>
> Just as an example, he says most philosophers
> would agree that
> []A->A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
> is clearly a
> different meaning of the word "to know" that we use
> here in
> Australia.
I get the impression folks here assume that when one
person knows something, that only that person knows
that something. For other people to know the same
something, they have to discover and assimilate it for
themselves. It also seems that folks here assume
knowledge is some kind of pattern that exists separate
from the truth of surrounding it's existence.
>From a mystic standpoint, this can't be. To know
something is closer to the analogy of a subscriber
line. When one *knows* something, anything, they
subscribe this pattern.
Another issue is how folks seem to thing knowledge is
inanimate until someone acts on it, like words on a
paper being meaningless until someone read them. From
a mystic standpoint, that isn't so. Knowledge and
expression is simply manifest from one place to
another. The knowledge itself is not constrained to
the limits of those that would interpret it. Those
entities interpret and then express that understanding
wherever they happen to be existing.
For someone to try to form the basis for existence
based on what one thinks others can know in terms of
what I've tried to counter, I feel intuitively that
they would fail, or not succeed completely.
One analogy to explain this is someone caught in an
event horizon of a black-hole. The realm formed by
this Event-Horizon can be vast, but is still by
definition, limited. I see people trying to define
existence by illusionary data like someone trying to
understand the universe by what he can see from his
vantage point in the Event-Horizon. Drawn out, it
would look like someone walking in a circle.
Eventually, he'd come back to where he started. He
might vary his path slightly to see different things,
but he'd simply be make the circle bigger. He can
never know what lay outside the circle with his given
modus operandi.
>From my perspective, true knowing, is being what you
know. Which implies a great deal on what is truly
knowable. If you look at what we're used to here, we
have belief and knowing implicitly understood in
statistical terms. We know we can walk, we've done it
so often, so we don't doubt we can. Belief seems to be
predicated on the existence of doubt. True knowing has
no constraints of doubt. To know is to be one with
that knowledge. This from a mystic standpoint, is true
faith. Faith is *not* belief. Faith is knowing.
I know of plenty of people who know that
> God exists. And I
> know of a number of other people who know that God
> doesn't exist. So,
> by this application of Modal logic, we can conclude
> that God both
> exists and doesn't exist at the same time, which
> seems kind of illogical.
>
> Perhaps the way out of this mess is to say that I'me
> really talking
> about belief, rather than knowledge, however that
> would imply that
> knowledge is devoid of meaning, since it is
> impossible to establish
> with certainty whether any particular fact is true.
> Even Mathematical
> proof is contingent upon belief of the efficacy of
> the formal proof,
Again, I had thought the point of these threads were
to try to describe consciousness with the idea in mind
of trying to synthesize consciousness in software or
some other artificial means.
I propose the best way to do this is to know what one
is after specifically, then solve the problem of
achieving it.
If one attempts to use a limited thinking style to
implement something interpreted with that same
thinking style, the end result would seem to
necessarily be limited to perceptional constraints of
that thinking style. I get the intuitive sense, that
linear or sequential thinking will not result in the
kind of achievement we're talking about.
Robert W.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Received on Wed May 02 2001 - 14:39:22 PDT