/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5530515]

what is knowledge?

how could you know what it is and what it is not?

how would you know that you know something?

how would you organize what you know?
Are there many ways that seem reasonable? Under which criterion?

how does knowledge depend on the medium (''computer knowledge'' as ones and zeros vs "human knowledge" like memories in your brain) or is it universal? Is it provable?

>not a /phil/ board but this is the one most likely to give a discussion with value and perhaps someone could explain how and whether or not these questions are addressed by the scientific method

so many questions in my head, /sci/ :/

[Anonymous No.5530529]

Your questions are everything that are discussed in an introductory philosophy course.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Good luck!

[Anonymous No.5530560]

>>5530515
>>5530529
Also, the scientific method is not knowledge, but only a way to (maybe) acquire knowledge, if you take it into your belief system that knowledge is only attainable through the senses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Or perhaps, knowledge is innate, and that there exists knowledge within in intelligible realm, outside of the senses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism

[Anonymous No.5530585]

>>5530515
If you would like to dive into the philosophies of the scientific world, I would recommend Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[Anonymous No.5530600]

Knowledge is an approximation of truth
Real truth is unattainable

[Anonymous No.5530616]

>>5530585
>>5530560
>>5530529


hmm... wow. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.5530647]

>>5530600
>Real truth is unattainable

That's a really big topic that philosophers have approached for centuries. Is truth attainable? If so, where from? Is truth unattainable? If so, why not? Why do we believe anything to be true or not?

Plato always referred to knowledge as being, "Justified True Belief."

[Anonymous No.5530739]

The conventional philosophic definition of knowledge is "a belief that is true and justified."

So if I believe I am a human being, and that belief is true, we might say I know I am a human being. We add the "justified" part, because we dont like the idea that someone can have a belief that is true by coincidence. So for example, if I believe irrationally that the next 5 flips of a coin will all be heads, and then the next five flips are heads, we would like to say that I didnt know that, because I had no reason to believe that.

This is the conventional definition of knowledge, which I think is problematic. For instance, no one will ever be able to adequately explain what it means for a belief to be justified.

The definition I prefer to work with is "Knowledge is that which we have no capacity to doubt." Doubt is a literal capacity. For example, I know I have a hand, because there is no possible method available to me in which I can test whether this hand I think I have really exists. To do so requires extra-real methods, which I obviously dont have at my disposal. Therefore I have no capacity to doubt that this hand I have is real. We know scientific facts after we exhaust our avenues of doubt, and we literally cannot doubt them anymore.

I dont know what happens when I dump sulfuric acid on concrete. My doubt manifests itself as an experiment. If I do the experiment 10 times and get the same result, you might say "How do you know the 11th time will be the same?" to which I could answer "The consistency of the result itself is not something I can test, only the result itself. Since I cant doubt the consistency, I know it will hold. Individual trials however, can be doubted, because I have the capacity to check the result."

[Anonymous No.5530778]

>>5530739
>The conventional philosophic definition of knowledge is "a belief that is true and justified."

Then how can we attain the scope of knowledge of beleiving in a heaven or man in the sky on the pretense of something that's not justified at all! It goes against our innate nature of discretion to say that- the only reason you hold strong to your affiliations to science is because you wern't brought up in a monastary (thank god amirite?ha)- as to say that our nature is simply our nuture and under that premise we could beleive anything if we beheld it of ourselves
>pic related
And by that standard, and reflections of things done in the past that our limits simply are beyond what we would call knowledge

?

[Anonymous No.5530864]

>>5530778
How do we attain knowledge?
How do we know if something is true, or justified, or worth believing?
How do we know ANYTHING?

These are all ontological and epidemiological questions, and there is no clear cut answer, only ideas given forth by philosophers in the past.

These are the ideas of David Hume:

How can we have any rational ground for believing that one even causes another? We believe things have cause and effect out of habit, and habit alone.

REASONS!

1) When inquiring about the causality of things, there are two types: Matters of fact, and relations of ideas. A matter of fact would be something that you can think a contradictory event to, like when you drop an object. A matter of fact is that, when you release it, it will fall. HOWEVER! You can conjure up an instance in your mind, where the object will fly off into space, or explode, or do a million other things. Relations of ideas are things that are impossible to contradict. Such as triangles. Triangles have innate properties about them. To think that there is a triangle with 4, 12, or 8 million sides is to contradict yourself completely, and the entire idea of what a triangle is.

2) Matters of fact cannot be known without sense experience. The matter of fact that releasing an object will cause it to fall, is never known, until you actually observe through the senses.

3) Our knowledge of matters of fact beyond present and past data is based completely on causal connections. Refer to statement 2.

4) We cannot identify causal connections without sense experiences. It is impossible to gain through pure reason alone.

5) Our sense experiences, however, NEVER give us access to causal connections. We may have access to sensory input from various events, but nowhere do we have access to the actual property of causality.

[Anonymous No.5531953]

>>5530778

I am the guy you are replying to

>Then how can we attain the scope of knowledge of beleiving in a heaven or man in the sky on the pretense of something that's not justified at all!

Beliefs dont need to be justified to be held. A belief is a condition of the world you think is true. Knowledge is a belief that is true and justified.

[Anonymous No.5533785]

bump

[Anonymous No.5534269]

>>5531953
Well yeah, but it's the fact of state of knowledge that determines that belief is actual as apposed to just said, like knowing why and where a formula goes not just because you're told it goes there but because you understand it entirely, Knowledge to what we can determine it as is something that neither needs to be justified nor understood in order to be held to the quality that can be supposed of it, as to insinuate that we ofc have a high quality of it now, but to get back on point that it is something that needn't be determined by any reason other than ones own.

