Hierarchy of knowledge - explicit content!

[GlobalPlayer]

Well, thank you for stopping by...

I am still fairly new to Objectivism and there has been a topic which has been troubling me ever since the beginning. The site www.importanceofphilosophy.com states under the category "epistemology" the point "hierarchical knowledge" and I have always understood, THAT my knowledge would be non-ambiguous and hierarchical if it reflects reality correctly but not HOW and WHERE to make that Hierarchy explicit.... Sounds weird? Well, to me too. Do I get it right when I say that the hierarchy of knowledge (concepts and propositions) is part of epistemology with every explicit concept (chair, physics, boredom, epistemology, nice, lucky...) or does it simply state THAT knowledge is hierarchical and the actual hierarchy exists somewhere other than epistemology? My concern is whether the hierarchy of knowledge itself is part of epistemology? That means all concepts ("chair", "physics", "boredom", "epistemology", "nice", "lucky" and the concept "epistemology") occur within the hierarchy of knowledge which exists within epistemology...

Well, whoever is not totally confused by now I would be thankful for a statement!

Thanks to all participants for helping me get back on track

GP

Edited September 5, 2006 by GlobalPlayer

[DavidOdden]

My concern is whether the hierarchy of knowledge itself is part of epistemology?

Epistemology is the study of the nature and source of knowledge, this is isn't the knowledge itself. So a person's specific knowledge hierarchy wouldn't be part of epistemology, though the study of a knowledge hierarchy (especially to understand the nature of a knowledge hierarchy) would be.

[GlobalPlayer]

David Odden wrote:

Epistemology is the study of the nature and source of knowledge, this is isn't the knowledge itself.

Ok, so all epistemology has to say about the hierarchy of knowledge is THAT there is one and HOW it is properly formed. It offers prinicples for building the hierarchy of knowledge and getting the most out of it...is that correct?

The way I see it the concept "knowledge" is not necessarily connected with "fact". That means I don't think everything we know is for sure correct because we aren't omniscient. The degree of certainty depends on the number of observed cases, prior knowledge, ability to reason logically...We are only able to gain objective certainty - NOT absolute certainty. The definitions we form may be insufficient but may be sound at our present level of knowledge. Sometimes what we call truth is different from the actual fact. Before the sciences examined the human mind the state of knowledge was that emotions are originated in the heart. Therefore the saying "listen to your heart". Is the concept truth therefore to be regarded as contextual?

Thanks David.

GP

[DavidOdden]

Ok, so all epistemology has to say about the hierarchy of knowledge is THAT there is one and HOW it is properly formed. It offers prinicples for building the hierarchy of knowledge and getting the most out of it...is that correct?

Although my epistemological theory is hierarchical, that isn't inherent in epistemology per se, and I could imagine an epistemology (a bad one) that held that knowledge is the accumulation of unrelated bits. Primarily, epistemology is about knowledge. That therefore subsumes questions such as whether one can have knowledge -- and if so, how; whether pieces of knowledge relate to each other -- and if so how. I don't think that "getting the most out of your knowledge" is part of epistemology, though I don't know what it is part of (I don't think it's an aspect of philosophy, rather, it's something like technology).

The way I see it the concept "knowledge" is not necessarily connected with "fact". That means I don't think everything we know is for sure correct because we aren't omniscient.

Well, there are a lot of points to be excavated here. First, whatever errors we make, that doesn't mean that our knowledge isn't necessarily connected to knowledge. The thing is, "connected to" is pretty vague. Even with an error, that doesn't mean there is a complete disconnection between fact and idea, so there is necessarily some connection. It would help to be explicit about some simple terms here. "Fact" refers to a graspable aspect of reality, which means that "facts simply are". Facts are not "claims", "ideas" or "propositions". Dogs and rocks are examples of facts. To "know" something, you have to grasp a proposition which describes a fact, for example I know that it was raining this morning (I understand the proposition and the proposition describes a fact). So that means that you cannot know something untrue. You can think you know something, which in fact is untrue. Hypothetically, on a different morning I might have gotten the idea that it had rained without properly validating that conclusion, and the conclusion might have been in error if it had simply been very dewy.

