Tundra

But all the concepts we have are arbitrarily defined, and also part of multiple concepts, multiple levels of abstractions. For instance we have a concept of 'atom' and there is an 'atom' that makes up another concept we have called 'molecule' and there are bunch of those things that make up a 'cell' and a bunch of those that make up that piece of wood which makes that chair which is a piece of furniture which is a consumer good which is a part of the economy etc. etc. etc. To give an example, In america we label streets and we rarely give the regions between streets names. But we could easily imagine a world where streets have no names and blocks are named. Would that be 'wrong' or invalid or whatever? Without humans on earth, there would be no trees, there would be no water, no dirt, no rocks, no sky, no clouds. There would be nobody to draw lines to distinguish these things from their surroundings, there would be nobody to solidify these concepts in their mind and then identify them as separate things. The thing we call a cloud would still exist, in the sense that there would be whatever fundamental particles there arranged in what ever way that we identify as 'cloud like' but there would be no cloud. To make another analogy, imagine you are hiking through the woods and you climb to the top of a foothill and in the distance you see a massive boulder and you think "wow what a massive boulder" and you are pretty excited because you see that the trail descends that foothill and then wraps around another one in the distance and goes right past the boulder. You continue hiking, make your way to the second foothill, you're walking around it and you turn a corner and you see it. It's a pile of rocks, some the size of basketballs, some the size of marbles. Does the boulder exist? Most people would say no, because a boulder is a solid object, 1 piece of rock. Like the boulder, all objects we come in contact with, including other people, are made up of lots of lots of little 'rocks' that we just can't make out from such a great distance.

Right, I already, I believe that A=A, so it's not a problem that I do so, I am asking HOW you KNOW it. I gave you reasons why induction cannot be used as a basis for knowledge. Are you going to address what I said or are you going to just reference it and move on? Okay, I am not saying the axiom is false. So me using it is besides the point. explain how you KNOW that the axiom is true please. If you say induction, then please address the argument I gave for why induction cannot be used for a basis of knowledge.

I explained that induction cannot be a basis of knowledge in response to your claim that you know it because of inductive reasoning. So this re opens the question. Okay, how do you know that A=A? It can't be induction unless you can explain how induction leads to knowledge or explain how my reasoning is invalid or flawed (first block of text on post #50). We don't exist in the past only in the present so we must rely on our memory in order to 'know' something about the past. How do you know your memory is trustworthy, reliable, and not falsified?

I also believe it's true, and congruent with reality, but when you ask "how do you know that?" and you say inductive reasoning, well inductive reasoning can never lead to knowledge. Just because you saw a ball fall 999,999 times doesn't meas you KNOW what happen the millionth time. It may give you a high degree of confidence but how could you know "well the past is indicative of the future!" you might say. Well if this is merely belief then it's not suitable justification for knowing the ball will fall. If you think you KNOW that the past is indicative of the future then I must simply ask "how do you know that?" and you might say "well in the past it's been indicative of the future!" and this is circular reasoning, or in other words, ultimately foundationless. We don't KNOW that inductive reasoning works, we ASSUME it works. Assumptions cannot be a basis of knowledge. Neato, care to quote where I said I am certain of lack of certainty? I am of course uncertain, but I have a belief about the matter, and I have arguments. Care to quote where I 'asserted perfect knowledge' ? as for the three axioms, which axioms are those? Also Hard mode: How do you know an axiom is true? Editted: I'm going to assume by axioms you mean "truth, justification, reasoning." If am wrong correct me. I've explained truth in this thread, I believe it's objective, it's alignment with an objective reality outside our minds. Reasoning, This is a tool that we humans have, we use it to make coherent sense of the world around us in order to better increase our odds of survival. Justification, a justification for a statement of knowledge must be knowledge or greater. how could you build knowledge off of a mere belief, or a mere assumption? This is what causes the recursion problem for knowledge. Then the 'proximity to certainty' needed to 'justify' action is subjective, just as risk tolerance is subjective, value is subjective, which ends to seek is subjective, and profits and losses from action (both expected and actual) are subjective.

How do you know that A=A? You don't. We just assume that it does. This isn't to say it's a bad assumption or it's not true. Also I never said that I don't exist, I said that I very firmly believe that I do exist, so it makes perfect sense that I can think about my own existence. I don't need to demonstrate that the law of excluded middle is invalid, even this rests on top of unknowable unprovable assumptions. I can believe something, and not know it. If I believe something, it's not because I think it's invalid. Why does action need justification?

You can believe that "If I plant wheat, wheat will grow" is true, and it CAN be true, and you can still not know it. Lack of knowledge doesn't impede action, it doesn't impede learning.

