Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 02:16 (4872 days ago)

dhw compares the human consciousness to a television. This is a poor analogy, and I will demonstrate why.-A TV works by receiving a radio signal sent through the air, and interprets the signal into a form that humans can use, namely sound and light. -I have heard ancient (5+) years ago of experiments done looking at humans, and no exterior signal has been deemed present. Therefore, we should conclude that consciousness is at best--an extremely local phenomenon. -I will maintain that there is more evidence that consciousness is localized to the human brain than there is life was designed. First, to borrow from a previous argument I used with David, you need to be able to conceptualize design and what exactly it is. All knowledge we have is ultimately based on experience; an old teacher's adage: there is no better teacher. -Before I continue we should enumerate what I consider knowledge, and my hierarchy of rank. This is the discussion I've been wanting to have with everyone on this forum... but it seems to me that no one is interested in what I've repeatedly stated was the REAL cause for disagreement. -DEF 1: Transferable Knowledge is a final state of information that has been interpreted, and can be verified by an outside source. This would be knowledge you can gain by reading a book, for example. Data. Facts. Things before interpretation can begin. It is empirical.
DEF 2: Tacit knowledge is knowledge unique to an individual; it is something that has been gained by experience. Dreams and emotions fall into this category, as does anything that simply has to be performed to be understood. It may or may not be empirical. 
DEF 3: Knowing is the state in which a being possesses valid information.
DEF 4: Information is created from data; a graph for example. Information must be placed in its context.
DEF 5: Data is the lowest possible level of something that we can perceive with our 5 senses. 
DEF 6: Inference I use synonymously with induction; though induction is technically the stronger of the two. An inference is an extrapolated prediction based on tacit or transferable knowledge. It can only become knowledge if it can be demonstrated to be valid.
DEF 7: Valid/Validity: the state in which a being can apply DEF 1 and DEF 2 to some information.
DEF 8: Intuition is not knowledge. It is information.-Based on these basic definitions (incomplete, they will undoubtedly be fleshed out as we move forward) we can move on to a few demonstrations of my ideas. -Using these definitions, I can know that the sun rose yesterday and today, but I cannot know it will rise tomorrow. I must infer that. 
Knowledge is only past tense. I might have a meeting tomorrow, but i do not know it will happen. I infer it. -Another example would be that you find dinosaur bones, and are able to use dating and what is known geologically to infer its age at some x-million years. We know dinosaurs existed, but everything we know about them is inference based on what we've found and what we know about similar creatures. -The evidence for evolution by NS when condensed, is essentially Systematics (paleontological study) and phylogeny. (Modern genetics.) Based on the success of predictions made on data, Natural Selection was chosen as the best explanation for the diversity of life. -What explanation do we really have for consciousness? My previous evidence is this; that the destruction of the human brain destroys consciousness. For me this is based on both DEF 1 and DEF 2. This doesn't explain consciousness, but it bounds the question by demonstrating that we center the search on the brain. -What explanation do we have that consciousness exists outside of the human brain? The evidence is clearly less firm; we only have what amounts to anecdotal evidence. We have patients that describe OoBEs, but clearly there is no way to take this tacit knowledge and verify it with some external source. Therefore, while knowledge, it is not something we can know. And as such, can never be knowledge. -Therefore, the comparison between consciousness and evolution--is a comparison of apples to oranges.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"