Don't we fight for freedom anymore?

[max_freakout]

You want to posit another kind of knowledge that humans can have? .

the only *real* kind of knowledge, is true knowledge

which humans can't have

 

[Santino]

and there's none so wise as those who claim to be foolish

Is there fuck.

 

[Aldebaran]

You want to posit another kind of knowledge that humans can have? Be my guest.

Humans can't have knowledge, only the suggestion thereof necessarily created within the frame of human perception.
Do you argue that human perception = knowledge? If so, why?

If you're going to pick about the use of "west", then all I have to do is to say that "knowledge" is a human construct too. But that really gets us nowhere.

Of course it is a human construct, like every word or every perception of humans is. By necessity it is used in a discussion like this.

The difference between us, perhaps, is that I feel comfortable with the idea that any knowledge we can possibly have will be filtered through our human frame of reference. That doesn't make it true or untrue in a different frame: we can't possibly tell what would.

That is why I said that there is no knowledge possible, only the perception thereof. You describe that perception. I am not satisfied with such a limited and self-limiting frame of thought.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

what is the difference between 'realizing' and 'knowing'?

Awareness is not knowledge.

Do you know that knowledge is impossible to obtain, after you have realised it?

No. I realize it is impossible because that is the only logical conclusion one can come to when being aware.

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

Would you say that the Arabic attitude to freedom was recently highlighted thru Bahrain's refusal to allow Big Brother on their screens? (See here)

I can't help but think that these actions show a lack of faith in the people and probably further fear of the self-reflection this programme shows. The TV company went to great lengths to include a prayer room and separate bedrooms and yet still this was not enough.

Freedom means that you trust your population to make their own decisions, and decide not to impose you view of what their morals should be.

The road to hell would seem to be paved with good intentions indeed...

The authorities certainly were in such fear that they even decided that it was a conspiracy by the US (see here), one can only assume to distract their people from yet another authoritarian clampdown. Maybe they should have more faith?

 

[zion]

Hi Aldebaran,

Humans can't have knowledge, only the suggestion thereof necessarily created within the frame of human perception. Do you argue that human perception = knowledge? If so, why?

Not exactly. Human knowledge (or what I would call "knowledge") is not limited to human perception. For example, my daughters' first names are Cordelia and Elizabeth. That is something I know with perfect certainty, but it's not something that depends on my having "perceived" their names.

Something that is outside of human awareness, and that cannot be talked about accurately using human language, is necessarily not something about which humans can have knowledge. Beliefs, certainly, and I do have beliefs; but knowledge, no.

I don't buy this idea, though, that there is for sure a category of knowledge that is superior to what we can perceive or accurately discuss. How can we possibly know whether such a field of knowledge truly exists or not?

I am not satisfied with such a limited and self-limiting frame of thought.

Then all you can do, as a human, is to declare, without evidence, that certain beliefs you hold about the world beyond human awareness represent "knowledge". You're certainly not alone in doing that, but to me that represents an error in thinking. In fact, I would say that someone who claims to know anything for sure about the meta-human world makes him- or herself a fraud by making that claim.

Aleikum salaam.

 

[zion]

More precisely - what evidence do you have that human beings can have even the suggestion of knowledge about anything meta-human?

If something you know here, within the human world, is suggestive of some truth outside it, then there must be something that can be demonstrated to connect the human and meta-human worlds.

Perhaps, for you, it is the Qur'an. Perhaps, for others, it is Jesus. But neither of those can be proven, using human evidence, to constitute such a link. Without such proof, we cannot find truth from God's perspective within this world, and it is futile to make the attempt.

It is wisdom to be satisfied with that which we can reason out together, using human language and human concepts, rather than pretending that we know there is some other source of truth that we can reach or that can reach us.

I do believe in God; but I do not know for sure that he exists. Further, I do not think that his existence or non-existence changes how I believe we need to conduct ourselves towards one another on earth: with compassion, love and justice.

 

[zion]

the Arabic attitude to freedom

?

Easy, there, Gmarthews. There is no "Arabic attitude to freedom", only people's individual thoughts that can be, but are not necessarily, shaped by cultural assumptions. Would you consider yourself to have an ethnic English attitude towards freedom?

 

[zion]

Max_freakout,

the only *real* kind of knowledge, is true knowledge, which humans can't have

In what sense, then, is something we cannot know, knowledge at all?

Knowledge is necessarily a human word and a human construct. If, from some non-human perspective, what we know is not really knowledge, how can we possibly tell the difference?

Your theory is precisely the problem with talking about the meta-human world. You have no way of assessing what makes your meta-human knowledge "truer" than ours. There's no place, outside the human world, from which you could possibly make such an observation. All you can do is believe that it is so.

 

[Gmart]

?

Easy, there, Gmarthews. There is no "Arabic attitude to freedom", only people's individual thoughts that can be, but are not necessarily, shaped by cultural assumptions. Would you consider yourself to have an ethnic English attitude towards freedom?

I suppose I can't escape the fact that I was brought up in England and so yes I suppose so.

Still I accept that my phrase may have a more pc compliant version.

I am open to suggestions

Maybe I should have said Bahraini. Of course I apologise for any offence my comment might have caused...

