What do we really know and the limitations of knowledge

[Someone here]

Socrates famously said that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing.

Can we truly know anything? Do we really know nothing?

If we do know something, how can we be sure that we aren't mistaken?

To me it seems pretty obvious that we do know some things, but that the problem lies in how we know that we know them. I mean, no matter what we can pretty much question how reliable any source of information is.

For example. I KNOW that I'm posting something on a  forum right now. How do I know? I'm seeing it happen before my eyes. But how do I know that my firsthand account of this is a reliable source? Sadly I don't. I just sort of have to...trust it I guess. Dunno.

So I ask ..Can we know anything? I'm sure we can, I am also sure that we may never know for sure what we know accuratley or not. I think Knowledge is in fact some form of JTB (justified True Belief) but I don't think we can ever know for sure if our so-called justification is accurate. That is to say I think we can think we are justified in our belief but we will never be able to confirm is it is true only that it is probable at best. In summation...I think we can have knowledge but i do not think we can know that we for which of our beliefs are knowledge and which are not.

[ZzzleepingBear]

It's quite a poetic statement, with a splash of humor to it. I think a less poetic way would be to explain it by the fact that knowledge is not static, even when you grasp a concept good enough to say that you now know something about something. To know that we know nothing, is what keeps knowledge a living thing as opposed to a dead persuit.

Just as an achor can keep you steady amongst the waves in a sea that is constantly moving, but the anchor is not made to stop the sea itself from moving.

[Someone here]

@ZzzleepingBear name one thing that you know /absolutely certain of . And justify how /why you are certain of it . One example is enough .

[ZzzleepingBear]

48 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@ZzzleepingBear name one thing that you know /absolutely certain of . And justify how /why you are certain of it . One example is enough .

I am

[Someone here]

26 minutes ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

I am

You answered only one half of the question..Still you didn't justify how are you certain that you are ?

Based on that, we can't analyze who and what we are. Obviously not the body, and most likely not the mind since we have these. If we aren’t either of these it’s almost impossible to work out ourselves what we are because we are limited by the restrictions of the mind and body.

[ZzzleepingBear]

Sorry my bad. I am that I am.

[Eph75]

Depends on what the reference of knowing what I is.

If you don't know what I is, then anything that I imagines knowing is no longer certain.

Redefine I and everything I knew gets redefined.

You can no longer be certain about anything, except that there being an experience, of being. 

What that is, is impossible to know. 

Call that "I am" if you will, or something else. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Eph75

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, Eph75 said:

Depends on what the reference of knowing what I is.

If you don't know what I is, then anything that I imagines knowing is no longer certain.

Redefine I and everything I knew gets redefined.

You can no longer be certain about anything, except that there being an experience, of being. 

What that is, is impossible to know. 

Call that "I am" if you will, or something else. 

 ? Agreed. I call it sensory experience. 

Like what Aristotle says that all knowledge of what is true and real must begin with "First Knowledge", defined as our sensory experience. The way that I know that 1+1=2 is because I experience it. You can't prove it to me the way that you can prove the Pythagorean Theorem.

Similarly, says Maimonides in the same vein, how do you know you are alive? You experience it. That's First Knowledge.

So while everything may be an illusion, maybe I'm a cat dreaming I'm a man, the way we relate to this world (dream or otherwise) is based on the starting point of our sensory experience.

[Eph75]

@Someone here

Well I don't know, and I'm not trying to be cute here..

What you say is leaning on a lot of references that I don't know is true. 

I genuinely don't know.

I THINK I just read what you wrote, but I don't even know what that means. 

I pretend to know what my sense making is telling me what it means.. 

Yeah it's absurd.

But it reveals the game of existence and that what we do, and what we're doing here, ultimately is distraction and game-play.

And, that I enjoy that experience.

Thank you make making my experience appear enjoyable ❤️

I have no idea what it mean, "I" seem to like it, makes this moment appear "lighter" and I love you for not only that. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Eph75

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Eph75 said:

Well I don't know, and I'm not trying to be cute here..