Neat. Keep reading on that very same page and you will see it talked about in the context of philosophy rather than every day usage. It's not that explaining things in the OP has some authority, it's just that I already explained, in the very first post, why it's not a problem that beliefs are unfounded, that they are unjustified. Why it's not a problem that I Believe X, and I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe X etc. You simply asserting that I need knowledge to have a belief is just that, an assertion. Not only that but it's putting the cart before the horse, if knowledge entails a belief, then how can knowledge be necessary for beliefs? This sort of reasoning would just open a different can of worms that causes problems for anyone who claims knowledge. WHY can't I have beliefs in infinite regression? Why is that a problem? Beliefs do not need any justification. Thats mostly a grammar issue on my end, I meant for it to be read as I do not know, and I am not certain, not that I do know, but am not certain. Sorry about the confusion. I can make all the factual claims I want, beliefs can be true, and I believe that my beliefs are true, and I have reasons why I believe they are true, and I have reasons why I believe those are good reasons etc. When I correct people, it's because we share assumptions (not objective) about the world, and if those assumptions are true then other truths then follow. For instance, if we assume that our memories do not decieve us, that our senses are trustworthy, that I am not the only mind in the universe, etc. etc. And we work in an office together and someone says "wheres bob?" and you falsely say "he is in his office" and me having seen him leave, using all those assumptions I just said say "no, actually he just left" where is the objective standard, other than truth, which I already admitted was objective, so it is not a point of contention. do you HAVE to have certainty to correct people? If you see someone buy a lottery ticket, and they say "I am going to win the lottery!!" can you say "lol no you wont!" even though you are not certain? Yes, and beliefs can be true or they can be false. The POINT is that you can clearly act, you can clearly move through the world, you can clearly live, without knowledge. This is an example. Every day you take actions believing things about the future, and surely you will admit that you cannot know what the future holds. This is a rebuttal to your point that I cannot argue without knowledge, I am arguing, therefore I must have knowledge. I CAN argue without knowledge, just as you can drive to work, uncertain and unknowing about the future, because you BELIEVE that work will still be there when you arrive. why SHOULD it? Does your lack of knowledge about the future inhibit you from taking any action? Because surely all action is aimed at future goals, and the future is unknowable. Also I may not know what "right" is, but I have a belief about what right is, and as it turns out it's the same as yours! I believe that right means correct, it means in accordance with the truth, in accordance with reality that exists outside my mind. It doesn't matter that I don't KNOW. Yeah and I made an analogy, of a christian using a presuppositional argument. Because thats what you're doing, you're presupposing knowledge exists. A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard (because god exists, duh!) How is that not the argument you are making, just with regards to knowledge? you seem to struggle with analogies by the way, I will try to refrain from them in the future. Also how is my theory of knowledge not logically possible? It's logically possible, practically/pragmatically impossible, there is a difference. Or are you not using 'logically possible' in the way that philosophers generally do? It doesn't even require omniscience, it just requires justification. Hell it sounds simple enough, why dont you just tell me something you know, and show me the justification for it, then maybe I can finally know 1 thing. How can a definition of a word be "wrong"? Unless you think language rules are prescriptions (topic for another time) That said, this isn't some definition I just made up, this is the classical philosophical definition of knowledge. But lets, for the sake of argument, spitball with your definition. Knowledge is a belief that consistently conforms to reason and evidence. So before the discovery of black swans, everyone believed that all swans were white. Nobody had seen a black swan. Every time anyone had ever seen a swan, it was white. Every time someone saw a white swan, that was another shred of evidence for their belief (hey look, another not black swan) This belief was/is false. Did these people KNOW that all swans were white? If yes, then how is it that they had knowledge that was false? shouldn't a reasonable definition of knowledge relate it to the truth in some way? If no (they did not know "All swans are white" they merely believed it), then your definition fails here because their belief was consistently verified by evidence and inductive reasoning. So now lets imagine these people, they know that swans are white. Suddenly, someone discovered a black swan. Now there is evidence that not all swans are white, does everyone suddenly lose knowledge? Or ONLY those who are aware of the evidence? Either way there are some weird implications, in the first case where everyone suddenly loses knowledge now that there is evidence somewhere, it implies that we can never KNOW if we KNOW something, because there MIGHT be evidence SOMEWHERE that contradicts our belief. If it's the latter then it means that the ignorant might be the most knowledgeable among us, if only exposure to contradictory evidence is what causes someone to get downgraded from knowing a thing, and simply believing a thing, then surely the most knowledgeable person in the world is someone who's NEVER seen any evidence of ANYTHING. If they have never seen evidence of anything, then every belief they have is in accordance with all the evidence they have seen. I don't think it's true that it's logically necessary to exist in order to say that you don't know if you exist. But you haven't really made an argument, you simply ASSERTED that it's the ONLY logical possibility. Do you have a reason why I should believe this is the case? Even so, this is all besides the point, because I DO believe that I exist, and I can believe I exist and doubt my own existence, doubt is just the absence of certainty. I am uncertain of my existence, but I am confident that I DO in fact exist. There is no reason I can think of why I would NEED to know that I exist in order to doubt that I exist. It's an analogy, an asymptotic is a line that we can come very very close to, but never reach. We can imagine many standards that humans strive for but can never reach, and people can be described as being 'close to' or 'far from' that standard, without that standard being actually reachable. For instance, certainty, we can never reach certainty, Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that certainty is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in beliefs. For instance, perfect resonableness, we can imagine someone who never makes a mistep in logic, and is a perfectly logical being who never errs. Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that reasonableness is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy I think it would be better to hear a history of various different thoughts about different topics rather than listening to one person give you their views on various topics. Just me though.

