How do we know things? (beliefs, experience, advent, Christ)

[Willamena]

What is a thing? How do we know a thing? How do we know it's a thing?

What is knowing? What does it mean 'to know'? Are there different ways or means of knowing?

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by Willamena

What is a thing? How do we know a thing? How do we know it's a thing?

What is knowing? What does it mean 'to know'? Are there different ways or means of knowing?

Knowledge is the data cataloged by the brain in response to experience. Whether or not an experience is real, we know what we experienced. Furthermore, with the advent of math and logic, we have learned to make extrapolations from knowledge derived from experience to abstractions that still qualify as knowledge, because these are things that are true necessarily, if and only if the premises are in fact true. Knowledge does not denote certainty.

Thus a thing is quality or value experienced, knowledge is the mental data that correlates to that experience, and the language developed to explain it is how we express and share that knowledge.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

Knowledge is the data cataloged by the brain in response to experience. Whether or not an experience is real, we know what we experienced. Furthermore, with the advent of math and logic, we have learned to make extrapolations from knowledge derived from experience to abstractions that still qualify as knowledge, because these are things that are true necessarily, if and only if the premises are in fact true. Knowledge does not denote certainty.

Thus a thing is quality or value experienced, knowledge is the mental data that correlates to that experience, and the language developed to explain it is how we express and share that knowledge.

Okay, good; but what about the second set of questions?

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Okay, good; but what about the second set of questions?

Knowing is a mental/cerebral experience that occurs when the vivacity and veracity of an experience, be it present or remembered, is the active object of the consciousness. To know something is simply to have some experience of it and to understand that experience in a way that can be expressed linguistically. There are different "means" of knowing. We have our reason, our emotions, our instincts, and our intuitions, all of which affect our beliefs about what we think we know. Reason deals with the objective reality of an experience, emotions deal with how we feel about an experience, our instincts are unconscious reactions to an experience, and intuitions are expectations derived from repeated familiarity with a particular kind of experience. All produce beliefs related to knowledge, because each are reactions to experience. Knowledge is, at its most basic and simplistic form, a mental reaction to experience.

[ChristineES]

These questions have been asked for thousands of years. Both science and religion are trying to find out the answers to your questions. Right now, I am taking basic chemistry (I am a middle aged college student, lol) and the among the smallest things found have been atoms, with their protons, neutrons, and electrons. and now they are saying there are even smaller things than that, quarks (I don't know much about those).

The truth is we don't really know. Things are things we observe with our senses; touch, smell, sight, sound, and taste. The thing is there because we can sense it. Does that mean that if you can't sense something, that it does not exist? For example, if you see a tree in your yard, touch it, hear the wind through the leaves, etc, then when you go inside does it not exist anymore? You could say yes, it is there, it will be there when you go back into your yard and see that it is still there. Or you could say that someone else is there to see it when you can't. What if I were to see something that no one else could see? Would it mean that it is not there and I am hallucinating or is it really there.
I think my dialog may confuse people more than help them so I better stop now.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

The truth is we don't really know. Things are things we observe with our senses; touch, smell, sight, sound, and taste. The thing is there because we can sense it. Does that mean that if you can't sense something, that it does not exist? For example, if you see a tree in your yard, touch it, hear the wind through the leaves, etc, then when you go inside does it not exist anymore? You could say yes, it is there, it will be there when you go back into your yard and see that it is still there. Or you could say that someone else is there to see it when you can't. What if I were to see something that no one else could see? Would it mean that it is not there and I am hallucinating or is it really there.
I think my dialog may confuse people more than help them so I better stop now.

Nah, it's fine.

What if there was a tree in your backyard that you couldn't know about --you go out in the backyard but you can neither touch, smell, see, hear or otherwise know this tree is there. Is it then a "thing that does not exist"?

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

Knowledge is the data cataloged by the brain in response to experience. Whether or not an experience is real, we know what we experienced. Furthermore, with the advent of math and logic, we have learned to make extrapolations from knowledge derived from experience to abstractions that still qualify as knowledge, because these are things that are true necessarily, if and only if the premises are in fact true. Knowledge does not denote certainty.

