| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
wherever my professor got it from
(I won't share his name, but he's the director of Undergraduate studies in Philosophy, if it means anything)
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
just seemed that point A was awfully circular and tautological. might as well say, 'if i am aware of something existing, it is because i know of its existence.' ya know? doesn't really seem to be saying anything. looks like it is trying to avoid syllogism and that little leap of faith that lets us live our subjective lives, by chasing its own tail.
Aren't knowledge and awareness the same plane of existence?
(aware of x=knowledgeable of x)
and point B i just completely do not agree with. Just because you know not of something, does not mean it isn't there. Sound waves are still created by falling trees in humanless forests. Since when did our senses guarantee existence with what they pick up from chemical messangers, light and sound waves, pressures and forces, brain memory and imagination, etc.. Why would actuality be concerned of our egos and thoughts? According to point B's logic, I couldn't exist until someone else knew me, but they couldn't exist until I knew them. Ya know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | just seemed that point A was awfully circular and tautological. might as well say, 'if i am aware of something existing, it is because i know of its existence.' ya know? doesn't really seem to be saying anything. looks like it is trying to avoid syllogism and that little leap of faith that lets us live our subjective lives, by chasing its own tail.
Aren't knowledge and awareness the same plane of existence?
(aware of x=knowledgeable of x)
and point B i just completely do not agree with. Just because you know not of something, does not mean it isn't there. Sound waves are still created by falling trees in humanless forests. Since when did our senses guarantee existence with what they pick up from chemical messangers, light and sound waves, pressures and forces, brain memory and imagination, etc.. Why would actuality be concerned of our egos and thoughts? According to point B's logic, I couldn't exist until someone else knew me, but they couldn't exist until I knew them. Ya know? |
Somebody pointed that out in class and said something similar; we actually used the tree example to our advantage. You cannot possibly know that the tree has fallen unless you are aware that it has fallen (seeing, hearing, hearing of, ESP, a crystal ball)
A states that when you are aware of something, you know it. There is no circle, which would be "you are aware of knowledge when you know it. to be aware of something, you must know it" . There is no cycle in A, only awareness yields knowledge (so to speak). B is the leap of faith that you must consider (whether something exists if you do not know that it exists; meaning that you are unaware of it)
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isra
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1086
Location: Skagit County, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No.
There, can this thread die now?
_________________
(Fi)(Ne)ly tuned ISTP
"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
-Robert Frost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Lordofthefood1
| Quote: | Somebody pointed that out in class and said something similar; we actually used the tree example to our advantage. You cannot possibly know that the tree has fallen unless you are aware that it has fallen (seeing, hearing, hearing of, ESP, a crystal ball)
A states that when you are aware of something, you know it. There is no circle, which would be "you are aware of knowledge when you know it. to be aware of something, you must know it" . There is no cycle in A, only awareness yields knowledge (so to speak). B is the leap of faith that you must consider (whether something exists if you do not know that it exists; meaning that you are unaware of it) |
| Quote: | A, If I know that something exists, it is because I am aware of its existence. (Premise; in order for me to know that something exists, I must be aware of its existence.)
B, For something to exist, I must know that it exists. (Premise; in order for something to exist, I must know that it exists.)** |
Yes but point B says existence relies upon personal knowledge of, not what you just said, which was, 'you can not know unless you saw'. If we are using the term exisiting as: all that can be, with and without the use of humanity, then it is still false, trees needn't be seen and heard falling to be falling (A chinese person needn't know that I am here, for I to be here. And: a galaxy I can't see, is still right there regardless whether I do or can see it), and exploration and strange unions in imagionation show this; they prove that there is always something just beyond what we know of existence; archaeology is a telescope in the present, but aimed at and illuminating the past, showing what can also inclusively be.
| Quote: | | (whether something exists if you do not know that it exists; meaning that you are unaware of it) |
Using reasoning that connects archeology and carbon dating, we can conclude that dinosaurs, great climate change, and evolution occured before we were aware or knowledgeable about them; our own recorded history of phenomena displays our being whilst still unaware of our own gene-journey to our current point in evolution. But our ignorance didn't negate the validity of our gene-journey. Just because the people who died in the atomic bombs didn't know the names of the bombs, doesn't immediately imply that the bombs weren't named 'fat boy and little man'(maybe the names are right).
Now if you are suggesting existence is wholly subjective and stuck in the human, then you could be right. In fact, for all practical, down-in-the-mud, nonmetaphysical, nonspeculative and unimaginative purposes it is often made the status quo concept; we only know the information understandable and available, all else is currently inconceivable and hence made logically immaterial to our own realities, no matter how mislead, distracted or plain out wrong we may be. How could you prove that though: your anchor to your personal consciousness, is all that can be of any and all existence? Isn't it almost like trying to prove a speciest view of reality? A anthropomorphized bias? Wouldn't that kill other subjective realities, and objective realities?
Plus, as specific awarenesses and knowledges, the senses, if making aware and constructing the needed foundations of being, while simultaneously composed of this being, are then the same knowledge proving the same knowledge, and awareness acknowledging the same awareness: the idea justifies itself through itself and by itself.
| Quote: | | is no cycle in A, only awareness yields knowledge (so to speak) |
Yes, but the senses(awareness) and knowledge are the same. If 'knowledge' is regarded in some kind of parallelism or identicalness with the 'mind', and you see the 'mind' and the 'senses' as apart, then you could arrive at the circularity. But there is no seperation between awareness and the brain, mind and knowledges. Knowledges (brain productions) and the 'mind' (brain productions), are one and the same with the five senses. Functions of knowledge/mind/brain include reasoning, imagining, enjoying, obsessing, etc, and each is another way to be aware. The five external senses of the body are ways in which to be conscious and aware of existence, as are our numerous cognitive abilities. Awareness and knowledge are the same, and should not define eachother.
whew... time to be sedated. why does this stuff have to interest me so much? hopefully i presented myself a bit more clearly lordofthefood#1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, I didn't even read it; I might later though.
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
