Reply to MonfortS26 No, why would that be the case? There's something called planning.
Terrapin StationJune 15, 2017 at 12:46#778120 likes
I'm going to go with "no."
Say that you've never literally written the word "cat" in a sentence before, and your goal is to do so the next time you're writing a post. If you have or gain knowledge regarding what "cat" refers to, and you know how to spell it, then you know that you can successfully use it in a sentence the next time you write a post. It's not going to be up in the air whether you'll succeed. There would have to be something very weird going on to not succeed.
Reply to Noblosh Planning is guessing, as David Heinemeier Hansson used to say.
I think it depends on whether or not you've done the task before, and how complex it is. I agree with the spirit of the claim but would be compelled to vote No, because I don't think it's impossible, but just most often impossible or close to impossible.
You'd have to know you weren't going to have a heart attack, and that the mad axeman wasn't creeping up behind you, and that you weren't going to move your own goalposts halfway through.
But most of us philosophers are perfectly sure we can drive to work in the morning, and cook dinner in the evening, and some of us don't even call it guessing. The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.
Everything anyone ever does, they have sufficient knowledge to do, but not always before they do it.
But most of us philosophers are perfectly sure we can drive to work in the morning, and cook dinner in the evening, and some of us don't even call it guessing. The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.
Which guide would you rather have, a guide who knows the way to the Walmart or a guide who has a true opinion about its location?
Reply to Cavacava For such affairs, a dog is more convenient than a philosopher. A dog has more sense than to wonder if it possibly knows enough to get where it's going, and won't trouble me with the question either.
YES - you are absolutely right. All the people who said otherwise, aren't thinking straight.
I don't think common people think of going to the supermarket as a goal. They rather think buying a bigger house in 10 years as a goal, or saving enough for a car, or starting a business, etc. Most of the time it is impossible to know for sure if you can achieve such a goal. That's why you just have to try, and keep on trying until you get there.
The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.
Fock meah, since when do you get Walmart in UK? But I'd have to question this - you can refuse to go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept your money - it's called home delivery 8-)
VagabondSpectreJune 15, 2017 at 20:30#778680 likes
As far as the statement "impossible to know" can be trotted out and applied to anything, sure, we have no ultimate certitude.
But, say I set out to solve a basic math problem, and before hand I demonstrate sufficient knowledge of mathematical theorems which completely contain and describe the given problem in question. It's entirely reasonable to say that I have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the goal of solving the math problem.
The more complex the goal, the more unknowns, the harder it is to be reasonably sure of success, so of course your supposition does fairly apply to many cases, just not all of them.
Yes, because it is possible that on the way to accomplish your goal you will be confronted by somebody that refuses to allow you to pass unless you can tell them your name, your goal and the air-speed velocity of a fully-laden swallow.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 16, 2017 at 02:08#779000 likes
It is impossible to know if the amount of knowledge you have is sufficient to accomplish a goal, without attempting it.
Yes, I think you're right because you are asking whether it's possible to know that you know. But this implies that you must also know that you know that you know, as well as know that you know that you know that you know, ad infinitum. So the claim to know that you know can never be justified due to infinite regress.
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 11:34#779540 likes
Wait, some people are reading it as a question whether one will succeed at the goal. That's not what he asked. He asked if you can know that some specific knowledge is sufficient to reach a particular goal. Knowledge can be sufficient to reach a goal whether you reach it or not ("not" perhaps because you die or the world disappears or whatever scenario we want to imagine).
There is knowing and there is knowing that you know. You can know how to write the word, "cat". But then how do you know you know how to write the word, "cat"? - by actually writing it. You can know the letters that are part of the word, "cat", and the order that they must be written, but to write the word, you have to know how to hold a pencil and how to move your hand in such a way, which requires fine motor skills, to spell the word on paper and you don't know that you can actually do that until you do it.
There is knowing and there is confirming your knowledge by using it. Things change, like the spelling and use of words, and when that happens, your knowledge is no longer accurate. This is why we constantly check our knowledge by using it and then updating our knowledge when things don't go as predicted when applying our knowledge.
How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 14:12#780480 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station Knowing how to write, "dog" doesn't mean you know how to write, "cat". It requires different movements and if you never made those movements before, then you don't know you can do it until you do it.
Reply to Cavacava Talking is different than writing. Moving your mouth and tongue isn't the same as moving your hands. There are people that can speak better than they write and vice versa.
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 14:25#780570 likes
Knowing how to write, "dog" doesn't mean you know how to write, "cat". It requires different movements and if you never made those movements before, then you don't know you can do it until you do it.
So you'd be assuming that we must be talking about a situation where someone only knows how to write some letters of the alphabet? C'mon, man, don't be stupid. It can't be that every single person on this board is a moron.