The degree of certainty depends on the number of observed cases, prior knowledge, ability to reason logically...We are only able to gain objective certainty - NOT absolute certainty.

I think the idea of "degree of certainty" is wrong-headed. Certainty describes a particular, crisp level of knowledge, and when you are certain, you are certain. It refers, in particular, to the state where all evidence supports the conclusion and no evidence supports any alternative. The number of cases does not really belong in the concept of certainty, and when it is so used, it is usually standing for knowledge of a causal principle. With a valid causal principle, you can relate a single observation to a conclusion, with certainty.

Is the concept truth therefore to be regarded as contextual?

No, I don't think so. That appearance may arise from the fact that the particular proposition is contextually restricted, for example when we are speaking of man's nature in a free society, there are many truths which would not describe man in a slave society.

[Atlas51184]

The site www.importanceofphilosophy.com

Not a reliable source. Stick to OPAR.

[GlobalPlayer]

Dave wrote:

I think the idea of "degree of certainty" is wrong-headed. Certainty describes a particular, crisp level of knowledge, and when you are certain, you are certain. It refers, in particular, to the state where all evidence supports the conclusion and no evidence supports any alternative. The number of cases does not really belong in the concept of certainty, and when it is so used, it is usually standing for knowledge of a causal principle. With a valid causal principle, you can relate a single observation to a conclusion, with certainty

I often sense a disturbing uncertainty within my knowledge which stems not from the missing clarity about the hierarchy of knowledge but directly from the way I understand my mind.

Rand writes in ITOE in the beginning of chapter 4 on concepts of consciousness: Awareness isn't a passive state but an active process and every process can be divided into an action of consciousness and a content of consciousness. She says that thinking, reminiscing, evaluating, feeling, perceiving, imagining and so on are all processes of consciousness. Whereas in VOS she writes reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses...the process is thinking (although she writes in VOS that thinking is the act of focusing one's consciousness). Isn't that contradictory? How does the faculty of reason relate to the faculty of consciousness and to memory? I am not a professional in the area of mind sciences as you can tell and it really cost much time to try to figure those things out. I don't see how thinking can arise through the faculty of consciousness, or how memories can. What is with memory???

I tried many times to understand this on my own but weren't too succesful since in my eyes sources tell different stories. Looking at a psycholoy textbook it had some other statement about consciuosness again.

GP.

[GlobalPlayer]

Well, my question might not be clear enough.

Maybe somebody can recommend a good book or internet page on the way the mind works. I am looking for an explanation of the different faculties of the mind, their relation to one another and ways to explore them. I recently bought "consciousness explained" by Daniel Dennett. Do YOU have read anything written by him or about the topic that helped YOU??? I would be very thankful for recommendations and advises.:-)

[DavidOdden]

Maybe somebody can recommend a good book or internet page on the way the mind works.

I can't, because there aren't any. The question you're asking is way too specialized -- we simply don't have the answers. Any general book on the topic will be pointless and empty generalities. Take just the question "How does the mind produce and understand language" -- we've been researching this for 50 years, and really have only a thin understanding of the answer. We can't really even give you decent answers about how auditory perception works. You can read ITOE to get a general idea what "consciousness" refres to, but Rand does not set forth any scientific theories of how the human mind actually operates, e.g. the nature of memory, the bio-chemistry of concept formation, and so on.

The right question to be asking, IMO, is "what is 'consciousness'?", i.e. focus on the easily-accessible answers that simply require clear thinking rather than fancy equiptment.

[GlobalPlayer]

I can't, because there aren't any. The question you're asking is way too specialized -- we simply don't have the answers.

That's just too bad, but time will certainly spawn further understanding...

The right question to be asking, IMO, is "what is 'consciousness'?", i.e. focus on the easily-accessible answers that simply require clear thinking rather than fancy equiptment.