>>5530864
>How can we have any rational ground for believing that one even causes another? We believe things have cause and effect out of habit, and habit alone.
Yeah, we obey gravity as a habit to
Really though I let out a little 'gufah' at this

>1)
Saying something or depicting it is just as true as it being, it simply exists in a state where everything is at it's base an abstract form of relitivity where things could be just as much bullshit to anybody as they are to you- the crux of the idea being 'do you know what you're saying': Yes? Then you have a relativity
No? Then you are without a determiner of the structure, these both go as equally as far in all terms of things, basically that even as you know what you are saying it is irrelivant because it is being split across billions of passages in the brain, and that when you don't know what you're saying there is an eventuallity of someone that can determine what you are saying, a triangle can have a million sides, it is not a matter of contradiction but depiction (this line is looking at only this part of this other line which is looking at ONLY this part of this other line.... and as many as you want)

2) This contradicts creativity and spontaneity leaving the point of consciousness alone for the sake of on topic
So No.

... continued...

[Anonymous No.5534275]

>>5530864

3) He's still undermining his point if it is only based on senses as we know of them 5 then reality cannot exist simply because it would stop ~_~

4) Are you fucking kidding me? Like seriously philosophy today is so fucking inbred, L2Gravity Mr.Hume- Also *Invention*.

5) Who the fuck is this guy and why have I heard his name before he sucks balls.
If we didn't study a birds wing we wouldn't know of lift

On a side note these posts have a 2000 character limit

[Anonymous No.5534318]

>>5530515
shit thread
mod sticky some shit so philosophers can fuck off back to /lit/

[Anonymous No.5534323]

>>5534269
I am >>5531953 and >>5530739

What the hell are you talking about?

> it's the fact of state of knowledge that determines that belief is actual as apposed to just said

What is the 'fact of state of knowledge'? Knowledge doesnt have states?

Okay, so are you trying to bring up some point that people can be dishonest about their beliefs? In which case, I dont see why you have brought this up to begin with.

>why and where a formula goes

Formulas dont go anywhere. They arent like physical objects that have motion or direction. If this was a simile, then please be more literal.

> but because you understand it entirely

What does it mean to understand a formula in it entirety? How does this contrast with understanding it partially?

>Knowledge to what we can determine it as is something that neither needs to be justified nor understood in order

What are you even saying here? This doesnt make sense.

Knowledge, as it is defined, is a justified belief. If you dont like this fine, but then you are redefining the word, and there is no work to be done in arguing with the word. Therefore I can only conclude you are talking about justifying knowledge. In which case the act of "justifying a justified belief" makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5535000]

>>5534323
>What is the 'fact of state of knowledge'?
It is a belief that is true and justified

>Okay, so are you trying to bring up some point that people can be dishonest about their beliefs? In which case, I dont see why you have brought this up to begin with.
Dishonesty was the very core of belief, that something only partial or never with a possible complete to begin with can have any full definition
As much can be said with with relativity and what is observing it from where

>Formulas dont go anywhere...
It was a simile for saying I 'I know what this is, therefor I can say I know where it can go or what it can be used for'
'Go' was probably lack luster term for the point but I thought it regulated it enough, purntly not

>What does it mean to understand a formula in it entirety? How does this contrast with understanding it partially?
Defer to previous and it is the difference between study & practice of these things and researching them

>Last point
I'm saying knowledge neither needs to be justified nor understood.... taking it as fact that we are not the center of the universe is knowledge, but at the same time could it be considered just as inaccurate- to many extents, get some M theory in here eh?
But we'd never know ;)

[Anonymous No.5535661]

>>5535000

>It is a belief that is true and justified

No, thats what knowledge is. You said 'fact of state of knowledge'. When the president gives the 'state of the union' address, he doesnt define what america is. Likewise 'fact of state of knowledge' is not the same as 'knowledge'.

>Dishonesty was the very core of belief

No its not...? Belief, as we know it, is not defined by a true false value, but dishonesty implicitly says something about true and false values.

>It was a simile for saying I 'I know what this is, therefor I can say I know where it can go or what it can be used for'

You just said it again though. You just said 'where it can go' again. Formulas dont go anywhere.

You tell me what formula means. Else we arent going to get anywhere.

>study & practice of these things and researching them

You arent really communicating any difference to me. Studying and research are like synonyms.

I think I can clear this up:

Mathematics exists because its useful. Its a predictive and practical tool for some other activity (banking, physics, rocket ships etc).

If we study a formula, we understand the formula. But that formula is separate from its application. We can know something about the formula, and we can know something about the application.

You are trying to confound what you know about into a single thing. Its not. There are not two sorts of knowledge that mean 'partial' and 'full' understanding (or whatever). You are just knowing about different things.

If you think its wrong of me to divorce a formula from its application, then you are now talking about a third thing: The connection between formula and application. I might know a formula relevant to wood working, and know how to wood work, and not know of the connection between formula and application.

In doing this, again, we do not need some convoluted description of knowledge. We only need to appreciate what is it our word "knowledge" is corresponding to. One sort of knowledge suits us fine.

[Anonymous No.5535719]

>>5535000
Cont from >>5535661

>I'm saying knowledge neither needs to be justified nor understood

Well thats wrong by definition. Knowledge IS justified. Thats how its defined. I could imagine you mean something else. You need to be more specific, and clear.

