Right on!

The knower knows. The thinker thinks.

Perhaps the more you think, the less you know.

I don't doubt the things I know. I just know them. Whether what I know is real is for other people to ponder. I don't have to.

What constitutes knowing? Knowing does. That is the only answer I can come up with.

To be is to exist.

To know is to be aware.

Awareness is not limited to the five senses. That is observation. Observation is not knowing it is thinking.

I know one thing for sure is when my stomach growls loudly that means I have to eat.

So enjoy your day while I take out my wok and make some vegetarian chinesse rice

The question presupposes the existence of knowledge. Knowledge is contingent, in normal functioning people, upon a corroboration with reality. Reality, however, is but a personal interpretation of actuality, one of which appearances can be deceptive through unknown unconscious elements.

I believe this outlines a type circularity of which Gianni referred to in his response(s).

The point of asking is, as has been done, exposing the elements by which one comes to the determination that they do indeed know something.

Witt, in his later years, contemplated what it means to be certain by repeatedly asking and developing the statement "I know that that is a tree." He also entertained the notion of knowing what his own name was.

Is it a matter of certainty?

In one word repeatability.

Confirmation through re-exploration from fundamentals.

Any data recording device can know something.

ex.

The device can record a 0, a 1, and another 0 to be equal to fillintheblankhere.

It now knows 010 = fillintheblankhere

If later it goes back and looks and gets a confirmation that 010=fillinblankhere it has knowledge that from initial point (a) 010=fillinblankhere, then from check point (b) 010=fillinblankhere.

If at some later point say point (q) it discovers that fillinblankhere now equals 001, then it knows that fillinblankhere is not a constant.

It KNOWS this from no other data.

So now it knows that 001=fillinblankhere and it knows that fillinblankhere is not constant.

It now knows two pieces of data. Well actually three, it knows that at interval (a)-(v) fillinblankhere was 010, that at point (q) it was 001, and that it is not constant from analyzing these data points.

Over time it can gather more and more data points, and perhaps work out a function for the changes over time and discover a relationship for fillinblankhere.

Its these relationships that make up our conception of reality.

Is then knowing, clearly only the perception of the one that believes they know? Is knowing a definition, name of a process of the mind?

Haven't they determined in quantum physics that that which is observed will change according to the desired outcome of the observer?

No. The observer effect is not dependent on the desires of the observer.

A probability wave will collapse but the out come is based solely on the probability, not on the desire of the observer. After all it does not take a conscious observer to collapse a probability wave, any detection device will do.

Its these relationships that make up our conception of reality.



Are you then saying that data is reality?

No.

Data is a representation of reality. Our concept of reality is built using experience, which is nothing more then our detection devices (sight, hearing, touch, ect) gathering data, our cognitive faculties then place that data into context.

The context is the relationship between data and actuality.

We build a level of confidence in these relationships the more often the data is analyzed and the same relationships are found to be again true.

The more often we get the same results the higher the confidence level in the "knowledge".

Every person does this but not necessarily with all ideas, some beliefs are not subject to the same scrutiny as others, some people hold certain truths to be fundamental and thus do not explore the data.

This is called credulity.

Okay this may work for knowledge we gain through experience, but what about the "knowing" that has been discusses here that is solely intuitive?

I read through the thread, and I see a lot of talking around definitions instead of nailing down anything.

So name some kind of knowledge that is solely "intuitive". Then I think we can dissect it.

Personally I do not think there can be REAL knowledge without data.

A guess afterall is not knowledge.

Billy,

What does considering the possibility that there are some who repeatedly draw the same conclusions; ones that others would not find to be substantiated from the evidence being considered, do to the conclusion you have drawn?

Repeatability is a property(or not) of a process, but does not garuantee that the process itself is without flaw.

I believe I understand the attribute of consistency has value, but does it effectively assess accuracy or simply just conciseness? Does a consistent approach, which displays repeatability of conclusion, warrant belief in correctness?

Does knowledge have to be true?

Hahahhaha! I did the same thing JB... read it and went whaaaaaaaaat?



How to create a parallel that those who need tangible proof will.....................KNOW?

Hahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!

I would comment on the post but I don't know what the hell he is saying.

I don't think it takes (knowledge) to know you are hungry. You (know) you have to eat or you fall over.

Usually someone suggest it and if you are wise, you investigate what they said from every possible angle and decide from your investigation whether its valid. Then at that point you "know" something as it is most possible to really know it.

But then again I am an analyzer of everything so that is me.

In layman's terms...

Just because one repeatedly gets the same answer does not make the answer correct, the process can be flawed, but consistently so.

Conciseness meaning a low percentage of deviance(high percentage of consistency).

Repeatability is a hallmark of a concise process, not necessarily of a correct answer...

Therefore, does knowledge have to be true? If so, then repeatability does not equate to knowledge, if not then it may.

Is that better?

Smiless wrote...



This would be an example of innate instinctual behaviour, I would say. The term hungry, is itself, a piece of knowledge. One can be what we would call hungry, meaning the body was telling the brain that it needed sustenance, without ever knowing what was going on physiologically.

So, I would think that in order to know that one is hungry, one would have to be familiar with the mental/physiological concept of hunger. If that is not possible, then it would be a matter of physiological response without conscious thought.

I personally believe that one does not know anything unless one knows that they know that thing. It requires conscious and deliberate thought.