I absolutely agree on that point, but at the same time it's the issue I understand the least. Objectivity, knowledge, certainty, memory - (almost) all philosophical concerns depend on the way the mind works. If we didn't have volition, we wouldn't need ethics because we didn't have the possibility to choose...and so on.

See, I am having troubles identifying what concepts (of consciousness) actually refer to. I give you an example: "Is remembering a process enabled through memory or through consciousness?" or "Is my knowledge stored in my memory or in my consciousness?" It really messes up the whole value of philosophy, science, well knowledge and research in general if one isn't able to differentiate those fundamental aspects of reasoning and introspecting. Not to mention the psychological effects it causes like frustration and confusion.

I really think Objectivism would gain a lot from a further advanced theory on the way the human "soul" (in its secular meaning) works and to work on explaining as you said "what is 'consciousness'?"

[DavidOdden]

Objectivity, knowledge, certainty, memory - (almost) all philosophical concerns depend on the way the mind works. If we didn't have volition, we wouldn't need ethics because we didn't have the possibility to choose...and so on.

Here's where a bit of philosophical analysis will help you. Certainty is one aspect of knowledge -- if you understand "knowledge", you will understand "certainty". Objectivity doesn't depend on the physical working of the mind, rather it refers to a method of relating fact and conclusion via reason. That is something that could exist in a rational beng no matter what the physical nature of their consciousness. So understanding the physical nature of the min in humans would actually impede your understanding of "knowledge".

I give you an example: "Is remembering a process enabled through memory or through consciousness?"

This is a false dichotomy. "Consciousness" is a broader category and memory could be an aspect of a consciousness (a possible aspect: I don't think that the concept of consciousness entails memory). That means, then, that "remembering" is most directly related to "memory".

or "Is my knowledge stored in my memory or in my consciousness?"

Neither: when you're talking about "storing", you're asking about the actual hardware. Neither "memory" nor "consciousness" refer to hardware. Assuming that you are a human, the answer is "in your brain". So the question is, are you interested in the physical workings of the human brain, or in the nature of conceptual consciousnesses?

[GlobalPlayer]

This is a false dichotomy. "Consciousness" is a broader category and memory could be an aspect of a consciousness (a possible aspect: I don't think that the concept of consciousness entails memory). That means, then, that "remembering" is most directly related to "memory".

1. Do you think that any "software" of the brain is consciousness and the different actions like thinking, feeling, reminiscing etc. are actions of that consciousness (That's the way Rand explained it but I'm not sure if I agree with it) or is thinking an action of reason, remembering an action of memory and consciousness is exclusively the faculty which perceives? If I understand you correctly you don't seem to be sure ("...could be an aspect...") What do you mean by "I don't think that the concept of consciousness entails memory" If that is not how you regard it, how DO you regard it then?

Neither: when you're talking about "storing", you're asking about the actual hardware. Neither "memory" nor "consciousness" refer to hardware. Assuming that you are a human, the answer is "in your brain". So the question is, are you interested in the physical workings of the human brain, or in the nature of conceptual consciousnesses?

Well there must be an essential difference between software and hardware that I am not yet able to grasp. The way I regard consciousness is as a function/ a faculty of the brain just as I regard reason as a faculty of the brain or memory...made possible through the neurons and whatever bio-physical nature of the brain. I wouldn't think in any way that "understanding the physical nature of the mind in humans would actually impede your understanding of "knowledge"." I think there are certain structures within the brain which are responsible for storage of information and that those are called memory. Brain scans show that certain areas of the brain are active whenever we use our native language while others are active whenever we talk in a foreign language...I would then say that different languages are stored in different areas of our memory...What is wrong with that picture? I think I miss a fundamental fact of conceptual consciousness because I am always arguing from a physical point of view and try to find a physical phenomenon as referent to concepts that actually belong to consciousness.