[Anonymous No.5536375]

>>5535661
Well the state is the standard we hold it to,as to getting back to the point of what we determine as definable


>No its not...? Belief, as we know it, is not defined by a true false value, but dishonesty implicitly says something about true and false values.
Our values are not subject to the tunnels of worms while we build our buildings no? Likewise is it for atomic depth, the depth of our truth at any given time is directly related to what we consider ourselves composed of- belief at one point had nothing to do with what we call science today, as to say it was fiction of a sort


>You just said it again though. You just said 'where it can go' again. Formulas dont go anywhere.
What it can be applied to -_-
As to relate back to the post in >>5534269 that it can be determined to be of available applicability because it's state is so that is existing in everything and thus everything and thus applicable to everything- but then we determine it's direction, an infinity plus one so to speak.

[Anonymous No.5536381]

>>5535661
Cont. >>5536375

>We can know something about the formula, and we can know something about the application.
*If we know everything about the formula we can derive applications to the question
And in that is the formula stating the definition of the application and at that can we determine that it is only, to your point, something

>Point after that
We are in constant relativity to everything that is relative to our description of of perception- at that are we perceiving a full understanding of our partiality

>If you think its wrong of me to divorce a formula from its application, then you are now talking about a third thing: The connection between formula and application. I might know a formula relevant to wood working, and know how to wood work, and not know of the connection between formula and application.
Well that's the point! Knowledge being something that can only ever be considered partial as at the whims of depiction that it does not need to have a justification to belief, it just needs to obey the scripts that were created parallel to it

>One sort of knowledge suits us fine.
It is completely inadequate to say such a thing, as things are energies have to contain or be as knowledge to say that there bounds are as they are determined in relevance to other structures
Very string theory esq.

>Well thats wrong by definition. Knowledge IS justified. Thats how its defined. I could imagine you mean something else. You need to be more specific, and clear.
Relating to my previous point either it is wrong or knowledge as we define it's relevance to us as humans is extremely watered down

[Anonymous No.5536387]

>>5530515
someone fucking sticky an epistemology infosheet for shits like OP

[Anonymous No.5536747]

>>5536375

>Our values are not subject to the tunnels of worms while we build our buildings no?

Why are you bringing up values? We arent talking about values.

>the depth of our truth

1. Truth doesnt have depth. A thing is either true or not. There is no gradient.

2. There is no such thing as "our truth." "True" is a value associated with things like statements, propositions, beliefs etc (The meaning of truth in this case is ambiguous). I dont have the truth of statements, any more than we have the temperature of an object (an analogous value).

>belief at one point had nothing to do with what we call science today

Well it still doesnt. Beliefs and science are two separate things.

>What it can be applied to -_-

No amount of knowledge about x, will inform you about xRy, when you know nothing about R or y. If you know something about x and y, and you derive R, then its not purely because you knew about x.

>Knowledge being something that can only ever be considered partial

The adjective 'partial' is describing 'knowledge.' And knowledge is not partial, it is wholly what is it. If you think knowledge is lackluster in some regard, then you are considering in a context, which is a different subject than 'knowledge' altogether.

>as things are energies have to contain or be as knowledge

What?

>knowledge as we define it's relevance to us as humans is extremely watered down

OKAY, thats fair. I too have my own problems with the conventional philosophic definition of 'knowledge.' But I state that up front. What is it we have been talking about?

State to me now, concisely what makes knowledge watered down.

[Anonymous No.5536913]

>>5536747
>Why are you bringing up values? We arent talking about values.
It is in relevance to as you speak of knowledge that you are not accounting for all possibilities

>Well it still doesnt. Beliefs and science are two separate things.
You believe math is infallible then? trollface.jpg

>xRy
Well you're never just applying a single structure, that's not math, that's saying what is

>The adjective 'partial' is describing 'knowledge.' And knowledge is not partial, it is wholly what is it. If you think knowledge is lackluster in some regard, then you are considering in a context, which is a different subject than 'knowledge' altogether.
"You say something is something" As you say that you are not accounting for everything that makes it that way.
Knowledge at every corner of place is partial

>
Did you even read the premise?


>State to me now, concisely what makes knowledge watered down.
-Previous- Yeah irk-
Err'thang I was just talking about

[Anonymous No.5536963]

>>5536913

>You believe math is infallible then?

Well, yes I do. But that is a separate subject and I dont see its relevance.

>Well you're never just applying a single structure

So? I didnt say 'there is a single relationship', I just stated a single relationship. If you treat R and y as one of many relationships and objects then my example holds just as well.

>that's not math, that's saying what is

Math is 'what is'. If x is addition, R is 'presents accurate amounts', and y is accounting, then all the things included are states of the world. Math, is in some regard, a physical operation in the world. Calculators, small children, and computers clearly do math by physical operation.

You might object by saying that cant be what math is, and to some extent you are right. Math is also rules, and rules are not states of the world. But the rules arent important at all so long as we know the physical operation guided by the rules does stand in the relationship with its practical application.

Talk about mathematics is on no different level than talk about hockey (or anything else).

> As you say that you are not accounting for everything that makes it that way.

Why would you account for 'everything that makes it that way'? Do I need to know why a cat is black to know that it is black? Why something is the way it is, is knowledge of a different subject matter. You are confounding two different things.

>Did you even read the premise?

What premise?

>Err'thang I was just talking about

Yeah, well none of that made any sense. I dont mean as in, I just disagreed with what was conveyed. I mean, the words failed to be organized in a way that conveyed anything at all.

