leave them alone?

There is a very solid and irrefutable logical base for "good" from which all religions can learn and even if they couldn't, the killing would end. As it is, the misery and murder can never end regardless of any extreme measures taken by any government to control all things. That government itself will have no choice but to become the murderer.

"Murder" = "unnecessary yet willful killing" as used here.

 

[CSmrw]

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what good is?

1) I don't. But the concept is sound.
2) I don't, but people understand when I say that said ball reflects light from the visible spectrum in the "red" wavelength and generally agree with me.
3) I don't, but I have no compelling reason to assume otherwise.
4) I don't, and based on the conversations I have had if I did decide something was good it would only be good to me anyway.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Balls are not red. (That would be nieve realism.) I may see a particular ball as red under certain lighting conditions. My perception validates the statement "this ball appears red to me at the moment" as knowledge.

You might want to note that you are changing the definition of "being red" with this statement.

"Being red" means, to the population at large as well as Science, having the property of emitting or reflecting light around the range of 650 angstroms average substantially more than any other visible light such as to appear red. It is the naming of the property of being able to emit or reflect. Red light photons emit themselves and thus can be said to be red as well.

"Being red" does not mean that the object vibrates at 650 angstroms.

Knowing that an object is red only requires that it displays the property to your certain knowledge. If you see redness when you look at it, then regardless of why, at that moment the object has the property of redness.

Saying that something "appears to be red to me" and saying that "it IS red", are the same thing. By whatever means, the object is projecting redness at that moment and thus at that moment has the property.

A normally white ball that is under a red light at the moment, is a "red ball" simply because at that moment, it is reflecting more red light than any other visible light. The fact that the same ball can be made to appear blue later is irrelevant to what color it is at the moment.

To a blind person, that same ball is not red, unless he accepts the term to mean that it would be red IF he could see it. He must rely on the faith in what others say or the use of other instruments to determine his knowledge concerning light frequencies being reflected.

This same concern holds true for those who are mentally blind concerning the ability to understand or reason.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The answer to the first question as to how you know involves things that are true simply by definition alone. This category of knowledge requires nothing of reality.

Another example would be, "How do you know that a sqircle is a perfect circle having 4 corners?" You know it is true only because it is defined as such (I defined it). There can be no reality to testify to its correctness but none is required because you are merely defining a concept. Whether that concept represents anything in reality is a different issue unrelated to correctness of what the concept is. In this example, the concept isn't even consistent within itself and thus is illogical, yet is still correct simply because it was defined to be the concept.

The second question involves things that can be known to be true simply because they are assigned labels to properties of reality. Similar to the first category, you know them to be true simply because they are chosen or decided upon. And like the first category, they require nothing of reality to testify to their correctness. But unlike the first group, this category relates to some affect that reality is presumed to have, but not actually required to have.

Within mathematics there are no material objects at all. Each object within is merely a defined concept possibly entirely unrelated to reality. But the intended use of mathematics is as a tool to help measure and deal with reality thus if very much doesn't eventually relate to reality in some way, the tool becomes useless. This same effect would occur with the labeling. But usefulness is a separate issue than correctness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Being red" means, to the population at large as well as Science, having the property of emitting or reflecting light around the range of 650 angstroms average substantially more than any other visible light such as to appear red.

I wasn't aware of this. I intepreted the phrase differently. Thank you for explaining what you mean by the term.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tynan]

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?


If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

1) Because we define 2+2 as being 4, there is no need to 'know' it.

2) Because we define the type of reflected light in the area of 428,570 GHz as being 'red' there is no need to 'know' this.

3) Because I am conscious (thank you René)

4) 'Absolute good' is meaningless notion rooted in wishful thinking.


Your idea that to answer these questions logically means one can 'truly' 'know' things is shallow.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

1) Because we define 2+2 as being 4, there is no need to 'know' it.

The statement that it is known by definition is established.

The statement that there is no need to know, is irrelevant, naive, arrogant, and irrational.

2) Because we define the type of reflected light in the area of 428,570 GHz as being 'red' there is no need to 'know' this.

Again, the basis for the knowledge has been established. And again the statement that there is no need to know is as above.

3) Because I am conscious (thank you René)

This is an assertion most probably from someone not even knowing what "conscious" means, but still doesn't answer the question.

This same answer could be given to the person who asks, "How do you that God exists?". One could reply, "Because I am conscious." Now explain how the reply really answers either question.

4) 'Absolute good' is meaningless notion rooted in wishful thinking.

So you say. Where is your reasoning and logic? Or are you without such skills and thus rely on others to do it for you?

If you want to start pursuing reasoning skills, I would suggest beginning by defining the term, "absolute good" so that you will not be compelled into making moronic statements void of rationale.

Your idea that to answer these questions logically means one can 'truly' 'know' things is shallow.

Thus sayeth the blind of mind.

 

[Tynan]

The statement that it is known by definition is established.

The statement that there is no need to know, is irrelevant, naive, arrogant, and irrational.

Again, the basis for the knowledge has been established. And again the statement that there is no need to know is as above.

Let me explain.

If we collectively call the mark a foot makes when treading in sand a 'footprint', then we need not ponder on questions such as 'how do we know a foot makes a footprint when walking in sand?' as it is us who have defined the action.

Similarly if you call your pet cat 'Tony' there really is no need to ponder on the question 'how do we know his name is Tony?'

I know a ball is red because 'red' is the description 'we' have given to light in the frequency range of 428,570 GHz.