Thus a thing is quality or value experienced, knowledge is the mental data that correlates to that experience, and the language developed to explain it is how we express and share that knowledge.

To answer Willamena's first question, a "thing" is a real object we can name. To answer the second question, knowledge is as you have described it, both an immediate "thing" and an abstraction.

An example using maths is appropriate.

2+2 = 4 seems self evident. But it is only true when applied to certain objects.

2+2 = 4 when applied to either apples or oranges (both real objects). For 2+2 to apply to both apples and oranges we have to abstract a quality of both and class them as fruit.

2 apples + 2 oranges can equal 4 fruit, never 4 apples, nor 4 oranges.

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by Willamena

What is a thing? How do we know a thing? How do we know it's a thing?

What is knowing? What does it mean 'to know'? Are there different ways or means of knowing?

I'm trying to branch out of my little world, and in doing so, I thought to open your thread. My mind has sort of been temporarily warped by the questions and responses. (I'm not that good at philosophy, but I'll give a whirl.)

The OP and the responses reminded me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states in paraphrasing when a "thing" realizes it is being observed it changes it behavior. (That is a very loose definition.)

I brought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle up because what you are asking sounds like the area of consciousness.

Have you ever observed a child from a far playing a "pretend" game...and watched how the child is so engrossed in their thoughts and actions? Have you seen the change in their behavior when they realized that they were being watched?

It is also similar to the cartoon of the Michigan frog. The frog sang, danced, twirled a cane and was quite animated. But...only one guy could see the frog's actions. And whenever he tried to show other people, the frog just sat very still and croaked.

Scientists have been observing this in the labs too. When observed, electrons are known to change their direction.

It's an odd thing. I don't know the answer to your questions. Yet, I can say that my experiences are real for me. And I do not distinguish reality into categories of 1) what is accepted as a collective reality from 2) my own personal experiences (in visions, dreams and so on). That statement should be followed by a short note though, to add that, I do realize and respect that there is a conditioned collective reality; therefore, I do try to remember that when relating to others what might be a singular observation (on my part).

[ChristineES]

Originally Posted by Willamena

What if there was a tree in your backyard that you couldn't know about --you go out in the backyard but you can neither touch, smell, see, hear or otherwise know this tree is there. Is it then a "thing that does not exist"?

If you do not know about a certain tree, then that tree does not exist for you. It can only exist for those who have sensed it one way or another. (a blind person may not see a tree, but they can feel it, hear it, etc).

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by yuvgotmel

I'm trying to branch out of my little world, and in doing so, I thought to open your thread. My mind has sort of been temporarily warped by the questions and responses. (I'm not that good at philosophy, but I'll give a whirl.)

The OP and the responses reminded me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states in paraphrasing when a "thing" realizes it is being observed it changes it behavior. (That is a very loose definition.)

I brought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle up because what you are asking sounds like the area of consciousness.

Have you ever observed a child from a far playing a "pretend" game...and watched how the child is so engrossed in their thoughts and actions? Have you seen the change in their behavior when they realized that they were being watched?

It is also similar to the cartoon of the Michigan frog. The frog sang, danced, twirled a cane and was quite animated. But...only one guy could see the frog's actions. And whenever he tried to show other people, the frog just sat very still and croaked.

Scientists have been observing this in the labs too. When observed, electrons are known to change their direction.

It's an odd thing. I don't know the answer to your questions. Yet, I can say that my experiences are real for me. And I do not distinguish reality into categories of 1) what is accepted as a collective reality from 2) my own personal experiences (in visions, dreams and so on). That statement should be followed by a short note though, to add that, I do realize and respect that there is a conditioned collective reality; therefore, I do try to remember that when relating to others what might be a singular observation (on my part).

Two comments on this post not related directly to the OP perhaps. A child will only change its behaviour in response to being watched if the child possesses a theory of mind. Children under 2.5 years are unlikely to display this reaction.

Electrons would change direction irrespective of being watched.

The Michigan frog is an analogy, not an observation.