[Anonymous No.5537012]

>>5536963
>Science
>Not maths
ishyddt
>If you know something about x and y, and you derive R, then its not purely because you knew about x.
>I didnt say 'there is a single relationship', I just stated a single relationship. If you treat R and y as one of many relationships and objects
But it's relation is only applicable at denotion >>5536375 end bit, and is anything you are saying of the equation is a breakdown of the question, even if it is an answer- the point I was originally trying to make, relating to yours, was there under any premise is there no single relationship occurring ever- it is always multi beyond that
And in that, among other reasons but this is not going to turn into a .999 thread, is one of the failabilities of math

>Why something is the way it is, is knowledge of a different subject matter. You are confounding two different things.
That is what we say of something to note the whole of it's parts (as to say 'When I am saying this I am by the definition of the terms used admitting that I A: Have no need for further definition or B: Can't say of anything further' as to say unwhole) but it is unjustified when said other than a 'I lernd it like that'
You could go to a Christian daycare when younger and come back with the same logic

>The rest
You're obviously not accounting for the whole argument
>pic

[Anonymous No.5538026]

Now at all this saying that knowledge is perceivably anything without even a definition I think it would be better to ask what is Creativity?

[Anonymous No.5538338]

>>5538026
To that I would say: Creativity is the ability to correctly asses what amount of exposure is available to a set of tools

[Anonymous No.5538359]

>>5538338
I more or less agree with this statement.

[Anonymous No.5538427]

>>5530515
>what is knowledge?
Context-specific rule awareness.
It doesn't need to be universally or locally true either.

Don't bother with the philosophy drivel on the topic unless you want to spend the rest of your life reading books full of words that say nothing.

[Anonymous No.5538434]

>>5537012

>ishyddt

Math is not science. They are two separate things. For one, mathematics is not empirical, while science is. There is no such thing as mathematical experiment, but science relies on experiment.

>But it's relation is only applicable at denotion

Relations arent applied at all.

If I notate xRy, I am describing objects in real life. Similar to how if I say "America", America exists independently of me saying the word.

> is anything you are saying of the equation is a breakdown of the question, even if it is an answer

What? There is no grammar in these words.

Equation != Formula btw.

> was there under any premise is there

I just dont even know how to read this.

> 'I lernd it like that'
> A: Have no need for further definition or B: Can't say of anything further' as to say unwhole

This dichotomy is entirely of your own invention. If a child does addition with his fingers, and that is all he knows, he knows addition as much as anyone else knows addition.

On some level, our understanding becomes atomic, in that we either get stuff or we dont.

>You're obviously not accounting for the whole argument

What whole argument?

[Anonymous No.5538452]

I believe that their is no dirty other than Allah and that Muhammad is his final messenger (and all that implies).

[Anonymous No.5538477]

>>5538452

Deity*

[Anonymous No.5538489]

>>5530585
Fuck yeah Kuhn.

I know modern scientists kinda shit on Kuhn, but to be honest most of their rebuttals strike me as little more than kneejerk rejections of the idea that practicing scientists aren't emotionless, perfectly logical robots.

[Anonymous No.5538492]

>>5530739
"Justified true belief" has always struck me as a pretty flawed and useless concept. All it's doing is kicking the idea of "is this knowledge" down the road. Instead of having to actually pass judgment on whether something is knowledge, you pass the buck to the guy deciding whether that belief was justified.

"Justified true belief" doesn't actually do any work as a concept.

[Anonymous No.5538507]

>>5530600

Wrong. Real truth is attainable, but you can't prove that what you think is true. It's an entire different thing.

Knowledge does not have anything to do with truth. Or, it has as much to do with truth as with falsehood, because I can know false things.

In the end, I think you are confusing what can be discussed and proven, and what can be thought. Two different things.

[Anonymous No.5538528]

>>5538489
Modern scientists are not epistemology folks. Most scientists shit on anyone talking about meanings (that would mean: philosophers). Kuhn's theory has several problems. The biggest ones are two: a misinterpretation, and a failure to distinguish between discourse and truth.

The first is a blame upon most people (including past me) ... he did not say that scientists go on to try to falsify stuff -which is what is taught-, but that you have to provide a way for it to be falsified in order for the subject at matter to be discussed in terms of true or false. Scientists say, easily "I don't go around trying to falsify stuff, neither does anybody... I just want to publish papers on corrections so I can earn my living!" which is true, but seemed to be a critique to Kuhn's theory. In the end, it's a critique un a misinterpreted Kuhn's theory. The guy tried to correct that misinterpretation all his life. Well, it didn't work very well, but you can listen to him in videos, and that will be evident

[Anonymous No.5539608]

>>5538434
>Math is not science, There is no such thing as mathematical experiment, but science relies on experiment.
Err.. Every equation is an experiment, the answer being what 'science' is depending upon
-> That pic of Sociology>Psycology>Biology>Chemistry>Physics>Math
Seriously though, wtf were you thinking with that sentence?

>Relations arent applied at all.
If I notate xRy, I am describing objects in real life. Similar to how if I say "America", America exists independently of me saying the word.
1: Do you even relativity?
2: You're proving my point of a term, or group of, being incomplete and thus not properly described as knowledge

>and is anything you are saying of the equation is a breakdown of the question, even if it is an answer
>But it's relation is only applicable at denotion and is anything you are saying of the equation is a breakdown of the question, even if it is an answer
If you want to answer that not as a excerpt then please, also Formula! is applied to the equation- you're undermining points in your own post now never mind the thread (2nd point first line)

> was there under any premise is there
> was that* there under any premise is there
You're ignoring the point, if you can't argue against it then fine, but just pissing on grammatical errors is childish

>On some level, our understanding becomes atomic, in that we either get stuff or we dont.
-Previous- I never understood why you would ever use your fingers when counting ungrouped integers, never did myself
But the point is still the same that when you note something you are never noting all the peices, you are saying an UNSUBSTANTIATED notation of it

>last point
ffs summed in my previous statement

[Anonymous No.5540302]

>>5539608

>Every equation is an experiment,

No. An equation is something like "2+2=4" where an equality is demonstrated. An equality is defined by the rules of mathematics, before hand. Its not empirical, and it doesnt rely on observations about reality like science does from experiments. Equations like the ones we see in addition arent experiments. An experiment is a circumstance we set up to see the outcome, which we dont know before hand. Everything about math is defined before hand.