Tynan wrote: 'How do you know that anything exists at all?: Because I am conscious.

This is an assertion most probably from someone not even knowing what "conscious" means, but still doesn't answer the question.

Why would you think I probably do not know what concious means ?

Is this how you conduct discourse around here ?

If someone dissagrees with your views the best course is not to defend them but to resort to character assassination ?

I do not know you, so I cannot say whether or not you have a grasp on a sound understanding of the word 'concious', but I see no need to make unfounded presumtions about someone because they do not share my view point.

Now back on topic, the reason I answer 'because I am concious' to the question 'How do you know that anything exists at all?' is that as the very least I perceive my concious self to exist.

Can I be wrong about this ?

Not as far as I can see, if my perception is wrong and I am not conscious (itself an oxymoron) then where does this perception come from ?

This same answer could be given to the person who asks, "How do you [know] that God exists?". One could reply, "Because I am conscious." Now explain how the reply really answers either question.

"Because I am conscious." does not answer the question "How do you know that God exists?".

Tynan wrote: 'Absolute good' is meaningless notion rooted in wishful thinking.

So you say. Where is your reasoning and logic? Or are you without such skills and thus rely on others to do it for you?

Again recourse to personal attack

Can we simply keep the subject on track here ?

If you want to start pursuing reasoning skills, I would suggest beginning by defining the term, "absolute good" so that you will not be compelled into making moronic statements void of rationale.

As I have pointed out I believe the phrase 'absolute good' is a largely meaningless term employed by the myriad belief systems, it is often a value attributed to the numerous and varied gods that humans like to think of as existent.

Could you supply your definition then we can take it from there, deal ?

Thus sayeth the blind of mind.

Very clever, very deep !

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

The statement that it is known by definition is established.

The statement that there is no need to know, is irrelevant, naive, arrogant, and irrational.

Again, the basis for the knowledge has been established. And again the statement that there is no need to know is as above.

This is an assertion most probably from someone not even knowing what "conscious" means, but still doesn't answer the question.

This same answer could be given to the person who asks, "How do you that God exists?". One could reply, "Because I am conscious." Now explain how the reply really answers either question.

So you say. Where is your reasoning and logic? Or are you without such skills and thus rely on others to do it for you?

If you want to start pursuing reasoning skills, I would suggest beginning by defining the term, "absolute good" so that you will not be compelled into making moronic statements void of rationale.


Thus sayeth the blind of mind.

1) Math
2) What's been said.
3) I experience consiousness and that allows me to experience, through my limited senses, a small part of existence. Unless my sensory or mental perception has come in contact with evidence of god, I couldn't answer "How do you know God exists" with "because I am consious".
4)I don't know absolute good.

 

[corvus_corax]

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn’t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn’t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.

Hmmm
Ok, I'll bite. Id like to see how the Jesus concept turns out to be logically correct, based on your 4 questions below

Others have already answered, and you have replied (and this thread can easily degrade into nothing more than semantics, very quickly), so I would genuinely like to see how Jesus happens to be logically correct (again, based on the "only 4 concerns to knowing" you mention)

Thanks for your time

From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

Is that arrogance, or admittance that nobody (including yourself) can manage it?
Just curious

Again, thanks for your time and reply

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Your idea that to answer these questions logically means one can 'truly' 'know' things is shallow.

I suggest that if you don't want the fire, don't light the match.

3) Because I am conscious (thank you René)

Let's see if we can turn this reply into an actual answer.

Have you ever had a dream in which you thought that you were awake? How do you know that you are not dreaming right now?

From my personal perspective (if you would read post #3 you’ll see that is all we are really talking about), I can see that in fact, you are merely dreaming that you are conscious and think that you are truly awake.

But for you to know one way or another, you are going to have to get into what it actually means to be conscious. What is "higher consciousness" for example?

So 2 questions should lead toward the actual answer to question 3;

1) How do you know that you are not merely dreaming right now?
2) What is consciousness?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Hmmm
Ok, I'll bite. Id like to see how the Jesus concept turns out to be logically correct, based on your 4 questions below

Well, I'm getting skeptical that we'll be able to get that far, but we'll see.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Is that arrogance, or admittance that nobody (including yourself) can manage it?

Just arrogance.

 

[corvus_corax]

Well, I'm getting skeptical that we'll be able to get that far, but we'll see.

I suspect, based on your OP, that you already have an answer.
After all, it was you who said -

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. ...The concepts turn out right either way...I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing...If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things.

Is my suspicion (mentioned above) based in reality (ie- Do you have this "logically correct" answer already figured out), or is it just a guess on my part (ie- Do you have no "logically correct" dissertation regarding Jesus)?

Thanks for your interest.

And thank you for your reply, rp

Just arrogance.

Ah, well then. A trait many of us suffer from
You apparently (given your posts on this thread) already have the "logically correct" answer. Instead of baiting us into arguments and semantic debates, why dont you just show us your "logically correct" answer regarding Jesus?
10, 20, 30 pages of debate regarding the 4 questions at hand is really useless if you feel that you already have the "logically correct" answer regarding Jesus.

All Im asking is that you produce your "logically correct" statement regarding Jesus, and apply it to the 4 questions you presented.
(bolded not for the purposes of "yelling" but for emphasis of point)

In the vernacular- "Cut to the chase".
I apologize for my bluntness, but time is not a commodity I enjoy wasting (especially on a thread that could quickly degenerate and/or derail into a 30+ page argument of semantics)

Again, thanks for your time