What do we really ‘know’

[loverofhumanity]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

 

[Eddi]

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

I think that the mind can generate new knowledge from old knowledge if it is intelligent enough

 

[F1fan]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Like learning a language? Are you having doubts that your acquisition of English isn't reliable or true?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

Apart from knowing how annoying the rash on my *** truly is, your question is one that has been asked in philosophy for millennia. This is why ethics in science and history and education and journalism has been an important part of knowledge itself. We can discern fables from history, even if some fables include facts like historical locations. There is a trust that has to be extended and earned by any academic, and as part of the academic process. Scholars built on the knowledge of the past, and as we see in science it becomes more accurate and more precise as time goes on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

Are you going for a "we're standing on the shoulders of giants" angle or a "the reliability of our knowledge depends on the reliability of the chain of testimony that it took to get to our ears"?

If it's the first thing: I agree.

If it's the second thing: empirically verifiable knowledge is true regardless of the reliability of its original source. Soneonr may have heard of, say, heliocentrism first from Copernicus or Galileo, but the reason today why we think that the Earth orbits the Sun is because we've actually observed and measured this; we don't just believe it because those earlier thinkers said so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

I am always a bit suspicious when I see 'know' rendered with apostrophes. Also, why "borrowed from" rather than learned from? And what's the issue with learning from others?

 

[PureX]

"I think therefor I am" is the first philosophical axiom. We can recognize the truth that "I am" as being self-evident. "I am" that which is capable of recognizing (being aware of) itself.

Then, to further that axiom, we can follow it up with "here". "I. am. here". "Here" being anything that I can recognize as not being an inherent part of "I am". This usually comes through the recognition of cognitive will. I cannot think (will) the light to come, or go, so the light is not part of me. It is part of the "here". So it becomes self-evidence that there is an "I", and there is a "here", and they are not the same things.

And then through this recognition of what I will and cannot not will, we become able to then recognize that there are other "I"s, here. There are other cognitive entities like myself that possess self-will, but that it is limiting and separating them from the "here", like it is limiting and separating, myself from the "here".

So now we can know, as it is self-evident, that "WE are here". And we can build on that from there, as we choose.

The answer to the question, "how can we know" is that knowledge is self-evident. If we are asking if it is the truth, this depends on how we choose to define "truth".

 

[loverofhumanity]

I am always a bit suspicious when I see 'know' rendered with apostrophes. Also, why "borrowed from" rather than learned from? And what's the issue with learning from others?

The reason borrowed from is because it is questionable whether we learned it. Tradition and values as well as beliefs are often not questioned but just handed down and blindly followed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Are you going for a "we're standing on the shoulders of giants" angle or a "the reliability of our knowledge depends on the reliability of the chain of testimony that it took to get to our ears"?

If it's the first thing: I agree.

If it's the second thing: empirically verifiable knowledge is true regardless of the reliability of its original source. Soneonr may have heard of, say, heliocentrism first from Copernicus or Galileo, but the reason today why we think that the Earth orbits the Sun is because we've actually observed and measured this; we don't just believe it because those earlier thinkers said so.

I am more inclined towards tested knowledge as in scientific investigation. As you stated we can observe and measure.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Like learning a language? Are you having doubts that your acquisition of English isn't reliable or true?

Apart from knowing how annoying the rash on my *** truly is, your question is one that has been asked in philosophy for millennia. This is why ethics in science and history and education and journalism has been an important part of knowledge itself. We can discern fables from history, even if some fables include facts like historical locations. There is a trust that has to be extended and earned by any academic, and as part of the academic process. Scholars built on the knowledge of the past, and as we see in science it becomes more accurate and more precise as time goes on.

We can learn things like languages and know by practising them and having our accuracy observed.

But what about all the people who say they know and others don’t. How do they know they are right? Do they question themselves or just blindly assert they know?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason borrowed from is because it is questionable whether we learned it. Tradition and values as well as beliefs are often not questioned but just handed down and blindly followed.

If you really feel this way, why would you ever be part of a "revealed" religion?

 

[F1fan]

We can learn things like languages and know by practising them and having our accuracy observed.

Then you answered your own question.

But what about all the people who say they know and others don’t.

Like theists who claim they know God exists, but then can't explain how it's actually knowledge and not belief?

How do they know they are right? Do they question themselves or just blindly assert they know?

Academic pursuits have an ethical framework where evidence has to exist and be a foundation for conclusions. These processs are documented. In science the whole process is explained, including how experiments are conducted and how the statistics are applied. In history sources have to be documented.

The only thing your quetions expose as failures is religion. How do they know they are right? They can't.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you really feel this way, why would you ever be part of a "revealed" religion?

That begs the question. Can we ‘know’? Believing can be wrong but what about knowing?

 

[Spice]

That begs the question. Can we ‘know’? Believing can be wrong but what about knowing?

"There is nothing new under the sun."
Each generation discovers in its own way.

 

[Balthazzar]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

Our understanding, which is our knowing, and developed over spans of time, is based on life as it is and how we as people process the data we have been given. I can certainly attest to the fact that I know so very little that in terms of a grain of sand, my knowledge would be as if it were a grain of sand in contrast to a universe unable to be comprehendible. I say this based on a concept I am accustomed to: That the universe is far greater in scope than what we are able to investigate of it. We are able to investigate life within our own heliosphere world, and with that stated, I can say I know nearly as little about life on earth, and at 53 years of age, I can state that I know nearly as little about myself.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then you answered your own question.

Like theists who claim they know God exists, but then can't explain how it's actually knowledge and not belief?

Academic pursuits have an ethical framework where evidence has to exist and be a foundation for conclusions. These processs are documented. In science the whole process is explained, including how experiments are conducted and how the statistics are applied. In history sources have to be documented.

The only thing your quetions expose as failures is religion. How do they know they are right? They can't.

This is the thing. Questioning is a very good thing. Just believing is not enough. We must know.

 

[McBell]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

a stubbed toe hurts
touch something hot enough it will burn you
burns hurt

 

[Balthazzar]

a stubbed toe hurts
touch something hot enough it will burn you
burns hurt

To be a little turbulent, how do you know a burn is able to experience the sensation of hurt? I've burned my wood table in times past. I can't recall questioning the burn on the table if it the burn was hurting anything. I never even asked it about the table.

I may be a child ...

Still at 53

 

[Nakosis]

This is a question I have been reflecting on for a while now. Since birth, apart from natural instincts such as hunger, thirst and sleep we seem to all be born with a blank slate for those around us to write on. As life goes on we accumulate ‘information’ which we process. But hey, it’s all borrowed from outside sources. So throughout life what ‘knowledge’ do we actually have innately that is not from others?

So in all honesty how can any of us be knowledgeable if it is all borrowed from others? What knowledge do we really possess if any?

Do you ‘know’ anything that is not borrowed from others?

Not exactly. You are born with a basic operating system embeded in your DNA. Certainly it is alterable but exactly how your brain/OS interacts with what you experience in the world is unique. That's why humans aren't 100% predictable.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

To be a little turbulent, how do you know a burn is able to experience the sensation of hurt? I've burned my wood table in times past. I can't recall questioning the burn on the table if it the burn was hurting anything. I never even asked it about the table.

I may be a child ...

Still at 53

Maybe you should ask about the table...The table may have knowledge and feelings and experiences of its own!

 

[Balthazzar]

Maybe you should ask about the table...The table may have knowledge and feelings and experiences of its own!

I was asking about the burn itself. I wonder what it feels as a burn? You suggested burns hurt. How do you know?