>1: Do you even relativity?

No. You mean like physics relativity? Physics has nothing to do with epistemology.

>being incomplete and thus not properly described as knowledge

It is complete. By saying its incomplete you are saying its missing something. If I know xRy, then... thats all there is to know. If there is one thing to be known, there is nothing partial about knowing it. You either do, or dont.

>You're ignoring the point, if you can't argue against it then fine, but just pissing on grammatical errors is childish

I am not ignoring a point, I literally cant understand you.

>But the point is still the same that when you note something you are never noting all the peices, you are saying an UNSUBSTANTIATED notation of it

So what? Why would you need to notate everything? Notation doesnt need to be a complete representation to be used well.

What does notation even have to do with this?

[Anonymous No.5540380]

>>5540302
>No.
It's an experiment to determine the answer 2+2 is the experiment 4 is what you work with in the next area. An equation is not at an answer, it's a question or an applicable formula to achieve it- and the experiment should yield the results you predicted because the results are only the ones you are predicting

>No.
It's a word in a dictionary to use it otherwise is narrow minded

>It is complete
xRy is non-definitive, it is incomplete by your example, giving it definition just proves my point, unless you are to say that knowledge is something that on it's own is indefinitive, which is what you are implying, and is something that I could agree with on the bases of it is only defined by the context it is set.

>I am not ignoring a point, I literally cant understand you.
A: I corrected it & B: it's saying basically what I said in the line before

>What does notation even have to do with this?
>Notation having nothing to do with how/what we determine of things
>ishyddt

[Anonymous No.5540411]

How can you know that knowledge exists?

[Anonymous No.5540422]

>>5540411
If that's true then everythings Qualia and we are /sci/fi

[Anonymous No.5540425]

It seems to me that in this thread, knowledge is a subset of all information in one's mind. I would state that everything has its purpose and can be considered knowledge. We say we have a strong knowledge of our past when no one else may care about it. We are able to use esoteric words and hold personal idiosyncrasies that we would consider knowledge. It appears that truth is clouding our minds as to what knowledge really is. A falsivity includes the knowledge of it's falsehood which is a truth. I claim that at least half of the information in our minds is knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5540467]

>>5540422
But how do I know my concept of qualia is the same as your concept of qualia?

[Anonymous No.5540480]

>>5540467
The qualiaity of qualia is qualia.

Does this prove or disprove qualia? No.

It does prove that philosophy is dogshit bonkers, though.

[Anonymous No.5540487]

What if... I one day got punished by science for not giving my brother that candy he wanted when we were children?

[Anonymous No.5540504]

>>5540380

>It's an experiment to determine the answer 2+2 is the experiment 4 is what you work with in the next area.

No its not. An equation is just a demonstration of an equality. its nothing else. An experiment is a physical thing that happens and yields a consequence which we observe. Adding 2 and 2 to see what you get is different from the equation "2+2=4." One is a physical activity, the other is a timeless and abstract.

> it's a question or an applicable formula to achieve it

An equation isnt either of those things.

>A: I corrected it & B: it's saying basically what I said in the line before

Okay. I still dont understand you.

>xRy is non-definitive

Non-definitive? "xRy" is a general form of a relationship between two objects. Any x, y or R will do.

Of course, I can only guess what you mean by "definitive." You arent using vocabulary with the kind of analytic rigor necessary to answer philosophic questions.

>Notation having nothing to do with how/what we determine of things

I wont dispute this. I just dont know how its relevant.

[Anonymous No.5540505]

>>5540480
yes but how can we prove the existence of proof?

[Anonymous No.5540507]

>>5540487
u 'avin a giggle m8?

[Anonymous No.5540519]

>>5540505
But there is not existence of the proof because proof is defined as something abstract and not as existential.

[Anonymous No.5540539]

>>5540505
Because it says so, written on the rocky shores of Hali, near Carcosa.

[Anonymous No.5540553]

>>5540519
Ok, so proof doesn't exist. Science has been refuted; we have to start all over.

[Anonymous No.5540557]

>>5540504
>?
I have 2 apples I gain 2 apples the results should yield that I have 4 apples. Numericals when noted are representing what does not need or cannot be physically expressed at the time for whatever reason

>An equation isnt either of those things.
It's both of them! each side to it's own degree being the question and the denominator of what formula to apply to achieve the other, that most of the time the denominator is 'equal' doesnt mean that it's the only one

>Okay. I still dont understand you.
When you are saying something the only reason it makes sense is because of what it is relating to.
xRy could be how long it takes my dick to burn while i'm fucking my toaster
\/

>Of course, I can only guess what you mean by "definitive."
They are undefined- You arent using vocabulary with the kind of analytic rigor necessary to answer philosophic questions.
Trying to make answers for things that don't have definition is worse if not harder than debating infinity

>I wont dispute this. I just dont know how its relevant.
Defer to the third point

>pic
>Notation relevance when given open applicable and state of 'farming' things found

[Anonymous No.5540566]

>>5540504
>?
I have 2 apples I gain 2 apples the results should yield that I have 4 apples. Numericals when noted are representing what does not need or cannot be physically expressed at the time for whatever reason

>An equation isnt either of those things.
It's both of them! each side to it's own degree being the question and the denominator of what formula to apply to achieve the other, that most of the time the denominator is 'equal' doesnt mean that it's the only one

>Okay. I still dont understand you.
When you are saying something the only reason it makes sense is because of what it is relating to.
xRy could be how long it takes my dick to burn while i'm fucking my toaster
\/

>Of course, I can only guess what you mean by "definitive."
They are undefined- You arent using vocabulary with the kind of analytic rigor necessary to answer philosophic questions.
Trying to make answers for things that don't have definition is worse if not harder than debating infinity

>I wont dispute this. I just dont know how its relevant.
Defer to the third point

>pic
>When application in just relativity of applicability is finite to the degree of non-negotiable then it is knowledge- but even at that is it just an unjust script of notation(words).