Talking is different than writing. Moving your mouth and tongue isn't the same as moving your hands. There are people that can speak better than they write and vice versa.
Sorry I don't see how this follows from:
How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?
Reply to Terrapin Station Yeah, like when you're in grade school learning how to write your letters and put them together in words. Adults tend to take their knowledge for granted. There was a point in your life that this situation applies, and this is an important part of the process - of learning - of applying your knowledge over time, testing it where at this point in your life, you've done it so many times, you take it for granted how you do it.
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 14:36#780720 likes
I answered your question. I think self awareness is the result of the inner dialogue we each have with ourselves. The grammar of language is as much a part of thought as it is in whatever is written or otherwise expressed.
Reply to Terrapin Station Then you're not really getting at the meat of the OP. Do you disagree that you owe your knowing how to write, "cat" to the countless times you've done it before this moment in your life?
Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil.
Reply to Cavacava Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil and then tell your hand to move in such a way in order to do it.
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 14:46#780790 likes
Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil.
Obviously you have to know how to form or type the letters. The point is that you can know how to do that, know how to spell the word, etc. without having actually written the word before, and that's sufficient to know that you can do it (barring the world ending beforehand and other nonsense like that).
Reply to Terrapin Station I already pointed out that we can know the letters that are part of the word, and the order in which they appear, but to know how to write it, requires more knowledge. Practice makes perfect.
Terrapin StationJune 16, 2017 at 14:50#780830 likes
but to know how to write it, requires more knowledge.
I wasn't detailing every single thing it requires, though. That would be ridiculously missing the point. The point is that we can never have written it, but know that what we know is sufficient to write it.
Then that would be saying that knowing how to spell the word makes it appear on the paper, which is absurd.
The question asked if you can know that you have a sufficient amount of knowledge to accomplish a goal. Not if having the knowledge automatically accomplishes it.
Reply to Terrapin Station Exactly. Yet that is how you answered the question because you fail to admit that you don't know that you can do something until you actually do it - at least once. Putting the letters in the correct order on some imaginary paper in your mind isn't the same thing as actually writing it on real paper with your hands.
Reply to Cavacava Again, thinking it isn't the same as doing it. You know you can think it, but can you do it? Imagining yourself doing something isn't the same as doing it. If it were then the actions take place simply by thinking about it. But that isn't the way it is. For you to manipulate anything out in the world requires more thought - thoughts about manipulating your body to cause the manipulation of other things - like pencils and balls. I could just think about moving the pencil, but that doesn't make the pencil move. Are you saying that you have the power of telekinesis?
All thinking involves action, and I think our actions are structured along the lines of how we think.
To say these are not the same may be true, but it also may be the case that it is false. It all comes out to which provides a better explanation pragmatically.
You know you can think it, but can you do it? Imagining yourself doing something isn't the same as doing it. If it were then the actions take place simply by thinking about it. But that isn't the way it is. For you to manipulate anything out in the world requires more thought - thoughts about manipulating your body to cause the manipulation of other things - like pencils and balls. I could just think about moving the pencil, but that doesn't make the pencil move. Are you saying that you have the power of telekinesis?
You added this before I saw it (I think :D ) No, I thought we agreed that thought and action are inexorably enmeshed didn't we, now you want to bifurcate them?
Thinking a little more about this. Perhaps not all thoughts end up in physical actions but rather are actions of thought....thoughts that are parts of our internal dialogue with our self, similarly, perhaps not all actions end up as part of our conscious awareness. In either case, I don't think they are separable.
All thinking involves action, and I think our actions are structured along the lines of how we think.
To say these are not the same may be true, but it also may be the case that it is false. It all comes out to which provides a better explanation pragmatically.
Thinking is an action, yes, but running is a different action. So is writing, speaking, etc. - actions that require more than just your brain acting.
Have you never seen young babies discovering their bodies? They investigate their arms, hands, and legs, and you can observe them trying to control their movements. You didn't come into this world automatically knowing how to use your body, to walk, throw a ball, writing or speaking, etc.
If you can automatically do things just by thinking about it, then what is practice? What does that word mean to you?
You added this before I saw it (I think :D ) No, I thought we agreed that thought and action are inexorably enmeshed didn't we, now you want to bifurcate them?
I never agreed that they were the same. When did you think I did? I have always been arguing that thinking is a different action than say running, throwing a ball, or writing.
It is easy to imagine yourself doing something you never did before. It is much harder to actually do it. Are you disagreeing with this? If it weren't true, you'd be able to dribble and shoot a basketball just like Kyrie Irving just by watching him dribble and shoot, and then imagining yourself doing it just like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNwncxJzGE
Now, actually try to dribble and shoot a basketball just like that.
If you can automatically do things just by thinking about it, then what is practice? What does that word mean to you?
No, we learn and we apply what we have learned, thoughts that make sense, [if I push that crank the dolly will appear] that can be realized in action.
