Epistemology

Okay, Franc, let's just start again. I think we've maybe misunderstood one another (this tends to happen really frequently, I think.)

1. Can you "know" something without having "learned" it? I don't think so. I may be able to breathe (for example), but that is an autonomic -- involuntary reflex-action. I do not "know" how to breathe. Autonomic functions don't count as knowledge. "information" maybe -- but then again, 'information' only has meaning within the context of a reasoning mind which USES -- APPLIES -- such information.
A bunch of computer discs without the relevant technology to use them, don't count as "information". Nor does a fully-functioning computer displaying this message. It BECOMES informational when you view it. Prior to (and seperate from) the action of a reasoning mind UNDERSTANDING what it written here, the marks on your screen are nothing more than scrawls.

I just draw a firm line between knowledge and instinct, and if you don't draw such a firm distinction, then you run into the problem I cited in the earlier post: IF there is some way to know things -- WITHOUT having to LEARN them (say, by 'instinct' counting as knowledge, for example), then where DO we draw the line, and what role (if any) does Reason play?

As I said before, the mere fact that a housecat is 'instinctively' afraid of water does NOT imply that the cat "knows" anything about water, neccesarily (any more than children's 'instinctive" fear of the dark means that they "know" about big scary monsters.)

If it's an "unscientific" idea that knowledge depends on (and derives from) experience, then okay, I'm a friggin' witch doctor. Pass the mojo bag, and I'll do some conjuring!
:)

Post 41

Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 7:48pm

"Okay, Franc, let's just start again. I think we've maybe misunderstood one another (this tends to happen really frequently, I think.)"

Yes, that's true. So it goes. Hey, we can deal with it (^____^)

"1. Can you "know" something without having "learned" it? I don't think so. I may be able to breathe (for example), but that is an autonomic -- involuntary reflex-action. I do not "know" how to breathe."

That's true.

"Autonomic functions don't count as knowledge. "information" maybe -- but then again, 'information' only has meaning within the context of a reasoning mind which USES -- APPLIES -- such information."

Information only has meaning in the context of a human mind to see it. But that's true of all concepts. A reasoning mind is not necessary for that information to take an active part in the world. The DNA and proteins that construct a human being do not need active reasoning to do their human-assigned meaning.

"A bunch of computer discs without the relevant technology to use them, don't count as "information". Nor does a fully-functioning computer displaying this message. It BECOMES informational when you view it."

'View it' in what way ? When I understand its identity ? In that case I agree.

"IF there is some way to know things -- WITHOUT having to LEARN them (say, by 'instinct' counting as knowledge, for example), then where DO we draw the line, and what role (if any) does Reason play?"

Instincts are pretty limited. Without the active search for knowledge, we would be limited to the range that nature could furnish - pre-scientific monkey tribalism.

"If it's an "unscientific" idea that knowledge depends on (and derives from) experience, then okay, I'm a friggin' witch doctor. Pass the mojo bag, and I'll do some conjuring!"

Booga booga.

I can't wait to see what you'll think of my article "I Hate John Galt !". It will probably be the place where we'll finish airing all our disagreements once and for all. Until then, we can keep working these problems out. (^______^)

Post 42

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:05pm

Ah well, I don't even think we HAD a disagreement here (this is so weird when this happens!)
We start out like we're disagreeing, and then it turns out to be some form of semantic confusion, or something.

"Pre-scientific monkey tribalism". I like that. It pretty much sums up most colleges, yknow.
(hahaha!)

Post 43

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:40pm

""Pre-scientific monkey tribalism". I like that. It pretty much sums up most colleges, yknow."

What, are you implying that colleges professors and students act like monkeys ?! Why, that's preposterous !

Wait, I'm not a college student anymore. I agree with you. (^______^)

Post 44

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 7:04pm

Nah, college professors and students aren't like monkeys -- monkeys usually actually KNOW things!

Post 45

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 5:30am

But Franc and Henry, you did not answer me about the hot poker. Why do you ignore my points on this? Okay, so I'm only sixteen, but don't I deserve an answer? Is it because perhaps you are the same person? Yes, I have met both of you on other boards, and don't think the similarities are not obvious to everyone here. How long can you keep the charade up? Oh, and Franc, don't think for a minute I am ever going to forgive you for what you did to me that night.

Post 46

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:03am

"don't I deserve an answer?"

Yes, you do. I checked your previous posts but can't find a question addressed to me. I recommend you ask it more clearly.

"Is it because perhaps you are the same person?"

I am Francois Tremblay. My coordinates are widely available, and my IP can be checked by whoever owns this site. I don't know who Henry Emrich is, but he's not me.

"Franc, don't think for a minute I am ever going to forgive you for what you did to me that night."

Whatever did I do to you ?

Post 47

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:00am

Quote: "I don�t agree with Francois Tremblay that if you jab a man with a hot poker he will experience many of the same sensations such as heat, pressure and reaction by screaming."

Since the poker is hot, he will sense the heat of it, no matter where it pokes him, even his heel. The degree to which you feel it might change, but you definitely feel the heat, since your skin has receptors which can sense it.

Since when you jab him, the end of the poker puts pressure on his skin, and we can sense this, he would feel pressure applied. It's like you punch a guy in the face. He feels the pressure of the blow.

As for reaction by screaming, that depends on how hard you poke him. You still react to pain, unless it was so soft that no pain was caused.

I think you are splitting hairs and being pedantic, and I feel you have a dishonest motive. I read this in how cocky and slanderous you were. By honest, and back up what you are saying, or keep quiet.

Post 48

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:03am

My post above is addressed to Jermaine.

Post 49

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:33pm