Edited September 13, 2006 by GlobalPlayer

[DavidOdden]

What do you mean by "I don't think that the concept of consciousness entails memory"

What I mean is that I do not believe that finding a being with consciousness but no memory would not strike me as contradictory (though it would be strange). The fact that all known consciousnesses do have memory isn't lost on me; the only way to really determine whether consciousness entails memory is to consider an actual case of (putative) consciousness without memory. Maybe I've been focusing on the wrong aspects of the concept "consciousness", but AFAICT consciousness does not entail memory.

The way I regard consciousness is as a function/ a faculty of the brain just as I regard reason as a faculty of the brain or memory...made possible through the neurons and whatever bio-physical nature of the brain.

Why? BTW, the answer should not be "I just do". Are you making a claim about the concept "consciousness", or are you saying something about the nature of human consciousness? By restricting yourself to just human consciousness, you probably can make scientific progress on understanding the physical basis of human consciousness, but that won't necessarily help you understanding the nature of another kind of being's consciousness (and thus, the actual concept "consciousness").

Brain scans show that certain areas of the brain are active whenever we use our native language while others are active whenever we talk in a foreign language...I would then say that different languages are stored in different areas of our memory...What is wrong with that picture?

Huh. I'm unaware of any such scientific evidence. What's a standard citation to show this? (NB I mean a credible scientific publication, if you know what I mean).

[GlobalPlayer]

Huh. I'm unaware of any such scientific evidence. What's a standard citation to show this? (NB I mean a credible scientific publication, if you know what I mean).

Well, I there's a lot of information on brain studies and related stuff online. I watched some trustworthy television documentaries. Since I don't live in the US I can't really name any important ones. The method is called a PET scan maybe this site will support my point Positron Emission Tomography further information also at Wikipedia about "Positron Emission Tomography".

The way humans learn varies from each individual to another. Areas that are active in one person's brain during a learning process mustn't be in another one's. This is because different individuals value things differently. This phenomenon too is caused by a special area of the brain called the limbic system which is responsible for emotions and feelings. But in one person's brain it's always just some area of the brain. Some other person might also prefer to learn in a different way than another. One might like to study books (visual) another likes to listen to a teacher (auditory). The corresponding brain activity will differ accordingly.

What I mean is that I do not believe that finding a being with consciousness but no memory would not strike me as contradictory (though it would be strange). The fact that all known consciousnesses do have memory isn't lost on me; the only way to really determine whether consciousness entails memory is to consider an actual case of (putative) consciousness without memory. Maybe I've been focusing on the wrong aspects of the concept "consciousness", but AFAICT consciousness does not entail memory.

I completely agree and regarding the last point of yours:

By restricting yourself to just human consciousness, you probably can make scientific progress on understanding the physical basis of human consciousness, but that won't necessarily help you understanding the nature of another kind of being's consciousness (and thus, the actual concept "consciousness").

You might be right in assuming that I mainly concentrate on understanding humans because it is what strikes me most personally and most directly. The importance to understand a monkey's consciousness might be more suitable to an animal psychologist. That doesn't mean I restrict myself exlusively to it. I don't quite see the necessity to understand another being's consciousness in order to understand my own or to understand the concept consciousness. Maybe you could convince me of the opposite? I know that what is called consciousness is probably there in other animals too in a more narrow more restricted sense.

[GlobalPlayer]

Can you subsitute "mind" and "consciousness"? Are both concepts synonymous?

[DavidOdden]

Can you subsitute "mind" and "consciousness"? Are both concepts synonymous?

That's a good question -- I don't know. I think they refer to different things, and that "consciousness" is a broader term, but I would have to think about that.

[GlobalPlayer]

That's a good question -- I don't know. I think they refer to different things, and that "consciousness" is a broader term, but I would have to think about that.

I think it's an interesting context and I would really be thankful for other opinions. I understand my memory to be part of my mind and I would also say that consciousness is part of my mind. I got the impression that Rand unifies concepts like thinking, feeling, memory etc. as "concepts of consciousness" and there is no need to unify them as "concepts of mind". I don't know if there IS a difference but I would like to debate this...What do you think?