3 ms·
Which begs a whole lot of other questions: * What is understanding? * How do I know that I understand? Sooner or later you realise that all theories of knowl
by ukj 7y ago
Which begs a whole lot of other questions:
* What is understanding?
* How do I know that I understand?
Sooner or later you realise that all theories of knowledge have one fundamental flaw - the problem of criterion[1]. And if you so choose you can dismantle any argument with the Münchhausen trilemma[2]. Socrate's favourite trick.
I like Feynman's answer best: "What I cannot create, I do not understand.", because in a round-about way it lands us squarely at the Turing test.
Could we ever know what Consciousness is unless we create it?
1. https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
- raverbashing 7y agoWell you can understand a lot of things without being able to create it Though ability to "act upon it" might be slightly better Knowledge is knowing there are icebergs in the water, comprehension is knowing you should slow down
- ukj 7y agoWithout resorting to actually playing the silly philosophical word-games, here is how one debate might play out: Me: Why is "there is an iceberg in the water" knowledge? You: "because it corresponds to reality". Me: That makes it a fact, not knowledge.
- tlb 7y agoThis subject has been thoroughly discussed by generations of philosophers, and there is a large body of literature about it. If you want to dig into it, you could start at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJ...
- ukj 7y agoI am well aware and require no introduction. That it has been debated for thousands of years is a fact. That it is yet unsettled as of 2019 is also a fact. Even worse than the Gettier problem, the proposition "Tomorrow I may or may not die." satisfies JTB, rendering it useless. Lets just say that I don't know what knowledge is, but if it's not useful - it's not knowledge. All Philosophical debates are a form of Kobayashi Maru[1]. There is no "right" answer by design. The purpose is to make you conceptually understand the problem. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
- tlb 7y agoPerhaps you should use the term "useful knowledge" instead of re-using a term that most people think means something else. Auden used it: And when he occupies a college, Truth is replaced by Useful Knowledge;
- ukj 7y agoI calibrate my language in real time to that of my interlocutors. Some times drawing the distinction is necessary, some times it's not. Conceptually (for one's own intellectual benefit), recognising the distinction between know-what, know-why and know-how is important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-how