[Anonymous No.5540568]

>>5540553
Proof can better be said to be determined on what is relevant

[Anonymous No.5540571]

>>5540566
What are the axes of that graph in the image?

[Anonymous No.5540583]

>>5540568
See >>5540519 - it's already been shown that proof does not exist.

Qualia >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5540958]

>>5540566

>I have 2 apples I gain 2 apples the results should yield that I have 4 apples

The equality "2+2=4" holds independently of any particular instance of addition.

>denominator

Dont talk about denominators. Thats not relevant okay? You are trying to be clear okay? To be clear you cant just drag random words into conversation.

>When you are saying something the only reason it makes sense is because of what it is relating to.

I can agree this.

>Trying to make answers for things that don't have definition is worse if not harder than debating infinity

No. Okay? Stop being a fucking idiot.

You dont make answers. Answers correspond to questions, and when doing investigation, there is often no question, and thus no answer is necessary. If you are trying to invent answers then you are inventing bullshit.

Most words dont really have definitions, that doesnt mean they arent useful. You dont need definitions to use words.

> worse if not harder

The fuck is this? 'Worse' is not the same as 'harder'.

>Defer to the third point

What 'third point'? I cant identify your points, and you dont number them. I dont know what the 'third point' is.

[Anonymous No.5541983]

>>5540958
>The equality "2+2=4" holds independently of any particular instance of addition.
Yet each side's equality to the other is only determined by both sides, it's still the fact that that equation as knowledge is dependent on being it's being an absolute whole self without any possible dividents- which it has, otherwise, again, it is unjustified as only representing indivisibles and not actually being them

>Dont talk about denominators. Thats not relevant okay? You are trying to be clear okay? To be clear you cant just drag random words into conversation.
It's a form we created to determine a single or combination of structures.
Those are all denominations of partial terms by there entire scope of applicability.
And as such can not be determined as knowledge but simply McGiver tier creationism.

>I can agree this.
That's why knowledge is incomplete because it can always have another relation to is thus broadening it's possible scope of being to the user while at the same time those are subject to our creation

>If you are trying to invent answers then you are inventing bullshit.
But mah creativity is a lie then and mah Mellenum Priz problems r easy.
Yes you make answers, you make a set of DeNoMiNaToRs and then you apply them- 17+19=20-16 in my base 18 system but I can't say it right in your base ten- all answers we make are product of the individuals notation.
And yes I have counted to potato, just to say to you folks that I can.

>The fuck is this? 'Worse' is not the same as 'harder'.
If it looks 'dumb' or 'irrelivant' then it's 'worse' and you have a 'harder' time making it seem neither of those two former things

>What 'third point'? I cant identify your points
The third set of notations that I replied to and you already agreed with.

[Anonymous No.5542514]

>>5541983

>et each side's equality to the other is only determined by both sides

No they arent. Saying "four equals two plus two" is not the same as "4 is determined by 2 plus 2", what could that even mean "four is determined"? Nothing 'determines' a number.

In the general statement "2+2=4" We arent saying 4 is somehow defined by "2+2", indeed 4 has a definition independent of the equality. So does 2.

> it's still the fact that that equation as knowledge

An equation isnt knowledge. We can have knowledge ABOUT an equation, but an equation itself is not knowledge.

>it's still the fact that that equation as knowledge is dependent on being it's being an absolute whole self without any possible dividents

No, I dont think this is the case. Its generally understood that a proposition can be built out of elementary sub-propositions. I can know "P and Q" and I can know "P" and I can know "Q." These are all separate things to be known.

>Those are all denominations

A denominator is a part of a fraction, which is different from a denomination. You are using the words incorrectly.

>That's why knowledge is incomplete because it can always have another relation

That doesnt have anything to do with knowledge. It doesnt matter that there is some other relation in the world. Its just not relevant at all.

Like, if I gave a lecture on American history would you really bring up something like, nuclear physics and claim that my lecture is incomplete without it? No, because Nuclear physics is just not part of the content of an American history lecture.

If I know SOMETHING, thats it. There is a certain content X, and if I know it, then I know it. There is nothing incomplete about knowledge(X) just because there exists a Y out in the world. Y has no bearing on the knowledge regarding X.

[Anonymous No.5542806]

>>5542514
>No they arent. Saying "four equals two plus two" is not the same as "4 is determined by 2 plus 2", what could that even mean "four is determined"? Nothing 'determines' a number.
I'm gunna disagree with you there

>In the general statement "2+2=4" We arent saying 4 is somehow defined by "2+2", indeed 4 has a definition independent of the equality. So does 2.
4 has a definition independent of the equality yes but that does not change that it could just as well be the equality

>These are all separate things to be known.
That's the point- you cannot 'know' something as to say understand it's entirety and have it at your disposal on less than a whim simply because as P is it can have infinite standards of relations if an allowed or noted subcontext is applied.- this is the Point of a Pun


>A denominator is a part of a fraction, which is different from a denomination. You are using the words incorrectly.
Wow you've actually adjusted your native language to mathmatics thats the second time you've done that- It has meaning in english

>No, because Nuclear physics is just not part of the content of an American history lecture.
Who Why When Where & What- How
When did Nuclear Physcists bring efficient power to America, Oh not apart of the Era you say? Well I should have you know of such Nuclear was happening right under those revolutionaries feet...kinda. No baring you say? Well even at this you can disregard the last point, the planets there in the first place eh? The point being that everytime you go into a lecture and the teach starts talking about whatever without the class knowing everything previous that he/she is being an asshole or a fool.

