How do we know we know?

[idiotsavant]

We have meandered in this conversation, and perhaps the question, “How do we know what we know?” has morphed to “What is our fountainhead?  Are we who / what we think we are?”.  Similar questions, but not spot on.  I’m ok with the morph, are you?  Should we start another string?

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

e·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

cog·ni·tion
1.   the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.   the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3.   knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

vo·li·tion (v$ lishÆÃn, vÃ-), n.
1.   the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2.   a choice or decision made by the will.
3.   the power of willing; will.
[1605â€"15; < ML voliti$n- (s. of voliti$), equiv. to vol- (var. s. of velle to want, wish; see WILL1) + -iti$n- -ITION]

And you Sophus have claimed your logic is pure, you don’t assume.  I think you do, and asked you prove me wrong.

I respect your intellect gentlemen.  You have questioned and challenged religious thought and seen through the smoke.  But I think you stopped asking questions too soon.  You know what makes religion tick.  What makes you tick?

Peace -I/s

[Davin]

e·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

I don't have these kinds of emotions very often, but I very often choose to do things. It just appeared that you were saying that "emotions are the cause for all decisions," and by that definition there is no arguing that all decisions come from emotions, but I can argue that emotions are not the only motivator because I don't get angry, happy, scared or sad very often, but I do make many decisions.

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

I have very little connection to my emotions, to relate, I need to give an example: when I place my hand on a hot burner I feel the burning but do not immediately remove my hand from the burner, I first see what is causing the burning and then calmly remove it from the burner. The "pain" to me isn't what it is to other people. I still feel it, but nothing causes me to scream out or jump around saying "ouch." The same thing that happens to me physically, happens to me emotionally. Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making.

I didn't say that to avoid your question, I said that because that is my perspective on the logic/emotion decision making "dichotomy." The reason I asked "Who are you talking to?" is because I typed this and you responded to something else.

But I think you stopped asking questions too soon

I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

[Tank]

Just watching.

[hvargas]

Rene Descarte said something like " I think therefore I'M " or I exist cause I think. How do we know we know? CAUSE I THINK THEREFORE I KNOW THAT I KNOW. Once I reject some part or parts of an information I no longer know that part or parts of information. Once I accept a part or parts of information that part or parts become the I know that I know. If I need to test it then the how do we know we know, becomes an unsure or a doubt of the knowing part or parts of information. An example; how do I know my name not to be another name? Its in my birth certificate. Notice that I did not say my parents gave me that name or people called me by that name. Unless my birth certificate is fake then then I do not know my name. You can do the same for many other things.

[Davin]

Rene Descarte said something like " I think therefore I'M " or I exist cause I think. How do we know we know? CAUSE I THINK THEREFORE I KNOW THAT I KNOW. Once I reject some part or parts of an information I no longer know that part or parts of information. Once I accept a part or parts of information that part or parts become the I know that I know. If I need to test it then the how do we know we know, becomes an unsure or a doubt of the knowing part or parts of information. An example; how do I know my name not to be another name? Its in my birth certificate. Notice that I did not say my parents gave me that name or people called me by that name. Unless my birth certificate is fake then then I do not know my name. You can do the same for many other things.

Solipsism is useless.

[idiotsavant]

Good answers!  Thanks!

I can argue that emotions are not the only motivator because I don't get angry, happy, scared or sad very often, but I do make many decisions.

You may be right, but I’ve yet to find an example.  Every decision I analyze satisfies some emotional need or desire.  e.g. Why do I post here?  I desire new information / experiences.  Why?  The unknown excites me.  Why?  There’s no drug like adrenaline...  I love that feeling of danger...  Okay - discovering atheist thought is low pump compared to the markets, but even I have limits.

I’m trying to get my head around your “hot burner” example.  Most of us react to pain before we know why.  This seems to be a hardwired subsystem.  This doesn’t happen to you?  Are you in danger of unnoticed injury?

I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

I appreciate your candor Davin, thanks for correcting my error.  I’d like to know of the others...

Solipsism is useless.

Solipsism and Narcism are close cousins; yes?  And are they not the common state of man?  This is probably another string.  What shall we use for a title?

Sophus - I’m disappointed.  Has the savant got you , or is it the idiot?