 

[Gmart]

There's no place, outside the human world, from which you could possibly make such an observation. All you can do is believe that it is so.

Very true!

Our lack of perspective is our greatest disadvantage.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't help but think that these actions show a lack of faith in the people and probably further fear of the self-reflection this programme shows. The TV company went to great lengths to include a prayer room and separate bedrooms and yet still this was not enough.

Why do you use the word "fear" when all it comes down to is a violation of Islamic values.

Freedom means that you trust your population to make their own decisions, and decide not to impose you view of what their morals should be.

Good luck with throwing overboard and violating all UK laws regulating morality.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Not exactly. Human knowledge (or what I would call "knowledge") is not limited to human perception. For example, my daughters' first names are Cordelia and Elizabeth. That is something I know with perfect certainty, but it's not something that depends on my having "perceived" their names.

That is not knowledge. You chose those names yourself = you defined them = your perception of what would be "acceptable" or "good" or whatever you wanted them to reflect, made that they came into existence on her birth certificate = you are their creator.
There is no knowledge in being aware of what you create for if you do not create it, there is no awareness of it created either. Knowledge is indifferent to that.

I don't buy this idea, though, that there is for sure a category of knowledge that is superior to what we can perceive or accurately discuss. How can we possibly know whether such a field of knowledge truly exists or not?

You can only know if you are prepared to perceived and accept the - inevitable - limitations of your use of the human brain.

Then all you can do, as a human, is to declare, without evidence, that certain beliefs you hold about the world beyond human awareness represent "knowledge". You're certainly not alone in doing that, but to me that represents an error in thinking.

I don't do that, I say that the human perception is only that: Human perception. Which therefore is not knowledge, only a perception of "having knowledge" created by the human. In my view would you be able to communicate with whatever non-human existence, the human construct of having "knowledge" would undergo a drastic revision.

In fact, I would say that someone who claims to know anything for sure about the meta-human world makes him- or herself a fraud by making that claim.

I am born human hence I must live my life being human. Why would that stop or prevent me from reflecting on its inherent (and obvious) limitations?

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

Freedom means that you trust your population to make their own decisions, and decide not to impose you view of what their morals should be.

Good luck with throwing overboard and violating all UK laws regulating morality.

Scary isn't it! Takes great faith.

Peace

 

[max_freakout]

Awareness is not knowledge.



No. I realize it is impossible because that is the only logical conclusion one can come to when being aware.

salaam.

thanks for that

 

[zion]

Aldebaran,

You're very willing to say what knowledge is not. I am happy to term things within the human world "knowledge". I am very aware that the human brain is limited; but what makes you think that human beings are able to transcend the human brain's capabilities?

In my view would you be able to communicate with whatever non-human existence, the human construct of having "knowledge" would undergo a drastic revision.

Well, that's the key isn't it? Are you able to "communicate with whatever non-human existence" and understand what it is telling you? I accept that I cannot know for sure what the "whatever non-human existence" wants.

 

[max_freakout]

you can communicate with higher, non-human intelligence, not sure about 'understanding' it though, it understands you perfectly, but i dont know if you can understand it

what 'Solaris' is about

 

[zion]

It seems perfectly simple. If human beings can fully understand things that are outside the human frame of reference and observation, then there is something we can call "knowledge" outside that frame. Otherwise, there is only belief.

 

[max_freakout]

there is only belief, you can believe anything, and any belief can turn out to be wrong in the future

you can't know anything

 

[zion]

There are things that constitute knowledge within the human realm.

So, for example, the laws of physics are not simply a matter of belief.

 

[max_freakout]

There are things that constitute knowledge within the human realm.

So, for example, the laws of physics are not simply a matter of belief.

some people believe in the laws of physics, some people don't

you can believe whatever you want

but you can't know anything

 

[zion]

If I believed the laws of physics did not apply to me, and walked off the top of a skyscraper expecting to fly, then I think that my belief would suffer a fairly hard challenge in the form of the ground.

 

[max_freakout]

If I believed the laws of physics did not apply to me, and walked off the top of a skyscraper expecting to fly, then I think that my belief would suffer a fairly hard challenge in the form of the ground.

it makes no difference

you still can't know anything

 

[zion]

Then your "know" can only mean something like "omniscience". In which case, I would be happy to concede that we cannot be omniscient.

 

[max_freakout]

Then your "know" can only mean something like "omniscience". In which case, I would be happy to concede that we cannot be omniscient.

my know means the same as your know

being omniscient = knowing everything

you obviously cannot know everything

but furthermore, more interestingly, you can't know anything, you can believe anything, but not know it

any belief, could turn out to be false

 

[zion]

Can you know that your handle on this board is max_freakout?

If not, then our "know"s differ.

 

[max_freakout]

Can you know that your handle on this board is max_freakout?

If not, then our "know"s differ.

knowledge is absolutely impossible, and we both know exactly what it means


knowing means knowing unless you can suggest a better definition?

 

[zion]

that's not a definition. that's a repetition.

 

[max_freakout]

that's not a definition. that's a repetition.

have you got a better definition?


what is the difference between belief and knowledge?


knowledge is impossible, and undefinable

 

[max_freakout]

'knowledge' means nothing