I asked how do you know some statement is true when we seemed to agree that observations determine truth, not language use. So truth is a condition of observations, not of language-use. — Harry Hindu

You can only observe that it is raining if it is raining (if that's what you're referring to).

I also asked how knowledge can be turned on itself to say things like, "I know that I know". Isn't that similar to saying that "I observe that I know"? — Harry Hindu

If I know that it's raining because I observed rain, then I can also know that I observed rain (by reflection). In that case, I would also know that I know (that it is raining).

The connection with language use is just that this is how we ordinarily use terms like "observe" and "know". But, of course, we can be sometimes be mistaken about what we think we know (such as when reading the time of a stopped clock).

— Andrew M

Knowledge (unverified) is belief. Only empiricism can verify this belief.
Only once verified (empirically) to be 'true' we may consider it knowledge.
Knowledge is information.

Thank you for considering language is important. Who realizes the word "human" means moist soil? We call ourselves humans because of the Sumerian and then the God of Abraham religions that tell us a god made us of mud. I wish people would pay attention to the fact in the Sumerian story, it was a goddess, one of many, who made a man and a woman of mud and breathed life into them. Might that be culturally different from a male god, the only god, making a man of mud and the woman from his rib? I am asking everyone not to think of the stories so much but to think about what they think and what is behind their thinking.

Our culture and words are rooted in a religion that promotes equality and war. How much of our "knowledge" is based on religious mythology? Up to this point in time, how much of philosophy comes from the consciousness of women? Might things have been different if we didn't have the God of Abraham religions and only a male voice until the present? Could what we believe of human nature and the reality of war be different if we held a different "knowledge"?

Might that be culturally different from a male god, the only god, making a man of mud and the woman from his rib? — Athena

Might things have been different if we didn't have the God of Abraham religions and only a male voice until the present? — Athena

These are patriarchal concepts and totally false. Modern biology has already shown that men are made out of woman. Prior to sexual reproduction you had non-sexual reproduction. Life created life without sexual intervention. The male was created out of the non-sexual organism for the purposes of sexual reproduction.

Knowledge is memory based on experience. From it we derive our own opinions on it and interpret it in different ways. Therefor the same knowledge can lead to different conclusions by different people.

Knowledge is a tool we use to measure our surroundings in order to better our manner of operating in life and on earth.

Excuse me but I want to back up to what ovdtogt said about drugs changing our consciousness and what I said about knowledge requiring experience, and the difference between how primitive people experienced life and how we experience life being entirely difference knowledge. I really want to make the point that knowing facts is totally different from knowing the meaning of those facts.

When I was coming of age the book "Black Like Me" was written by a White man.

Black Like Me, first published in 1961, is a nonfiction book by white journalist John Howard Griffin recounting his journey in the Deep South of the United States, at a time when African-Americans lived under racial segregation. Griffin was a native of Mansfield, Texas, who had his skin temporarily darkened to pass as a black man. He traveled for six weeks throughout the racially segregated states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia to explore life from the other side of the color line. Sepia Magazine financed the project in exchange for the right to print the account first as a series of articles. — Wikapedia

Do you think you have knowledge of being a Black person or being a White person, or native American, or Asian, male or female? If you lived before civilization do you think you would have the "knowledge" necessary for survival and that your consciousness would be the same as it is today?

Knowledge is memory based on experience. From it we derive our own opinions on it and interpret it in different ways. Therefor the same knowledge can lead to different conclusions by different people.

Knowledge is a tool we use to measure our surroundings in order to better our manner of operating in life and on earth. — Seagully

Wow, I didn't see your post before I posted. What you said is beautiful (truth).

One of the philosophers said something about using measurements to help us be sure we are talking about the same thing with the same understanding of it. I forget which one.

However, as you said, although we may share knowledge of the same facts, the meaning of those facts can be totally different. We may agree the unemployment rate is over 7% but what that means is very different from those who are unemployed and those who have financial security? Some times what is good for the economy is not at all good for those living below the poverty line. If we are right or left kind of depends on our personal experiences. Our knowledge is different and both sides know the truth.

You can only observe that it is raining if it is raining (if that's what you're referring to). — Andrew M

Right, so truth is a condition of observations.

If I know that it's raining because I observed rain, then I can also know that I observed rain (by reflection). In that case, I would also know that I know (that it is raining). — Andrew M

Right. And you can then know that you reflected by reflecting upon the reflection, ad infinitum.

Is knowledge an infinite regress of aboutness? Or is knowledge some kind of set of rules for interpreting sensory impressions? To know that you reflected upon what you reflected seems to just be applying the same set of rules to some sensory impression or thought process. Sometimes the rules we have don't work and we have to come up with new ones.

The connection with language use is just that this is how we ordinarily use terms like "observe" and "know". But, of course, we can be sometimes be mistaken about what we think we know (such as when reading the time of a stopped clock). — Andrew M

Right, so mistaken, or false, is a condition of knowledge.

