How do we know anything?

[Liffrea]

I intend this as a working hypothesis, it may be in no logical order and even contradictory, give you some idea of what my note book is like!

For example, let’s look at divinity (take that concept how you like).

There is divinity as it really is and there is divinity as we perceive it to be.

The human being, as a biological entity, is limited by our senses, our eyes see in the light spectrum but only so much of that spectrum is open to us, for example we don’t see X rays or infrared. When we look at a red flower we see the rejection of the red spectrum by that flower.

So if we look at creation around us through our limited senses and come to conclusions about the nature of divinity then our conclusions are severely limited, what we see isn’t necessarily what is real, it’s what we perceive reality to be.

If that’s the case can we reliable come to true conclusions about anything at all given that the tools we have to work with often lead to false conclusions?

Or am I writing a load of bollocks?

[Psychonaut]

If that’s the case can we reliable come to true conclusions about anything at all given that the tools we have to work with often lead to false conclusions?

Or am I writing a load of bollocks?

I think you're correct. Aside from purely mental "objects" like numbers or ontically close things like Dasein, we don't directly encounter anything. We build up mental images of encounters based on inferences from sensory data. It's never the noumenon (thing in itself) that we experience, only the phenomenon.

[Lutiferre]

Welcome to the realms of epistemology! The study of the nature of knowing, from Greek episteme (to know).

So if we look at creation around us through our limited senses and come to conclusions about the nature of divinity then our conclusions are severely limited, what we see isn’t necessarily what is real, it’s what we perceive reality to be.

I would love to take this debate up, but I think you should first get an introduction to some general questions in epistemology.

If that’s the case can we reliable come to true conclusions about anything at all given that the tools we have to work with often lead to false conclusions?

Or am I writing a load of bollocks?

No, you are doing epistemology I would recommend you to read this article if you want a general introduction to epistemology.

You seem to be mostly focused on "the divine", or, what we call religious epistemology. This happens to be the area I am the most knowledgeable of, but I am wondering if you just took it as an example, or if you are specifically interested in it?

[Lutiferre]

I think you're correct. Aside from purely mental "objects" like numbers or ontically close things like Dasein, we don't directly encounter anything. We build up mental images of encounters based on inferences from sensory data. It's never the noumenon (thing in itself) that we experience, only the phenomenon.

Or at least, according to Kantian and post-modern epistemology (which I am sympathetic towards)

[Nodens]

I think you're correct. Aside from purely mental "objects" like numbers or ontically close things like Dasein, we don't directly encounter anything. We build up mental images of encounters based on inferences from sensory data. It's never the noumenon (thing in itself) that we experience, only the phenomenon.

With the further implication that we have no objective ability whatsoever to verify any relation whatsoever between these worlds, as we have (at best) access only to our own cognition. Hence the need for a pragmatic (rather than strictly empirical or rational) theory of Truth.

[Johnny Bravo]

With the further implication that we have no ability whatsoever to verify any relation whatsoever between these worlds, as we have (at best) access only to our own cognition.

And we must be wary not to relapse into solipsism.

Hence the need for a pragmatic (rather than strictly empirical or rational) theory of Truth.

I personally tend to agree.

[Psychonaut]

With the further implication that we have no objective ability whatsoever to verify any relation whatsoever between these worlds, as we have (at best) access only to our own cognition. Hence the need for a pragmatic (rather than strictly empirical or rational) theory of Truth.

Yes, which is why I am a big advocate of Vaihinger's Fictionalism as a mechanism to overcome the seemingly inevitable solipsism that arises from this kind of sensory-dependent phenomenology.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut
Aside from purely mental "objects" like numbers or ontically close things like Dasein, we don't directly encounter anything.

I read an argument by Roger Penrose over whether mathematics had a platonic existence or whether it was purely a human derived construction, Aristotle in his metaphysics argued against numbers and Platonic forms as the foundation of existence, re-reading that is probably what inspired me to pose the question of knowledge.

It is taken as a given that any advanced extraterrestrial civilisation would communicate via mathematics, so perhaps it’s a universal rather than parochial.

We build up mental images of encounters based on inferences from sensory data. It's never the noumenon (thing in itself) that we experience, only the phenomenon.

One theory of consciousness, not to be confused with conscience or mind, is that it is simply the manipulation of images by an organism and how those images change the organism, for example if we pick up a pencil, looking at the pencil leads to certain images or possibilities, human consciousness has been argued to have developed beyond that of other animals because we have the ability of recognising several images at once and sorting through them to select appropriate courses of action.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
You seem to be mostly focused on "the divine", or, what we call religious epistemology. This happens to be the area I am the most knowledgeable of, but I am wondering if you just took it as an example, or if you are specifically interested in it?

I’m specifically interested in it, understanding of creation is surely the noblest task of the human mind?

[Lutiferre]

One theory of consciousness, not to be confused with conscience or mind, is that it is simply the manipulation of images by an organism and how those images change the organism, for example if we pick up a pencil, looking at the pencil leads to certain images or possibilities, human consciousness has been argued to have developed beyond that of other animals because we have the ability of recognising several images at once and sorting through them to select appropriate courses of action.