What you say is leaning on a lot of references that I don't know is true. 

I genuinely don't know.

I THINK I just read what you wrote, but I don't know even know what that means. 

I pretend to know what my sense making is telling me what it means.. 

Yeah it's absurd.

In case you are not trolling ..?

I'm pointing to the simple fact that sensory experience is happening right now .you are seeing objects .hearing sounds. Smelling stuff and so forth.  That is what I call first order knowledge. And it's the only certain thing in the world. 

[Eph75]

@Someone here

Oh no, I'm not "trolling" 

And..

What I'm thinking I'm supporting exactly what you're saying  100%

There is a duality here.

There's the part that is "me" agreeing with this, from a place that I, myself, can confirm what you're saying and that I "know" that I fully agree with you - AND - there is the part of "me" that acknowledge that it in itself is no more than a thought that appears to "me" to be "mine".

That defines the foundation, that above stands on, being the very "unknowing", of everything that "I" know.

Not knowing is the foundation that everything stand on. 

Again, this might be perceived as "being cute", but there's a deeper understanding of "it" being true - and this is where language fails us - it literally equates to nothing (undefinable, unequatible, and unnecessary to define). 

That does not mean that I, the thinking me, isn't leaning towards preferring some thoughts as "favorable"

[fudge up here, continue in nest post] 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Eph75

[Someone here]

@Eph75

The SELF does exist. It’s just not divided into many. It is ONE self or Pure Awareness looking through the eyes of all the forms it takes from human, to animal, to plant, to alien.

If by ‘self’ we mean that which we refer to as the “I” living in an individual body-mind with all of its particular physical, chemical and genetic features with distinguishing traits and tendencies of thought and feeling and perception, then that ‘self’ does not exist. That self is illusory.

If by SELF we mean that which we refer to as the “I” which KNOWS or is AWARE of our experience, then that Self does exist. It just doesn’t exist APART from any ‘other’ self.

To be more precise, the SELF does not exist per say, because existence means to ‘stand out’ from.

If the SELF is ALL THERE IS (infinite and omnipresent), then it cannot ‘stand out’. It must be WHOLE, undivided - not apart from Reality, but Reality itself. ISNESS or BEING itself.

I Am - WE ARE or WE SHARE - our very BEING.

[Eph75]

55 minutes ago, Someone here said:

you are seeing objects .hearing sounds. Smelling stuff and so forth.  That is what I call first order knowledge.

Frist order, but, individual interpretation that is second order to whatever sense-making we have the capability to perform. 

What does smell, e.g. mean, and how is smell defines by past experiences. 

That interpretation 

❤️ Thank you for pushing me toward thinking new thoughts (no, still not trolling) 

[Eph75]

Oh, I'm messing thing up, haven't read your post above, my post above was intended to be previous to yours, as a continuation  fudged up x2 now, human nature 

*reading your last post now, I'll be back*

Edited September 9, 2022 by Eph75

[Eph75]

@Someone here

Yes, still fully agree. 

The knowing from my usage of language is bound to the form, "I", and the limited understanding that we can try to grasp. 

What you mention is transcending form, and that "I". 

Language is failing here but "I" sense that we're talking about the same but using different references in language.

?

Here's a tought.. Would you like to talk? Seems odd in relation to this"space" but I'd love to actually talk. Maybe it just seems odd in my frame of reference. I'm serious though - not an argument, just a conversation. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Eph75

[DocWatts]

Alfred North Whitehead talks about this extensively in his ruminations on the epistomology of science.

We create reductionistic models in order to simplify Reality, but the reduction can never be complete because Reality itself is inexhaustable, and more complex than we can ever fully capture in our abstractions.

[r0ckyreed]

The only thing you can truly know is that consciousness exists and that it is infinite. Period.  Everything else is fantasy, belief, and falsehood. Not truth. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Razard86]

Until everyone realizes they are full of shit, all they will know...is shit lol.