Luke

Tacit means unstated; not effed. If this tacit knowledge is effable, then why is it not included in the explicit instructions? Will you ever answer th...

The difference between KG1 and KG2 is also a difference in knowledge (hence the ‘K’ in KG). Why is KG2 not included in the instructions in the first p...

Yes indeed! You are arguing FOR ineffable knowledge. On the other hand, you claim nothing is ineffable. That's the contradiction.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Except that it's not my argument, it's @"Banno"'s. He's the one who asserted that an exhaustive list of instructions won't ...

Dodging the argument again.

Great argument. Then I suppose the list of instructions isn't, as you stated, "to whatever detail we desire".

Why not?

Then why isn't this knowledge included in the exhaustive list of instructions? Why wouldn't we know how to ride after reading a list of instructions "...

Yeah, because you do not address the argument: This gap in knowledge is not just "riding the bike". Riding the bike is what you can do after you read ...

Knowing things such as "getting their balance and movement correct" adds knowledge over and above the knowledge included in the instructions. One coul...

Wouldn't you include "the needed balance, or their legs, or some such" in knowledge of how to ride? This conflates knowledge with demonstration. We ha...

You said (earlier) that a person with an exhaustive list of instructions would still not know how to ride. You also say (now) that no knowledge is add...

This contradicts what you said earlier in the discussion. I've quoted this a number of times now: Despite having a highly detailed list of instruction...

This is not the same "gap" between knowledge and experience that you and @"Banno" spoke about earlier in the discussion. (I set out that gap/contradic...

In a discussion on ineffability, with some folks asserting that nothing is ineffable, calling attention to this gap shows that some things are ineffab...

Casting it in terms of "the" experience, as though there is only one to be had, seems little more than a stipulation that two people cannot each have ...

I didn't say I can't show you "the" experience. I said I can't show you "my" experience. How do you know that "there's some level of qualitative ident...

Write another considered post so that you can dismiss it again in three words? I already set out the contradiction in my previous posts and you did no...

I think the main difference is that I can show you an apple, but I can't show you my experience. I can show you my expression of pain, but not the pai...

The self-appointed oracle has delivered his verdict from on high. As Wittgenstein once said: The irony here is that the self-appointed oracle, while p...

If your analogy holds, then you should have no difficulty in explaining what knowledge is gained from pressing play on a CD player. I don't "insist" o...

The question does follow; you're simply avoiding it. You've said that the detailed list of instructions won't give us the knowledge of how to ride a b...

Since you've said that a detailed list of instructions won't give us knowledge of how to ride a bike, then perhaps you could tell us what additional k...

What do you call this: But now you say that your point is not that there is no difference between knowledge and experience; now you say that your poin...

I am also thinking of "ineffable" in the former sense. At least, I think that if the ineffable were ever to be eliminated, then it would require some ...

I addressed this in my post preceding yours: Maybe an experience can only be "fully" known or understood by having it, as you seem to indicate. In tha...

Do you acknowledge that knowing how to ride a bike is different from riding a bike? The difference is that you don't need to be riding a bike in order...

I don't know exactly what you mean by "we cannot say objects". That was not my intended point. I was following Banno's reasoning and his conflation of...

Of course there is a difference between doing something and knowing how to do it. One doesn't need to be riding a bike in order to know how; one can k...

If the entire linguistic community agrees that this ball is "red", then how might our "reasoning" be wrong? What "reasoning" is involved when we teach...

I take it you meant to say that a dynamic between the "necessary" and "impossible" would be more of an oppositional relation?

Right, but if it were necessarily red, then it follows that a non-red object could not turn up. Otherwise, it would be not necessarily red and it foll...

Sounds reasonable. Does that imply "possible" is not the opposite of "impossible"?

How have I used "opposite" to mean different things?

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I understand now. I wrote this down to help get my head around it: 1. Necessary (?): Necessarily Red = All are ...

My question was why Not Necessary (?~) is not also equivalent to Possible (?). In the section quoted above, you start out referring to Not Necessarily...

Isn't Possibly P also ~?P? I wouldn't think it follows from "the marbles in the urn are not necessarily red" that there must be at least one marble th...

Not really. I asked about non-necessity - why it's not equivalent to possible/possibly - and you've responded that we need to beware of necessity...? ...

Not Necessary (?~) is equivalent to Possibly Not (?~). It is unclear to me why Not Necessary (?~) is not also equivalent to Possible (?).

Possible is opposed to Not Possible. Isn't Possible also opposed to Not Possibly Not?

Why? I've already defined them above and you can see that they don't have the very same meaning. If 1 and 3 must have the same meaning, then my defini...

Metaphysically speaking, I take these terms to mean: 1. Impossible = cannot occur 2. Possible = can occur 3. Necessary = must occur This does not make...

For finding a point of agreement between MU and me? You probably should. I’m pretty sure I’m not committing that fallacy, but I can see how MU most li...

You are using "necessary" as a synonym for "has happened", "in the past", or "no longer possible". Nobody but you uses "necessary" to mean "no longer ...

My answer would probably be the same as MU's on this point.

In the scenario you described, you said: I answered “yes” to this. Barring thermodynamic impossibility, your hypothetical situation is logically possi...

So the coffee does fall at B, and then “unfalls” at (the later time) C? As though, as soon as the coffee hits the ground and spills, time then seeming...

I'm not conflating them; I'm arguing against your claim that present and past situations are necessary. Hence, the "is/was". That does not explain why...

I don't doubt that one's knowledge is real and genuine, but I am more interested in this idea of a "real choice". For example, if I had a real choice ...

Are they real possibilities which each have a genuine chance of being the actual outcome, or are they merely a function of our knowledge/ignorance and...