Peace I/s

[Davin]

You may be right, but I’ve yet to find an example.  Every decision I analyze satisfies some emotional need or desire.  e.g. Why do I post here?  I desire new information / experiences.  Why?  The unknown excites me.  Why?  There’s no drug like adrenaline...  I love that feeling of danger...  Okay - discovering atheist thought is low pump compared to the markets, but even I have limits.

This is what I have so far as motivator/triggers for a decision making process: Mood (Emotions), physical state (pain, pleasure, neutral), goals (plans made, responsibilities accepted and things wanted) and senses (vision, smell, hearing, taste and touch). Anyone of these things can trigger a decision making process and I hold them all as separate things. We can get very detailed and say that all things are triggered by the senses, but I hold them as separate because making decisions because you smell something bad or see a rock flying at your face is different than looking at your watch and seeing that you have only ten minutes to get to the meeting you planned last week. So while everything must go through the senses, you're not always making decisions based on what is perceived, but on other reasons that the perception had shown a light on. If you wanted to get all down and dirty, I can say that it's your senses that trigger all decision making and not emotions because you wouldn't even feel sad if you didn't perceive something to make you sad. But I don't like going down the road of the absolute because then everything becomes pointless and useless.

I’m trying to get my head around your “hot burner” example.  Most of us react to pain before we know why.  This seems to be a hardwired subsystem.  This doesn’t happen to you?  Are you in danger of unnoticed injury?

No, I still feel pain, I just don't react to it like most people. I know when my hand is burning, I just make sure I know the best course of action before I do anything that could hurt me more or hurt someone else. I feel the pain, I feel the heat and there is nothing wrong with my pain system, honest. All the way up to a brain scan while causing me pain showed everything is functioning normally. No nerve damage, no brain damage and no tumors.

I haven't stopped asking questions, at all... not even slowed down. But thanks for assuming incorrectly once again.

I appreciate your candor Davin, thanks for correcting my error.  I’d like to know of the others...

Here are a few of 'em:

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.

I’m suggesting that you don’t know what truly motivates you.

Twofer here.

I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive. And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

Solipsism is useless.

Solipsism and Narcism are close cousins; yes?  And are they not the common state of man?  This is probably another string.  What shall we use for a title?

While I think we should all have a distrust of our senses, I think it's reasonable to assume that with an amount of verification depending on the importance and situation, is enough to confirm them. But a small amount of distrust in the senses is not what solipsism is, solipsism is the complete distrust of the senses. Solipsists would be more willing to believe that they're in the Matrix than to believe that what they heard someone say is what the person really said.
I don't think narcissism and solipsism are mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive. I would think that one who truly believed in solipsism would have a diminished ego because they can't trust their own perceptions while narcissism is the idea that yourself is awesome. So while I could see someone being a solipsist and a narcissist, I don't think that would be a very common combination, of course that is speculating from the hip. I just think that thinking your the center of the universe is different than thinking that you are the universe.
This is all I'm willing to discuss about solipsism, because it all can be summed up to: you can never absolutely trust your senses so you can't be sure of anything.

[hvargas]

How humans want to make their life so complicated when its all so simple. How do we know we know? if you used your senses or mistrust them it will not make a different to a bullet if you survived it. Likewise, it will not make any different if you place one hand over a burning stove or left naked in the north pole. You know what the results will be for any of these situations. Knowing is not the same as believing and believing is not the same as knowing. Knowing is the end of an information and an information is an event. Believing is doubting the events of an information. For example, I believe it will rain today. Its the same as saying I doubt that it will rain today. In other words its not a sure thing. Compare it to the broadcast for the day of a probability of 95% chance of rain. Followed by the actual event of the actual rain falling for that day. The information to that event change to 100%. Now you know that you know and you take an umbrella with you if you have one.

[i_am_i]

This is all getting pretty out there.

Let's take the most profound bit of knowledge that any human being can possess: if you don't have any money you will starve. I know this to be true. Not that I have ever starved but I've experienced some pretty tough times, and I know without thinking about it that I need money in order to live. I also know that I need to be able to do something in order to get that money. I know that without money I'll lose my house and my car and I will end up on the street. And I know that I sure as hell don't want that.

I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?

Discuss...

[idiotsavant]

Interesting...

...senses trigger all decision making and not emotions...

I agree.  Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”.  Maybe not everything - The extrapolation, “I will die if I don’t drink water for 4 days” feels so certain.  But it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.  

I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?
Discuss...

Good question.

Peace I/s

[Davin]

I agree.  Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

What emotional need or desire is satisfied by walking around a rock on the sidewalk instead of over it? Or over it instead of around it?