It is true that the clock says 3:00. You assume from experience (knowledge, or your rules that you have learned about what clocks do) that it is 3:00, until you observe another clock that says something different. Observations check our knowledge.

These are patriarchal concepts and totally false. Modern biology has already shown that men are made out of woman. Prior to sexual reproduction you had non-sexual reproduction. Life created life without sexual intervention. The male was created out of the non-sexual organism for the purposes of sexual reproduction. — ovdtogt

:lol: :rofl: :lol: No shit, men and even Jesus come out of a woman? Oh gross! I guess the truth can be pretty ugly. That is pretty scary. It might also mean we are mortal and that puts the t in moral.

Is knowledge an infinite regress of aboutness? Or is knowledge some kind of set of rules for interpreting sensory impressions? — Harry Hindu

Interesting, your question involves the phenomena of language. We might consider there is knowing without words. The whole animal kingdom has knowing without words (set of rules for interpreting). We also have knowing without words. Our words (set of rules for interpreting) separate us from our experience and interfere with our knowing.

Try this- you are naked except for some skins and you are crossing a mountain into unknown territory. You have few words for what is around you. What do you know? One reason the Sumerians could not advance is they didn't have a language for categorizing things. That is, they didn't have a word for bushes that made them distinctly different from trees, nor the word "trees" that made all things with the characteristics of a tree and tree. At this level of development, the thing is not separate from the spirit. We return to, out of the one came the many. All things come out of Brahma and are Brahma. Without our language, we are not separated from God. We have knowing but not the set of rules for interpreting.

[

The whole animal kingdom has knowing without words (set of rules for interpreting). — Athena

You know absolutely nothing about biology do you?
Not true. Animal vocalizations are meant to convey information. So in that respect it is a language of sorts. They are sound packages with meaning (words).
They would not have evolved vocal chords if they had no use for them.

Without our language, we are not separated from God. — Athena

Our language is what separates us from God.

Yes, they are distinguishable. But we seem to have different ideas about what your duck definition can include. The common definition for a duck specifies the genus which serves to exclude other things that just happen to have a similar appearance or behavioral characteristics. — Andrew M

We don't have different ideas about what the definition of a duck can include. Acting like a duck entails all the acts of a duck, which includes laying eggs. Looking like a duck entails all the appearances of a duck. There is also the taste and sound of ducks. All of these things together make one a duck. Cherry-picking among them doesn't make one a duck.

We don't even have to use words to define what it is to be a duck. We just observe, over time, the similarities and differences between different organisms and group them in our minds without the use of language. Language is merely a tool for referring to those categories when talking about ducks when we're not around ducks (talking about the trip to the pond and feeding the ducks after the fact), or when teaching the behaviors and appearances of ducks (like in Biology class), or when teaching which scribble or sound refers to ducks (in English class).

No it isn't. Per the example above, we know that the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. But no-one can know that they lost it, since they didn't lose it. That's what it means for truth to be a condition of knowledge (and not falsity). — Andrew M

The difference in the types of knowledge seems to depend more on what we are talking about. Referring to artificial social constructions as states-of-affairs that you have knowledge about (like who is President of the United States and who won the 2004 World Series) seems much easier than referring to natural states-of-affairs (like knowing when it will rain). In the former case, we have created our own truths, or pre-defined them. In the latter, we haven't. We are defining them based on experience and observations.

If we can only know what something is (like knowledge) by empiricism, then knowledge doesn't fall into your category of propositional knowledge. It isn't something pre-defined like who won the World Series in 2004.

Interesting, your question involves the phenomena of language. We might consider there is knowing without words. The whole animal kingdom has knowing without words (set of rules for interpreting). We also have knowing without words. Our words (set of rules for interpreting) separate us from our experience and interfere with our knowing. — Athena

No. I would say that the infinite regress of aboutness is a product of how we use the word, "knowledge". How we use the word is wrong because of this.

Using a set of rules for interpreting sensory impressions would just be another way of saying that you're going by experience. Experience is a synonym for knowledge. Also, knowing is often equated to observing. You know because that is how you always experienced it before. You know because you are looking right at it. And then we often refer to authority for our knowledge, or even computers now with all the information they store and accessible virtually anywhere with the right technology.

The problem is that philosophers find problems with all of these forms of knowledge. The problem of induction is the problem of knowledge by experience. The problem of illusions and hallucinations is the problem of using your senses to know. The logical fallacy of appealing to authority is the problem of using those in authority as the source of knowledge. So why do many philosophers then go and say things like, "Truth is a condition of knowledge"?