Knowledge is partly defined as something that is true. So how can there be false knowledge, It seems like you are conflating knowledge and belief/info in your memory... such as... You may have some idea of language, concepts, reality etc. But how do you KNOW these things? How do you KNOW what certain means?

No. I am not equating them at all. If you re-read what I said you will see that I said that knowledge is a justified true belief. This means that knowledge isn't the same thing than a belief. it's MORE than a belief. It's a belief that is true, and you are also justified in believing it. No, because the existence of santa, and the shape of the world, exist outside the child. For the record I believe that santa isn't real and the world is round. If I am correct, then the child has false beliefs. No one can know who is right and who is wrong, but it does seem clear who is rational and who is being irrational isn't it? Based on all the evidence I've seen, and assuming the world exists, and that logic works, and that my senses are trustworthy, and that my memory isn't faulting, and that there isn't a massive global conspiracy to cover up the flatness of the earth (all assumptions that I think are very sound) then we can follow from those and other assumptions, that the world is round. But it is still true that our claim of knowledge about earth's shape, if we choose to make one, is based on assumptions. As for what you're talking about the the matrix, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how this has any relevance to the topic at hand, can you explain? I am not trying to be difficult but I fail to see the relevance for social reasons one might believe in nonsense and the topic of knowledge. Because you and I both have beliefs, beliefs can be true or false. I would prefer to have true beliefs. If you are claiming my belief is false, I would like to see evidence or an argument to show such, so that I may change my belief and have a true belief instead... Also to recap, earlier you were claiming there was such a thing as false knowledge, now you stopped claiming that, were you wrong, will you admit that? Earlier you were also claiming that it is self contradictory to believe that you cannot know anything, you admitted that this isn't self contradictory, and then said that it doesn't matter because you and others will still walk around have knowledge, this implies that my belief is false. Given the fact that I have made an argument for my belief, and you have backed down from your rebuttal to my argument, and given the fact that you still believe my belief is false. It then follows that one of the following is true. 1.) You want to believe false things, there are no flaws in my argument, you have no counter arguments, and you still choose to believe the opposite of my claim (you believe there is knowledge) or 2.) You have some reason, evidence, or argument, that leads you to believe that my claim (that there is no knowledge) is false. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's likely 2 and not 1. So will you share with us why you believe that there is knowledge?

I made an argument that argues that you cannot know anything, if you are backing down on your critique of my argument, and then continue on claiming that you know something, surely then there must be some argument you are privy too but are not sharing with us? Of course you won't admit when you're wrong, as you haven't done so in their thread earlier when you were making claims that were clearly false, such as the existence of knowledge of something that is not true. No claiming that you believe X and claiming that you know X are two different claims. And It doesn't matter that I don't know if I believe X, I believe that I believe X. And I believe that I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe X, etc. But this recursion isn't an issue for belief because belief requires no justification, I explained this in the OP. I may not know, for certain, what I wrote in the OP post, my memory might be tricking me, maybe the boards themselves as displaying something I didnt write, maybe FDR doesn't even exist. But I don't believe any of those things. I believe that FDR does exist, I believe that my post displays what I wrote, and I believe that my memory is fairly trust worthy, and I remember what I wrote, and when I read what I wrote it matches my memory, and when I read what I wrote I believe that that is something that I would write. All of these believes lead me to believe that I did address this argument in the OP. I'm also going to assume that you share beliefs like FDR exists and that my post displays what I wrote etc. So you likely ALSO believe that I addressed in the OP. When you wake up in the morning, and you are getting ready for work, you cannot know if your place of employment still exists, it may have burned down in the night, but your lack of knowledge about that doesn't prevent you from getting ready, and driving to work. Similarly, my lack of knowledge about everything doesn't inhibit me in the least. I've addressed this type of line of argument several times in this thread already. It doesn't matter that I don't know anything, because I believe a lot of things and I have various reasons to believe these things and I believe they are good reasons, and then I am sharing some of these reasons, of which some are arguments, with you. As for "You don't know if belief requires justification" you're right... So? Do you have some good reason for me to believe otherwise? Because right now the idea that belief doesn't require justification seems to fit well with all the other things I understand and believe about the world around me. Also for the record, saying that belief doesn't require justification doesn't mean that every belief is justified, or that every belief is true, or that every belief is reasonable, or anything like that. A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard. So lets reduce the standard of godhood so that it achievable! See how this line of thinking begs the question? It assume that there IS a god and that therefore the standard for godhood must be possible. But to use this sort of reasoning in a debate about the existence of god would be begging the question. If you don't like my definition of knowledge, present your own. I could be a butterfly dreaming that I am Tundra. In the dream, tundra believes that she doesnt know if she exists. This is logically possible. Do I think this is true? No, I believe I exist, and I think "I exist" is a true statement. This isn't the only logically possible option though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