As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”.  Maybe not everything - The extrapolation, “I will die if I don’t drink water for 4 days” feels so certain.  But it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.

I really don't think this is the case. I think everything that can be demonstrated, verified and predicted with a great amount of accuracy is something we know. For instance: I know that a rock will fall to the ground if I let it go, I know that paper can catch on fire if exposed to enough heat, I know that four things plus four things is eight things and I know that if I don't eat I will get hungry. Because these things can be demonstrated, verified and predicted.

However if I somehow get the idea that at night I'm astral-projecting myself to Newbulous IV where I have an active life defending freedom from George Washington zombie clones and hamster pirates... I don't know that it's true just because I experience it. Can it be demonstrated? No. Can it be verified? No. Can it be predicted? Well if it happens almost every night then yes I can predict I will have the experience, but this isn't enough. Especially when the experience can be explained by a much less complicated, predictable, verifiable and demonstrable means (I was dreaming or I took a hit of acid).

So my answer is: we know we know when we can demonstrate, verify and predict it.

[idiotsavant]

...Our senses / perceptions / logic trigger the need for a decision.  The decision itself is made to satisfy an emotional need or desire.

What emotional need or desire is satisfied by walking around a rock on the sidewalk instead of over it? Or over it instead of around it?

Good question.  I’m faced with that decision often, as I have large rocks in my yard that are often in my way.  They are only 14 inches tall with fairly flat tops, and I could easily step on, then over them, but  I usually walk around them for fear of injury.  But cowing to fear makes me feel weak, so I will occasionally step on and over them...

As far as “How do we know?”, I think the concensus is that we know what we experience, everything else falls under “I believe”... it does seem the farther we move from experience, the less certain we feel.

I really don't think this is the case. I think everything that can be demonstrated, verified and predicted with a great amount of accuracy is something we know. For instance: I know that a rock will fall to the ground if I let it go, I know that paper can catch on fire if exposed to enough heat, I know that four things plus four things is eight things and I know that if I don't eat I will get hungry. Because these things can be demonstrated, verified and predicted.

...these things can be demonstrated (experienced), verified (experienced) and predicted (will be experienced).  You’ve experienced falling rocks, burning paper, addition and hunger.  What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

I know that I want to stay alive, and I know that I want to live as comfortably and as happily as possible. Everybody knows that. How does everybody know that?

Suicidal people don’t want to stay alive.  Others ignore or even avoid comfort.  And some prefer sadness...

Peace I/s

[Davin]

Good question.  I’m faced with that decision often, as I have large rocks in my yard that are often in my way.  They are only 14 inches tall with fairly flat tops, and I could easily step on, then over them, but  I usually walk around them for fear of injury.  But cowing to fear makes me feel weak, so I will occasionally step on and over them...

I see, because you make every decision based on an emotional need or desire, you assume everyone else does. This is one of the problems of only using yourself as a test population. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

...these things can be demonstrated (experienced), verified (experienced) and predicted (will be experienced).  You’ve experienced falling rocks, burning paper, addition and hunger.

Personal experiences cannot be demonstrated to any one else, however dropping a rock is a demonstration that can be shared with other people. Verification in the sense that I'm talking about is when another person independent of the person claiming something can verify it themselves as well as possibly finding alternate explanations, this is not possible if you only use yourself as the verifier. As for the predictions, it's not some hokey "you will be rich sometime later in your life," it's if I drop this rock from eighty feet high, it will reach 60MPH before it hits the ground because I'm trusting the theory of gravity (and the terminal velocity formula). Then we test it to see if the prediction is accurate.

What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

[idiotsavant]

I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

Really?  Why would you want to save time?

What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

I thought you disagreed with this thought - another wrong assumption...

Peace I/s

[Davin]

I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires. The reason why I would step over a rock instead of around it is if stepping over it will save time, I will step around it if the rock is too big to save time by stepping over it. If my goal is to waste time, then my reasoning would be opposite of that. No emotional need or desire involved.

Really?  Why would you want to save time?

Let me save you some time, since we have been over this before: I don't have emotional needs and the few emotional desires are rarely ever considered in my decision making process. I can understand that you have a difficulty understanding this, but not every decision has something to do with emotions.

What do you know that you have not experienced nor extrapolated from experience?

Nothing, what is your reasoning for this question?

I thought you disagreed with this thought - another wrong assumption...

Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.