How is knowledge aquired?

[Received]

In the sense that other minds precede us (or that God precedes us), yeah. But my knowledge doesn't precede me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ultimately did knowledge itself precede our existence?

If by "our" you mean all knowing beings, then my answer is no. Knowledge does not exist in the fabric of reality. It is something that knowing beings generate as they learn about reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[christ disciple]

In the sense that other minds precede us (or that God precedes us), yeah. But my knowledge doesn't precede me.

So, could you say that knowledge is self-existant? I know it may sound redundant.

 

[quatona]

Ultimately did knowledge itself precede our existence?

Sometimes I wish for a language without nouns.
Knowledge is when someone knows something.

 

[Received]

I wouldn't. "Self-existent" implies existent independent of the subject. And me and Eudaimonist are saying that knowledge is a subjective characteristic, hemmed up in the individual mind.

 

[christ disciple]

I wouldn't. "Self-existent" implies existent independent of the subject. And me and Eudaimonist are saying that knowledge is a subjective characteristic, hemmed up in the individual mind.

Yes, but the individual mind would need a source would it not? The source for our innate knowledge?

 

[christ disciple]

Sometimes I wish for a language without nouns.
Knowledge is when someone knows something.

Do you not seek knowledge in order to understand?

 

[christ disciple]

Sometimes I wish for a language without nouns.
Knowledge is when someone knows something.

If there were no nouns then you would not be here. Remember nouns are persons, places, things, and ideas. We are glad your here.

 

[Received]

Yes, but the individual mind would need a source would it not? The source for our innate knowledge?

The source may be self-existent, but that doesn't mean at all that the knowledge that encodes this source is self-existent. My computer screen exists regardless of whether I know it or not; this doesn't make my knowledge of this computer screen self-existent.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think there is a place for reason as an innate ability, albeit the content of reason is fleshed out through experience.

I would agree, but I would not consider reason to be knowledge, but rather the method through which we acquire it. Essentially, I just see reason as a codifying of thought processes.

 

[christ disciple]

The source may be self-existent, but that doesn't mean at all that the knowledge that encodes this source is self-existent. My computer screen exists regardless of whether I know it or not; this doesn't make my knowledge of this computer screen self-existent.

Could you possibly concede that the source is the encoder, the embodiment of knowledge?

Could your computer download its own operating system without a programmer?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Could you possibly concede that the source is the encoder, the embodiment of knowledge?

That treats knowledge like some kind of raw material that can be "mined" for through experience. As I view it, there is reality, and then there is what we understand about reality. Knowledge is our understanding - it the result of a mental process and as such cannot exist as anything other than a mental concept. Any "knowledge" that exists independently of the mind is simply something that is.

 

[quatona]

Do you not seek knowledge in order to understand?

I seek to understand.

 

[Received]

I would agree, but I would not consider reason to be knowledge, but rather the method through which we acquire it. Essentially, I just see reason as a codifying of thought processes.

Agreed.

 

[christ disciple]

That treats knowledge like some kind of raw material that can be "mined" for through experience. As I view it, there is reality, and then there is what we understand about reality. Knowledge is our understanding - it the result of a mental process and as such cannot exist as anything other than a mental concept. Any "knowledge" that exists independently of the mind is simply something that is.

Does not the God of the Bible state that "He is" or more correctly "I AM"?

 

[christ disciple]

Agreed.

I'd agree with that too.

 

[quatona]

If there were no nouns then you would not be here.

I think language is very powerful but then again not THAT powerful.

Remember nouns are persons, places, things, and ideas.

Well, stuff that´s there would be there without nouns. But that isn´t my point. My point is that nominalizations often trap our thinking.

 

[christ disciple]

I think language is very powerful but then again not THAT powerful.

Well, stuff that´s there would be there without nouns. But that isn´t my point. My point is that nominalizations often trap our thinking.

Thank you for clarifying. What do perceive as being nominalized?

 

[christ disciple]

I think language is very powerful but then again not THAT powerful.

Well, stuff that´s there would be there without nouns. But that isn´t my point. My point is that nominalizations often trap our thinking.

I think you know my perspective on this. I believe language has a lot of power, for the Bible does not say that God "thought" things into existence, but "spoke" them into existence which requires some form of language as well as knowledge (know how).

 

[christ disciple]

If by "our" you mean all knowing beings, then my answer is no. Knowledge does not exist in the fabric of reality. It is something that knowing beings generate as they learn about reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is not reality comprised of acquired knowledge?

So, then we are the creaters of knowldege and not seeker?

We therefore create our own reality?

Whose reality is real?