4 ms·

I say that "knowing" is very much a group activity, in fact, it's the only way one can even approach certainly that what one "knows" isn't just a hallucination

I say that "knowing" is very much a group activity, in fact, it's the only way one can even approach certainly that what one "knows" isn't just a hallucination or a dream. We can only "know" by verifying that what we experience is consistent with the experience of others, this is the essence of repeatable scientific experimentation and peer-review in science... which is the group effort of improving the extent and accuracy of what we know, as a group. You can argue for solipsism if that's what you want, but you ought to know you'll only be arguing with yourself.

verisimi 3y ago
> We can only "know" by verifying that what we experience is consistent with the experience of others, If you look at your sentence structure, you should be able to see the assumptions you are making. I think you're baking in the idea of knowing being a community activity when you say 'we can only "know"'. Reality is personal - it is not a group activity. An individual may do things with groups, but they remain an individual, with one mind, one body, etc. I don't think this is debatable. You seem to think I'm arguing for solipsism, when I say 'knowing is not a group activity'. If that's what you think, you are wrong - I am no solipsist. I'm simply stating the plain, verifiable reality of the matter - I'm not pretending to be beholden to some collectivist illusion. Some questions and answers to consider. Where does 'knowing' occur? In one's mind, surely. Can one person know, and another not know? Of course. Can one explain to another how one can verify an idea? Quite possibly. If that person then verifies the idea for themselves can they say that they know? Yes. Can some people say that "we know this or that" without any of them having verified any of it? Well, people do say this all the time, but it is simply nonsense - either an individual knows or does not. It is perfectly possible to say that one knows this-or-that but this-or-that could really be an unverified belief. While language allows this misuse, I would argue that this is a form of a lie - 'believing' is not 'knowing', and to say one knows something that one has not verified is a form of lie. Finally, an individual (one mind, one body) is not a "we". (Although if you use speech in a special way like the Queen perhaps you can argue the point.) "We" is simply a means to describe a group that we are included within. There are times when it is fine, meaningful to use "we" eg "we four went for an ice cream". This is a true statement. But what does it mean to say "we know human society is complex"? Its simply a nonsense statement - a group has no mind. The mind is with the individuals in the group. To say otherwise is to pretend there is something more to a group than a convenient linguistic handle. I really don't think I'm saying anything that isn't self-evident. But perhaps this is hard to see if you suffer from this commonplace group delusion, which seems to be foundational to many individuals' view of reality.

verisimi 3y ago

> We can only "know" by verifying that what we experience is consistent with the experience of others, If you look at your sentence structure, you should be able to see the assumptions you are making. I think you're baking in the idea of knowing being a community activity when you say 'we can only "know"'. Reality is personal - it is not a group activity. An individual may do things with groups, but they remain an individual, with one mind, one body, etc. I don't think this is debatable. You seem to think I'm arguing for solipsism, when I say 'knowing is not a group activity'. If that's what you think, you are wrong - I am no solipsist. I'm simply stating the plain, verifiable reality of the matter - I'm not pretending to be beholden to some collectivist illusion. Some questions and answers to consider. Where does 'knowing' occur? In one's mind, surely. Can one person know, and another not know? Of course. Can one explain to another how one can verify an idea? Quite possibly. If that person then verifies the idea for themselves can they say that they know? Yes. Can some people say that "we know this or that" without any of them having verified any of it? Well, people do say this all the time, but it is simply nonsense - either an individual knows or does not. It is perfectly possible to say that one knows this-or-that but this-or-that could really be an unverified belief. While language allows this misuse, I would argue that this is a form of a lie - 'believing' is not 'knowing', and to say one knows something that one has not verified is a form of lie. Finally, an individual (one mind, one body) is not a "we". (Although if you use speech in a special way like the Queen perhaps you can argue the point.) "We" is simply a means to describe a group that we are included within. There are times when it is fine, meaningful to use "we" eg "we four went for an ice cream". This is a true statement. But what does it mean to say "we know human society is complex"? Its simply a nonsense statement - a group has no mind. The mind is with the individuals in the group. To say otherwise is to pretend there is something more to a group than a convenient linguistic handle. I really don't think I'm saying anything that isn't self-evident. But perhaps this is hard to see if you suffer from this commonplace group delusion, which seems to be foundational to many individuals' view of reality.