You know absolutely nothing about biology do you? — ovdtogt

Hum, before I react to what you said I should ask, was it your intention to be witty, disrespectful, or humorous? :brow:

Researchers say that animals, non-humans, do not have a true language like humans. However they do communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. Animals have a number of in-born qualities they use to signal their feelings, but these are not like the formed words we see in the human language.Apr 20, 2012
Do Animals Have a Language? - Voxy
https://voxy.com › blog › 2012/04 › do-animals-have-a-language — Voxy

I make this argument because I think it is important that we understand our language is a different thinking skill requiring the connectivity of several brain centers. Other animals do not have these brain connections. Perhaps we should not speak of the importance of language without also speaking of how our brains work?

It is amazing what a stroke can do to a person's ability to use language depending on which area of the brain is damaged. A person may have plenty of words, but not understand the meaning of them. Or common to us older folks is knowing the meaning of what we want to say, but not having the word for it. A person with a stroke may be able to understand the spoken word but not the written word or visa versa.

An organic brain disorder such as Down Syndrome or brain damage can effect our experience of life in many different ways. https://www.brainline.org/article/lost-found-what-brain-injury-survivors-want-you-know.

Researchers say that animals, non-humans, do not have a 'true' language like humans. However they do communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. — Voxy

That is what language is. Communication.

The problem I encounter on this forum is the lack of basic knowledge concerning, history, biology and physics and chemistry.

So why do many philosophers then go and say things like, "Truth is a condition of knowledge"? — Harry Hindu

Because knowing truth requires not only the language that makes us aware of concepts, but also knowing the laws of nature. We could not know many of the laws of nature before we had the technology to see far away, such as other planets, or see things invisible to the naked eye, such as bacteria. We could not know what we know today without the highly developed math we now use. Does that make sense?

Our knowledge is not a revealed knowledge like the Bible, but is the result of developed math, concepts (language) and technology. Because we can not unknow what we know, we can not experience the consciousness of primitive people, or early city people, or the middle ages. Human thought is forever changed by what we know and can not unknow.

Not even the most religious folks rely on witch doctors and we don't stand around sick people to see if demons come out of them. Those who have knowledge of modern medicine rely on doctors, drugs, surgeries. Praying helps but unless you are Christian Science, you will take a child to a medical doctor and thank goodness we have stopped beating the devil out of our children and torturing women to prove they are witches. We greatly increased our life expectancy when we accepted cleanliness and sanitation are important, and when with knowledge. And when we could grow more food and have full bellies year around, God went for a fearsome, punishing God to a loving God. If we think of holy books as abstract ideas instead of concrete truths, they are not so bad. But to do that we need to learn higher-order thinking skills.

Does that explain why it is said "Truth is a condition of knowledge", or was I just annoying with my babbling?

That is what language is. Communication.

The problem I encounter on this forum is the lack of basic knowledge concerning, history, biology and physics and chemistry. — ovdtogt

No, language is using words and understanding concepts. Crying babies are communicating but they are not using language and they have not learned concepts, such as an encyclopedia is a set of books that contains knowledge of many things. In fact, there is much young children can not learn until their brains are more mature. Unfortunately by then, their hormones turn on and they may get so focused on their feelings they have a near-zero interest in learning any of the subjects you listed. Trying to get a child from a baby to a well-informated adult is full of challenges. Getting them past the "know it all, I don't need you stage" is unpleasant for everyone. The words, "a baby will change your life", do not convey the necessary meaning to young people with raging hormones.

What does a basic understanding of history and biology mean to you? How much do you know of how our brains work and do you consider that to be biology?

To clarify, language is what goes on in our heads and what is going on in our heads is different from what goes on the heads of animals and small children. A preverbal child can be traumatized and experience post-trauma syndrome, without having the words to understand the event and emotions experienced.

Our language is what separates us from God. — ovdtogt

Yes, I said it wrong and thank you for saying it right.

Bald assertions that do not even take a valid argumentative form aren't very compelling.

— Athena

That is what language is: Communication through sound and gestures.
Watch this fascinating clip by David Attenborough

Amazing footage of how different types of monkey have distinct calls to warn their troop members of an invading big cat predator. Amusing footage of how David Attenborough reveals their hidden behaviours with a special stuffed toy. From BBC's Life of Mammals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-bxPLFt1vI

Crying babies are communicating — Athena

Yes crying is a form of communication and may be considered a primitive language.

That is what language is: Communication through sound and gestures. — ovdtogt

Nah. That cannot be right.

No sounds or gestures in this format, but there is definitely language.

No sounds or gestures in this format, but there is definitely language. — creativesoul

What format?

Online format.

Online format. — creativesoul

You are going all cryptic on me.

You are reading a meaningful language. There are no gestures. There are no sounds. There is a meaningful language.

Nothing cryptic. Plain 'ole common sense. Your claim is false. Language is not just communication through sounds and gestures.

Language is not just communication through sounds and gestures. — creativesoul

language is the vocalization of information. Chimps do it. Birds do it. Many animals do it.

Moving the goalposts...

Still wrong.

Still wrong. — creativesoul

Clever response. You got me there.