That might represent an organisms neural awareness of sense-data, by receiving the sense-stimuli and the resulting responses to those stimuli in the brain. But it doesn't explain subjective qualitative conscious experience of those sense-data beyond the mere neural fact of stimuli and reactions, that is, that there is anything we can call consciousness beyond the atoms in the brain as a whole. But there is something beyond the atoms in the brain; we are not "conscious" of the information in another brains atoms, after all, or of the memories of another person. There is a subject, an I, which is tied to his own brain, and is more than just atoms, has an immaterial aspect of consciousness which cannot be reduced to a material substance like a stone or a piece of wood or a neuron, but can only be tied to and aware of such material substances.

I’m specifically interested in it, understanding of creation is surely the noblest task of the human mind?

Indeed. How we can know the Divine/God and his attributes is something many great philosophers have an answer to. I am not sure what your beliefs about the divine are. But some of what I will say will be relevant to all kinds of spiritual connection with the divine, God, or gods; some other parts will be more relevant to the philosophical notion of monotheism (one God who is the creator of the heaven and earth).

But the question is what approach you are wanting to learn the epistemology of.

There is both the epistemology of metaphysics, empirical and rational reasoning and dialectical discourse, the approach taken in philosophy. This philosophical approach usually leads to monotheism: the idea of one, single, absolutely simple and all-powerful being, wholly beyond us, who created us.

Then there is the epistemology of the more spiritual aspect of our connection with the divine, and the contemplative approach of coming into contact with the divine and to which extent doing so gives us real knowledge of the divine. I would recommend Alvin Plantinga for some enlightened analysis and defense of our personal knowledge of the divine. Here is an article by him.

The article deals with whether belief in God/the divine is a "basic" belief, and at that a "properly basic" belief.

Basic beliefs are another word for foundational beliefs. Basic beliefs are beliefs that are believed without being inferred from any other belief or evidence. But they are only properly basic if the belief is either self-evident or incorrigible for the person who holds them. "I think therefore I am" is an example of a basic belief, because it is not inferred from any other belief or evidence, and properly basic belief, because it is both incorrigible and self-evident to the person who holds it.

Another example of properly basic belief, is the belief that other persons have or are conscious minds. This is properly basic, because it's self-evident, incorrigible, and yet isn't inferrible from other beliefs or evidence because the scenario of philosophical zombies (the hypothesis that all other human people act mechanically exactly like I do, have the same behaviour and the same brain, but without minds or conscious experience of that brain and behaviour) is externally and empirically equivalent to the scenario that other people have minds. Therefore, we cannot infer conscious experience in other persons from anything like their behaviour being similar to our own, when that behaviour can be accounted for wholly without adding a "conscious mind" in them to the equation (philosophical zombies). No means of demonstration exist to distinguish a conscious person over a philosophical zombie. We therefore see that this is externally unverifiable, though properly basic.

The belief that reality exists is also properly basic (self-evident, incorrigible, non-inferrible from other beliefs or evidence), though internally unverifiable, because solipsism fits the same empirical (sense) data and even with more agnosticism and less complexity.

Likewise; the belief that God exists is properly basic, though externally unverifiable, because no means of demonstration exist to externally determine whether you have had a revelation from God, except an equivalent revelation from God in the person who is trying to determine it.

This is really the epistemology of experience and beliefs.

But there is also the ways of knowing God rationally. If you are interested in a rational/empirical/metaphysical approach of "how we can know the divine", for starters, you could read Aristotles Metaphysics where he exposites his "unmoved mover" (or immutable/divine being), at least if you want to know some of the basic stuff which probably every author and other philosopher will expect you to know.

One thing I would say is that we can only know the divine through it's energies/actions, not directly it's essence, since it's essence is uncreated and transcends us and our entire world and all things in it.

Therefore if we want to know it's outward attributes, we have to, like Aristotle, look at creation and make some conclusions about what it is not (apophaticism, called negative theology; for instance, "unmoving"/immutable, the negation of ever-changing like the world). It cannot be like creation and still be the creator; then it is itself a creation, because it is itself subject to the laws and workings of creation.

This is negative theology, which has been embraced by Christianity and other traditions. By realising what it isn't, we can also realise some thing about what it is ad extra, though in se (in its essence) it remains beyond us.

In the relational sense of our spiritual experience, then, we can also only know the divine through it's energies. The divine has several kinds of energies or actions. One is it's own uncreated essence and it's uncreated energies and actions; those that proceed directly from it's own being and nature, without "going through" natural causes in the universe. These are the energies which we can "relate" to the divine through, through which we connect with it as persons.

The other is the act/energies of creation, through which the divine has brought our world into existence. In this, another nature has been brought forward, that of our world. Any energy in this world proceeds from a created nature, and is thus not directly divine since it doesn't proceed from a divine nature, but from a created. Through this, we can see the works of the divine ad extra (creation), and realise what the divine is not and what it is outwardly in a manner to bring about creation (omni-potence, omni-benevolence, omni-presence, etc). However, that is purely intellectual; this is not the sense we relate to the divine personally.

[Psychonaut]

I read an argument by Roger Penrose over whether mathematics had a platonic existence or whether it was purely a human derived construction, Aristotle in his metaphysics argued against numbers and Platonic forms as the foundation of existence, re-reading that is probably what inspired me to pose the question of knowledge.

I'm absolutely fascinated by number theory. I've moved between most of the official platforms several times since I first stumbled upon it during one of my logic classes. I'm especially intrigued by the possibility of numbers being a platonic substance, although I'm not sure if I can buy into that at this point. I think I'm leaning more to the Empiricist side nowadays.