>There is a certain content X, and if I know it, then I know it. There is nothing incomplete about knowledge(X) just because there exists a Y out in the world. Y has no bearing on the knowledge regarding X.
X is not the knowledge X the comparative to Y which gives a + (x,y cordinates/exact) to the knowledge

[Anonymous No.5543267]

>>5530515
bump

[Anonymous No.5543297]

>>5542806

>I'm gunna disagree with you there

Okay. Sucks to be wrong.

> independent of the equality yes but that does not change that it could just as well be the equality

Then you are just inventing definitions. If you just want to invent definitions for crap then you could go about this in a far more efficient manner.

> you cannot 'know' something as to say understand it's entirety

"Entirety" is nonsense. Its a binary. You know it or you dont.

>Wow you've actually adjusted your native language to mathmatics thats the second time you've done that- It has meaning in english

Look up "denominator" in google or a dictionary. The mathematical meaning is the only one that comes up.

>native language to mathmatics

Mathematics isnt a language.

>>No baring you say

No, I didnt say no baring.

>When did Nuclear Physcists bring efficient power to America

No. Whats wrong with you? Cant you think this stuff through?

1. I didnt say you couldnt bring nuclear physics into a history talk. My point is that without nuclear physics its not incomplete.

2. Nuclear physics, the science, is different from the the history of nuclear physics.

>X is not the knowledge X the comparative to Y which gives a + (x,y cordinates/exact) to the knowledge

I dont know what this means. You dont use enough commas.

[Anonymous No.5543536]

>>5543297
>Then you are just inventing definitions.
Well something has to sum its notoriety of parts, why not the equal?
Has this really degraded to this point?
By your definition knowledge is entirely independent of it's justification or truth- as to say that our made up definitions don't quantify it

>"Entirety" is nonsense. Its a binary. You know it or you dont.
That binary still has a script that allows it to interact with anything else, as to say it's noting to itself that is inevitably incomplete by the fact that it is still dependant on what we wouldnt qualify as knowledge IE the hardware- which is determined to be of use by the trans of the essentially software input

>Look up "denominator" in google or a dictionary.
I was using it as an extension of the word denomination but fair enough even by that context is
>Yes you make answers, you make a set of *things you break them into* and then you apply them
Make sense

>Mathematics isnt a language.
Just like pie isn't pussy
But you just seriously offended like half the worlds Math Lifers

>
huehueheu

>fuckingseriously?
X is not the knowledge, X the comparative to Y which gives a + (x,y cordinates/exact) to the knowledge
>onecomma
ishygddt

Can we just call knowledge Qualia and call it gg?
>picrelated
>is it knowledge of eventuallity or is it just art? And at what point is it no no longer Qualia?

[Anonymous No.5543579]

>>5543536

>to interact with anything else

The anything else part doesnt matter.

>X is not the knowledge, X the comparative to Y which gives a + (x,y cordinates/exact) to the knowledge

Still doesnt make sense.

[Anonymous No.5543610]

>>5543579
>The anything else part doesnt matter.
If that were so it wouldnt be, everything that is CAN, not will, have baring on anything else
So yes it does.

>
"Sweatshirt"
"Swtshrt"
"Stsht"
"St"
>There are alot of X's & Y's being of the way of my point denoting that word.
Make sense?

[Anonymous No.5543763]

>>5543610

>everything that is CAN, not will, have baring on anything

Doesnt matter. Relationships with the subject matter arent important to having knowledge of the subject matter.

>Make sense?

No. Its not clear at all.

[Anonymous No.5545746]

>>5543763
>Doesnt matter. Relationships with the subject matter arent important to having knowledge of the subject matter.
You are using those relationships to describe the knowledge
>next point

>No. Its not clear at all.
X is the direction towards the term, the way you 'know' what you are going to say before you say it- as is the intention, and the point of that being that the 'knowledge' is noted before it is even said(there are many subsets of X, as noted in my previous post)
Y is the notation of or after giving specificy to the knowledge, it is an approximation.
Where the knowledge in question is the R, to use your standard, that is being derived from the x()y
When we say "it multiplies" by giving the notation- or lack of- we are contructing an (Intended Term)X and (Relational Note)Y as a Y(number)X XY YX
That is as numbers
As Words you are doing a X(word)Y Y/X (XY)
Where Y/X is is the denominator, or how many times Y goes into X, and X being the sum of your point, just going as far to say of what is a complete denomination by the approximation of the notations you're utilizing.

I could say 4 words in latin of what would take me 20 wholes in chinese, and viceversa for some occasions, it is a matter of what we have been taught to understand of a adequate representational in what we speak.

I'm not really sure if I can put it any clearer than all that.

[Anonymous No.5545752]

>>5543763
>Doesnt matter. Relationships with the subject matter arent important to having knowledge of the subject matter.
You are using those relationships to describe the knowledge
>next point

>No. Its not clear at all.
X is the direction towards the term, the way you 'know' what you are going to say before you say it- as is the intention, and the point of that being that the 'knowledge' is noted before it is even said(there are many subsets of X, as noted in my previous post)
Y is the notation of or after giving specificy to the knowledge, it is an approximation.
Where the knowledge in question is the R, to use your standard, that is being derived from the x()y
When we say "it multiplies" by giving the notation- or lack of- we are contructing an (Intended Term)X and (Relational Note)Y as a Y(number)X XY YX
That is as numbers
As Words you are doing a X(word)Y Y/X (XY)
Where Y/X is is the denominator, or how many times Y goes into X, and X being the sum of your point, just going as far to say of what is a complete denomination by the approximation of the notations you're utilizing.