What if you merely obtain joy from the byproduct of 'evil' EG: I steal $1,000 from you, I get to enjoy that $1000 Is it rational then? Or is it only rational when you enjoy the actual evil act itself.

I don't know, I believe so, but I'm also fairly close to certain! The problem with this is that I never claimed knowledge at any point, and if you asked me I would admit that all of my beliefs are ultimately unjustified. #3 is where you misstep. Sure you can say If S believes P, then P is true. but what justification is there to say that I believe something? Any justification itself falls into the recursive problem of justification, as I explained in the OP post. Good thing I never claimed to know, I just claimed to believe. To claim I believe something is to claim that I believe that I believe it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, isn't the same thing as I know I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. "Well how do you know you believe the sun will rise tomorrow". I don't but I am believe that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I am pretty confident. Belief doesn't have a recursion problem because belief requires no justification, I addressed this in the OP. I addressed this in the OP. I don't know. I believe, there is no justification for the belief. I believe it to be true though, and I think it's fairly reasonable for me to believe that I am correct in identifying what I am thinking. Maybe you can quote me where I said I know what my stance is? Also earlier you were claiming that knowledge can be false, and now you seem to be using the justified true belief definition, are you not even going to acknowledge this? Ultimately, you can brush away my arguments, brush away my stance with claims that it is self detonating, but this should raise a very serious question in your mind, at the very least. How is it that I know what I know? Any time you find an answer, ask yourself, how do I know this? Rinse and repeat, and soon you will see the nature of your knowledge, unfounded, unjustified, resting on shifting sands and empty air. I honestly have no idea what you mean to say, I really don't. I'm sorry. I read this a few times and still don't understand. Maybe you can elaborate or explain in other words?

I already addressed your argument that I must know language to make an argument. Saying my claim is false is not an argument. How can you know something that is false. If you are going to use a different definition of knowledge then the one I posted in the OP, then you need to at least make that known. It seems like you are conflating belief and knowledge. A belief can be false, Knowledge cannot be false because knowledge is a belief that is true that you are justified to believe. What argument? Calling my argument a trap isn't an argument. Then you claimed you "push hard" to define terms, I defined knowledge in the first post, then you make claims that are directly contrary to that definition. Also if you made an argument I didn't address, then I'll just say it's a trap and ignore it, since I guess that is fair play. No but I can believe that it's my stance, I can believe I am confident, I can believe that I believe it, and I can believe that I don't know anything. And hey, I do believe all those things. I never claimed to know any of those things.

Why couldn't you post something like this the first time? I dont have to know anything to make an argument, I just have to believe things to make an argument. For instance I BELIEVE that when I type these words you will understand what I am saying, I do not know this. I believe I am making arguments etc. And I also believe that I have good reasons to believe these things. Where have I "tried to kill" what our ancestors produced? Also I never claimed I was wrong, Why would I claim to believe that I was wrong, that would be nonsense. I just claimed I do not know anything. Also knowledge cannot be false, because truth is in it's very definition, I do not try to convince you that some knowledge is false, and some knowledge is true, I am trying to convince you that some statements are true, and that some statements are false. That is that I am trying to get you to BELIEVE as I BELIEVE, because we cannot know. (in reality I don't care what you believe, I just want the truth, argument I believe is a great means to get the truth, but I have to argue for what I believe in order for it to be rebutted, which is really what I seek) Oh I see, when a nill ist makes an argument it's a 'trap'. Gotcha. If this isn't just a dismissal of an argument, I don't know what is.