Knowledge is not necessarily social

[invisible]

@invisible

Elitism and hubris are also problems. I know a couple people who are going for PhD's who seem to think they've become gods, or that it's ok to leave their head stuck up their ass.

yes. excuse the crass language, but what the fuck is up with that.

 

[invisible]

If knowledge were constructed by the individual it would be different depending on the individual who constructed it, assuming if they had never spoken or known each other. Statistics is knowledge and it can be found to be the same by multiple individuals who have never communicated with each other because the data is inherent in the fabric of our reality(It is objective). Language is art and is constructed. It cannot be 'found' by any individual because it would be unique to each individual until it is shared between the individuals(It is subjective).

"objective" is definitely a useful way of describing information that has been obtained through the application of an agreed-upon analytical framework that has been constructed through shared understandings. i wouldnt say that those frameworks are inherent to the things that they are applied to though.

 

[Matt3737]

in my words that you have quoted i was trying to say that i found it difficult to communicate with my classmates when they had already made up their minds in the absence of evidence. it seems to me that you and i may agree on the fundamental issues but im not sure i understand your meaning. i cant obtain any degree of certainty that it is necessary for knowledge to be communicated or to be able to be communicated or formulated in language or to be externally apprehendable in any way at all in order for it to nevertheless represent a viable knowledge form within the internal world of any given person.

I think the thesis that all knowledge is social is taken in the sense of a tautological expression. Knowledge, in this sense, is any information that is communicable, i.e. communal (social).

In this way, it doesn't make sense to speak about 'incommunicable' information. Other than sensory experiences, our thoughts and internal dialogue is conducted in our native language and so we would be hard pressed to have a thought not communicable to another person.

I also don't believe physical sensations are included within the category of knowledge as we generally do not speak about learning how to feel pain or teaching how to feel pain. A memory of pain is communicable in the sense that you can describe it and communicate it to me and I can apprehend your meaning, but not in the sense that I can physically experience it concurrently with you.

Sensory information, I believe, is viewed in a two-fold manner. The senses operating autonomously and the implicit information that we process by them:

A sense is a physiological capacity of organisms that provides data for perception.

While tautological, I wouldn't hold it as an absolute truth. There are paradoxical, absurd, and liminal conceptions that are difficult to convey, but by which there is even less of an argument to make against the tautology due to the difficulty of describing them.

 

[CogentPursuit]

"objective" is definitely a useful way of describing information that has been obtained through the application of an agreed-upon analytical framework that has been constructed through shared understandings. i wouldnt say that those frameworks are inherent to the things that they are applied to though.

The framework doesn't necessitate the knowledge of statistics. It only allows it to be communicated and is thus language. The knowledge is what the framework communicates but is not part of the framework itself anymore than the letters "1 +2 =3" is the knowledge. The knowledge of "1+2=3" is the inherent understanding one has of the concept apart from language. A person can then choose to communicate this "1+2=3" in other means because the language is art but it is not objective knowledge. A person can learn easily that to get three items when you have two you need one more but they may not know that 3 items is called three items until language is taught to them. Whether you have the knowledge of "3" or not is irrelevant to the ability of a human being to recognize 3 separate entities in their hand when they hold them. Most of my thoughts exist without language and are easily recognized as such but I think many other people are dominated by language type thinking.

 

[Matt3737]

The framework doesn't necessitate the knowledge of statistics. It only allows it to be communicated and is thus language. The knowledge is what the framework communicates but is not part of the framework itself anymore than the letters "1 +2 =3" is the knowledge. The knowledge of "1+2=3" is the inherent understanding one has of the concept apart from language. A person can then choose to communicate this "1+2=3" in other means because the language is art but it is not objective knowledge. A person can learn easily that to get three items when you have two you need one more but they may not know that 3 items is called three items until language is taught to them. Whether you have the knowledge of "3" or not is irrelevant to the ability of a human being to recognize 3 separate entities in their hand when they hold them. Most of my thoughts exist without language and are easily recognized as such but I think many other people are dominated by language type thinking.

I think you're confounding sensory experience with information, which as you said "is irrelevant to the ability of a human being to recognize 3 separate entitites in their hand when they hold them."

You cannot completely abstract meaning separate from the context from which it is derived.

The abstract quantity of '10' may be separate from the numerals expressing it and can actually be expressed in, literally, an infinitude of different ways: 1+9, 15-5, 100/10, 2*5, etc.

Though while possessing an infinitude of expressions, you can see how context comes into play when faced with an incorrect expression:
1 + 0 = 10

 

[invisible]

In this way, it doesn't make sense to speak about 'incommunicable' information. Other than sensory experiences, our thoughts and internal dialogue is conducted in our native language and so we would be hard pressed to have a thought not communicable to another person.

im sorry; i think the idea that all thought is formulated in language is conjecture, and i think its not meaningful to make definitive statements like that about operations of the mind that we dont understand.

 

[Matt3737]

im sorry; i think the idea that all thought is formulated in language is conjecture, and i think its not meaningful to make definitive statements like that about operations of the mind that we dont understand.

I'm sorry as well, but you're not likely to establish anything else because you cannot provide evidence of such without communication. You can speculate endlessly, but nothing beyond that.

In humans, the neocortex is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and language.

 

[invisible]

I'm sorry as well, but you're not likely to establish anything else because you cannot provide evidence of such without communication. You can speculate endlessly, but nothing beyond that.

yes, i know. the impossibility of establishing these things is exactly my problem.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I'm sorry as well, but you're not likely to establish anything else because you cannot provide evidence of such without communication. You can speculate endlessly, but nothing beyond that.

None of you are making sense to me. If I kung fu chop you in the face the evidence is clear and it doesn't need to be communicated that I have a knowledge that is outside of anyone’s ability to communicate but is still inside the ability to demonstrate. All information is knowledge. Sensory, experience and such are knowledge. Information that can be used for a purpose is knowledge. You can mentally recall sensations, emotions, taste, and all sorts of non language information and this is all knowlege that is not socially developed but discovered through objective reality.

 

[muir]

“As soon as you look at the world through an ideology you are finished. No reality fits an ideology. Life is beyond that. … That is why people are always searching for a meaning to life… Meaning is only found when you go beyond meaning. Life only makes sense when you perceive it as mystery and it makes no sense to the conceptualizing mind.” ― Anthony de Mello