I must have mixed up threads, but in any case, action and thought are not separable at this point in our lives. Perhaps the neonatal consciousness is separate from bodily control which it must learn, but that way of experiencing the world is lost with maturity. Actually, this supports my supposition that thought and action are inexorable, it took years for us to learn how to coordinate thinking and action and we all did it automatically, it is a natural biological function.
It is easy to imagine yourself doing something you never did before. It is much harder to actually do it. Are you disagreeing with this? If it weren't true, you'd be able to dribble and shoot a basketball just like Kyrie Irving just by watching him dribble and shoot, and then imagining yourself doing it just like that.
Conceivability does not equal probability, yet I can imaginatively put myself in Kyrie's place, feel his move to the basket, share his upset at a bad call, this sharing of experience is what life's all about.
Put me and Kyrie at the half-court marker and guarantee me a prize if I sink a basket before him, sure the odds are he will win, but it is conceivable and possible that I get a swish on my 1st toss.
Terrapin StationJune 17, 2017 at 18:16#782780 likes
Exactly. Yet that is how you answered the question because you fail to admit that you don't know that you can do something until you actually do it - at least once. Putting the letters in the correct order on some imaginary paper in your mind isn't the same thing as actually writing it on real paper with your hands.
If you know how to write a "c" an "a" and a "t" you know that you can write them in that order, even if you never did it before.
That part is no different than knowing that you can sight read some music that has C A and G major chords in it and that's it. You don't have to have played that exact song before. You know the chords, you have the skills to sight read, you can sight read the new-to-you tune.
I wasn't detailing every single thing it requires, though. That would be ridiculously missing the point. The point is that we can never have written it, but know that what we know is sufficient to write it.
This is obviously true. I know that I can write out any prescribed combination of letters or words, prior to ever having written that prescribed combination.
On the other hand I know through past experience of having written and combined all the letters to write countless different words, that I know all the letters of the alphabet, how to write them, and how to combine them.
Reply to MonfortS26 I object to your statement—partially. Consider the most extravagant form of rationality and logic—mathematics. Once you've taken a few courses, you should feel confident in your ability to complete problems associated with what you have studied. Let me make this more clear, take this example: 5x + 2 = 22. After taking algebra, you will know how to solve this problem (x = 4). Even if it's your first time seeing the problem. Therefore, even though you had to be instructed on how to solve problems of a similar format before you could solve the one above, you still knew you had enough knowledge to complete it.
Although if we consider my stance in a different angle, perhaps taking a math test, you don't know (you shouldn't at least, if you're a good person) the questions that will be on the exam until you've taken it. Therefore you have to take the exam to test your knowledge.
No, because knowhow can, and often is, sufficient to cover sufficiently similar tasks, even if they've never been attempted. Attempting and accomplishing such tasks confirms what was already known. Examples of this have already been given. Everyone who voted "Yes" got it wrong.
Comments (47)
Say that you've never literally written the word "cat" in a sentence before, and your goal is to do so the next time you're writing a post. If you have or gain knowledge regarding what "cat" refers to, and you know how to spell it, then you know that you can successfully use it in a sentence the next time you write a post. It's not going to be up in the air whether you'll succeed. There would have to be something very weird going on to not succeed.
I think it depends on whether or not you've done the task before, and how complex it is. I agree with the spirit of the claim but would be compelled to vote No, because I don't think it's impossible, but just most often impossible or close to impossible.
The future is always uncertain, so while I may know the way to San Jose, getting there may be another story, which is not over until I get there.
But most of us philosophers are perfectly sure we can drive to work in the morning, and cook dinner in the evening, and some of us don't even call it guessing. The future may be uncertain, but not so uncertain that I don't go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept my money.
Everything anyone ever does, they have sufficient knowledge to do, but not always before they do it.
Which guide would you rather have, a guide who knows the way to the Walmart or a guide who has a true opinion about its location?
I don't think common people think of going to the supermarket as a goal. They rather think buying a bigger house in 10 years as a goal, or saving enough for a car, or starting a business, etc. Most of the time it is impossible to know for sure if you can achieve such a goal. That's why you just have to try, and keep on trying until you get there.
Quoting unenlightened
Fock meah, since when do you get Walmart in UK? But I'd have to question this - you can refuse to go shopping and fully expect the nice man at Walmart to accept your money - it's called home delivery 8-)
But, say I set out to solve a basic math problem, and before hand I demonstrate sufficient knowledge of mathematical theorems which completely contain and describe the given problem in question. It's entirely reasonable to say that I have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the goal of solving the math problem.
The more complex the goal, the more unknowns, the harder it is to be reasonably sure of success, so of course your supposition does fairly apply to many cases, just not all of them.