I could say 4 words in latin of what would take me 20 wholes in chinese, and viceversa for some occasions, it is a matter of what we have been taught to understand of an adequate representational in what we speak.

I'm not really sure if I can put it any clearer than all that.
& Go ahead and write your paper on that

[Anonymous No.5546951]

>>5545752
As to say that 'knowledge' is never something of a whole but as knowledge is ever its applicatation and as such derived from what it posing it's use.
And as such is neither true and not justified as a standalone composure.

"Sweatshirt" =XY
ex: ... is a warm sweatshirt...
"Sweatshirt."=YX

[Anonymous No.5547006]

>>5545752
As to say that 'knowledge' is never something of a whole but as knowledge is ever its applicatation and as such derived from what it posing it's use.
And as such is neither true and not justified as a standalone composure.

"Sweatshirt" =XY
ex: ... is a warm sweatshirt...
"Sweatshirt."=YX

[Anonymous No.5547008]

>>5545752
As to say that 'knowledge' is never something of a whole but as knowledge is ever its application and as such derived from what it posing it's use.
And as such is neither true and not justified as a standalone composure.

"Sweatshirt" =XY
ex: ... is a warm sweatshirt...
"Sweatshirt."=YX

[Anonymous No.5547304]

>>5540583
Yeah no, proof of proof is what you're using to prove your proof, I mean you could say that we'd have to know everything that happened from existence 1 but that's arbitrary on what we have at our means

[Anonymous No.5547331]

>>5530515
Knowledge is applied information. I'm too fucking drunk and ESL for the other two.

[Anonymous No.5549003]

>>5530515
bump

[Anonymous No.5550059]

Really enjoyed the thread, debilitating work anons

----chanarchive org/request_votes----

[Anonymous No.5550400]

Really enjoyed the thread, debilitating work anons

----chanarchive : org / request_votes----

[Anonymous No.5550404]

>>5530515
go sit and read a wall

[Anonymous No.5550412]

>>5550404
It speaks of chemistry and boundries

But I am only deriving this to be true from from my equality to it- what is defining that I be equal do it? My compositions are just as challenging if not more, so why am I subject to it?

[Anonymous No.5550415]

>>5530647
'if the apperances of things are all we have, then we must work with them. don't be amazed by appearances.'

paraphrasing some greek philosophy. 'appearances of things' is how greek philosophers would refer to reality, because we can't be certain our senses perfectly represent what is real.

[Anonymous No.5550561]

>>5550415
"Real" is the combination of all states relevant to it's creation, at that and of its regard to the 'appearances of things' that we could say that as essentially all forms are being represented in the negative in relative to the singularity composure, and at that can you say that anything that is a thing is only of how other negative's react to it's 'slant' on induction.
Real is never not, relevance is always in question.

[Anonymous No.5550575]

>>5550415
"Real" is the combination of all states relevant to it's creation, at that and of its regard to the 'appearances of things' that we could say that as essentially all forms are being represented in the negative in relative to the singularity composure, and at that can you say that anything that is a thing is only of how other negative's react to it's 'slant' on induction.
Real is never not.
Relevance and byproduct is always the thing in question.

[Anonymous No.5550676]

>>5530515
Ok this is going to be really philosophical in nature and I'm probably going to stray from the points a lot, but my contribution might be interesting.

Knowledge is consciousness, it's tied in with expressing the truth to the best of your ability. Your knowledge is the truths you know, which can be put into abstract form so that others can see things from your point of view, whether it's correct or not isn't relevant because the word knowledge does not imply there is any truth to it.

You can know it and it's properties because your conscious mind is just many many different blocks of knowledge - Knowledge is something which lets you make predictions about the world, when those predictions are true then you feel like your knowledge is 'true'. For example, through experience I know what will happen when I think about moving my legs and that is knowledge. Knowledge is NOT truth, but it can seem like it if a certain prediction has never failed. There are things we haven't experienced though, such as death (or at least we don't remember it) and they could have profound effects on our knowledge at the time - we have no idea what happens to consciousness when we die until we actually die.

You know that you know something because you are conscious of that fact. You should also be conscious of the fact that it's fleeting, your knowledge can evolve and fluctuate based on new sensory evidence or experience. You don't know anything for certain, but you do know some things are more probable than others based on what you experience.

Your brain is the organisation of everything you know, the universe already did all the work for you - it created our species from it's building blocks, which spawned consciousness. The mind was created to hold all the ideas of the universe. I believe we can eventually replicate consciousness. We have also come up with things like writing, recording, conversation, and advancements in computers to organize what we know.

[Anonymous No.5550695]

>>5530515
>>5550676
Part 2.

I think knowledge is only knowledge if it's storage medium is conscious and understands it, otherwise it is just data, waiting to be taken in by a conscious entity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the next part. Knowledge is universal since all knowledge is spawned through conscious entities created by the universe, all knowledge (true or not) is just the universe trying to figure itself out. If you like you can call the universe one conscious entity which has programmed smaller sub entities (us) to conduct small scale experiments in order to generate answers about the universe, which are all fed back to a central mainframe/consciousness. There is possibly one super consciousness and our universe is just one of it's constructions of a possible universe.

Knowledge can never be an absolute truth, it's all just proven until some phenomena/event comes along (and these events could take place hundreds of years after the knowledge is manifested, or billions of years afterwards) to disprove/alter the knowledge.

Current science won't help you understand these questions OP, it's up to you.