Yes, I think you're right because you are asking whether it's possible to know that you know. But this implies that you must also know that you know that you know, as well as know that you know that you know that you know, ad infinitum. So the claim to know that you know can never be justified due to infinite regress.
There is knowing and there is confirming your knowledge by using it. Things change, like the spelling and use of words, and when that happens, your knowledge is no longer accurate. This is why we constantly check our knowledge by using it and then updating our knowledge when things don't go as predicted when applying our knowledge.
How is it that we can turn knowledge and awareness back on itself - of knowing that we know, and being aware of being aware?
Why would you be assuming that we're talking about a situation where someone doesn't know how to write in general?
Language, we talk with our self a lot.
So you'd be assuming that we must be talking about a situation where someone only knows how to write some letters of the alphabet? C'mon, man, don't be stupid. It can't be that every single person on this board is a moron.
Sorry I don't see how this follows from:
and this
Thanks
But I'd obviously not be talking about someone in elementary school who doesn't even know how to write (or type) each letter yet.
I answered your question. I think self awareness is the result of the inner dialogue we each have with ourselves. The grammar of language is as much a part of thought as it is in whatever is written or otherwise expressed.
Knowing how to write "cat" doesn't make the word appear on the paper. You also have to know how to move your hands and hold a pencil.
Obviously you have to know how to form or type the letters. The point is that you can know how to do that, know how to spell the word, etc. without having actually written the word before, and that's sufficient to know that you can do it (barring the world ending beforehand and other nonsense like that).
I wasn't detailing every single thing it requires, though. That would be ridiculously missing the point. The point is that we can never have written it, but know that what we know is sufficient to write it.
Are you saying that we can't have thought without action, I would probably agree with that, but action is not thought.
The question asked if you can know that you have a sufficient amount of knowledge to accomplish a goal. Not if having the knowledge automatically accomplishes it.
K good. Language seems coordinated by its grammar in thought and in our acts of communication...how's that.
All thinking involves action, and I think our actions are structured along the lines of how we think.
To say these are not the same may be true, but it also may be the case that it is false. It all comes out to which provides a better explanation pragmatically.
You added this before I saw it (I think :D ) No, I thought we agreed that thought and action are inexorably enmeshed didn't we, now you want to bifurcate them?
Thinking a little more about this. Perhaps not all thoughts end up in physical actions but rather are actions of thought....thoughts that are parts of our internal dialogue with our self, similarly, perhaps not all actions end up as part of our conscious awareness. In either case, I don't think they are separable.
Have you never seen young babies discovering their bodies? They investigate their arms, hands, and legs, and you can observe them trying to control their movements. You didn't come into this world automatically knowing how to use your body, to walk, throw a ball, writing or speaking, etc.
If you can automatically do things just by thinking about it, then what is practice? What does that word mean to you?
Quoting Cavacava
I never agreed that they were the same. When did you think I did? I have always been arguing that thinking is a different action than say running, throwing a ball, or writing.
It is easy to imagine yourself doing something you never did before. It is much harder to actually do it. Are you disagreeing with this? If it weren't true, you'd be able to dribble and shoot a basketball just like Kyrie Irving just by watching him dribble and shoot, and then imagining yourself doing it just like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNwncxJzGE
Now, actually try to dribble and shoot a basketball just like that.
No, we learn and we apply what we have learned, thoughts that make sense, [if I push that crank the dolly will appear] that can be realized in action.
I must have mixed up threads, but in any case, action and thought are not separable at this point in our lives. Perhaps the neonatal consciousness is separate from bodily control which it must learn, but that way of experiencing the world is lost with maturity. Actually, this supports my supposition that thought and action are inexorable, it took years for us to learn how to coordinate thinking and action and we all did it automatically, it is a natural biological function.
Conceivability does not equal probability, yet I can imaginatively put myself in Kyrie's place, feel his move to the basket, share his upset at a bad call, this sharing of experience is what life's all about.
Put me and Kyrie at the half-court marker and guarantee me a prize if I sink a basket before him, sure the odds are he will win, but it is conceivable and possible that I get a swish on my 1st toss.
If you know how to write a "c" an "a" and a "t" you know that you can write them in that order, even if you never did it before.
That part is no different than knowing that you can sight read some music that has C A and G major chords in it and that's it. You don't have to have played that exact song before. You know the chords, you have the skills to sight read, you can sight read the new-to-you tune.
This is obviously true. I know that I can write out any prescribed combination of letters or words, prior to ever having written that prescribed combination.
On the other hand I know through past experience of having written and combined all the letters to write countless different words, that I know all the letters of the alphabet, how to write them, and how to combine them.
Although if we consider my stance in a different angle, perhaps taking a math test, you don't know (you shouldn't at least, if you're a good person) the questions that will be on the exam until you've taken it. Therefore you have to take the exam to test your knowledge.
Subject-based.