View Full Version : Depth of Ignorance
Hexadecimal
2006-10-12, 23:57
Agnosticism: Literally being without knowledge.
Being without knowledge: Ignorance.
Information is a sum of data - the Earth revolves around the sun; information based upon years of research into many fields of science. Yet it rests on false knowledge: We do not even know that the Earth is anything other than illusory; or the Sun; or the galaxy; or the universe. We all make a leap of faith when we believe them to be real. We can gather as much information as we want, but we can never know anything other than our own ignorance.
We can believe whatever we want but we can never know anything other than our own depth of ignorance.
The only axiom is that 'something' exists. It's attributes cannot be known. We can conclude many things based upon probability, but they still do not enter the realm of absolute knowledge: they are still pieces of information. We can believe many things based upon possibility or even experience, but they still do not enter into the realm of absolute knowledge: they are nothing but faith.
We do not know anything other than 'something'. We know the absolute quality of it - but our quantitative measurements of it are all subjective based upon experience. From experience we may gather information or create faith, yet we still remain ignorant of what 'something' really is.
From this depth of ignorance - I choose not to judge. Whether or not others are real means nothing. If it is all illusion, I empathize, because I feel fake, too. If they are real, I empathize, for they experience the depth of ignorance I do. If they act on information, so be it; if they act on faith, so be it. It doesn't make them better or worse - they are still my equals in their ignorance of 'something'.
It feels as though my ignorance is the only thing that is real. If I don't even know reality, who am I to judge others? Who am I to hate? To show contempt? To advise? To argue? I have no place to judge anyone.
elfstone
2006-10-13, 01:07
Solipsism is one funny theory.
It is also funny to be arguing to others about it...because the others can be illusions of your imagination.
Flaunting one's ignorance should be a sign of humility for the vast knowledge that is out there, waiting to be conquered. This is what Socrates meant in his saying "I know one thing, that I know nothing". But you would have us believe that there is no knowledge at all. Well, the computer you used disproves you. And if it's not real, you had no reason to make this post.
In the end, you are saying nothing useful or coherent.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-13, 01:19
quote:Originally posted by elfstone:
Solipsism is one funny theory.
It is also funny to be arguing to others about it...because the others can be illusions of your imagination.
Flaunting one's ignorance should be a sign of humility for the vast knowledge that is out there, waiting to be conquered. This is what Socrates meant in his saying "I know one thing, that I know nothing". But you would have us believe that there is no knowledge at all. Well, the computer you used disproves you. And if it's not real, you had no reason to make this post.
In the end, you are saying nothing useful or coherent.
You misread my post: I differentiate between knowledge and information.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information 8b http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge 3
With how I use the 2, information is what allows this computer to be. Knowledge is beyond me, however, as all the information I possess may be a complete illusion, thus cannot be verified truly to be knowledge. Only 'something' is truly knowledge; all else is information and faith.
It's not even that this is solipsism; this is life. We are ALL agnostics - just because we believe something and have information regarding it to the point that it is practically knowledge, does not make it true knowledge; it may all be illusion.
Some may say 'Occam's Razor'...but isn't 'I don't know' more simple and accurate than either 'yes' or 'no' and the accompanied information necessary to prove yes, and the lack of information necessary to presume no, and the accompanied faith that the existence or lack of evidence is not illusion?
Hexadecimal
2006-10-13, 01:26
More on Occam's Razor: If 'no' is the logical assumption up until information that shows 'yes' is logical, isn't logic then flawed in that it can be incorrect if any existing information is missing? Knowledge that 'something' exists cannot be wrong - it cannot be changed. The one axiom that is 'something' is absolute, it is knowledge. All else still falls into either information or faith.
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:
You misread my post: I differentiate between knowledge and information.
http ://diction ary.refere nce.com/browse/information (http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/bro wse/inform ation) 8b http:/ /dictionar y.referenc e.com/browse/knowledge (http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/bro wse/knowle dge) 3
http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
Information:
3. The act or fact of informing.
Informing:
"1 To impart information to; make aware of something: We were informed by mail of the change in plans. The nurse informed me that visiting hours were over.
2. To acquaint (oneself) with knowledge of a subject."
If we take definition one for "informing", then we obviously cannot take definition 3 for "information" again as that would be going around in circles.
Information ultimately is knowledge, and informing would be the act of spreading knowledge.
quote:
With how I use the 2, information is what allows this computer to be. Knowledge is beyond me, however, as all the information I possess may be a complete illusion, thus cannot be verified truly to be knowledge. Only 'something' is truly knowledge; all else is information and faith.
Which means, as elfstone said, you've provided nothing useful or coherent.
Either we assume some knowledge a priori or we do not. If we do, you have no point. If we don't, you have no point.
quote:
Some may say 'Occam's Razor'...but isn't 'I don't know' more simple and accurate than either 'yes' or 'no' and the accompanied information necessary to prove yes, and the lack of information necessary to presume no, and the accompanied faith that the existence or lack of evidence is not illusion?
1. If you are claiming there is no knowledge, then you cannot use Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor already presumes a valid form of epistemology is in place.
2. Occam's Razor says that the simplest answer - which conforms to the evidence - is usually correct. If you claim there is no knowledge, then as I said above, you have no point.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-13, 20:31
Rust, information has multiple definitions; I pointed out which one I was using. Same with knowledge. I am differentiating between the two based on the definitions I am using. Just because they do contain definitions that ARE synonymous does not mean the ones I am using are.
Information ultimately is knowledge, and informing would be the act of spreading knowledge.
Depending solely on the definiton of information and the definition of knowledge being used. I'm using 8b for information and 3 for knowledge. I have not used a different definition for either one.
Which means, as elfstone said, you've provided nothing useful or coherent.
No shit? I figured ignorance to be some utility I could conquer the world with http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
Either we assume some knowledge a priori or we do not. If we do, you have no point. If we don't, you have no point.
I think you got it. An assumption cannot be knowledge (as I'm using), and all but 'something' is partially assumed (even if logically so), and thus not the definition of knowledge that I am using.
1. If you are claiming there is no knowledge, then you cannot use Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor already presumes a valid form of epistemology is in place.
Occam's Razor is based around a different definition of both information and knowledge; my claim of ignorance is based around the definitions that I outlined in my prior post. Even without knowledge as I see it; other definitions of it that are completely valid exist and are workable, thus Occam's Razor is still applicable.
Yes, and people have hallucinated before - am I to believe that this massive universe began by principles beyond my comprehension and has followed a chain of carefully controlled reactions for the past 15 billion years; am I to believe the multituduous fields of science and their collected data, and my personal experiences? Evidence would point to it being thus.
All of that data falls into information. Yet all of that which is considered to be knowledge (as the definition I'm using) would still only be 'something'. I'm experiencing 'something'. Information can give it a definition, but I can never be completely sure, thus 'I do not know.'
Total absurdism: Why does everyone secretly want to die?
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:
Rust, information has multiple definitions; I pointed out which one I was using. Same with knowledge. I am differentiating between the two based on the definitions I am using. Just because they do contain definitions that ARE synonymous does not mean the ones I am using are.
...
Depending solely on the definiton of information and the definition of knowledge being used. I'm using 8b for information and 3 for knowledge. I have not used a different definition for either one.
The mistake on my part was that I confused which one was 8b and which one was 3.
However, using the correct definitions still doesn't help your case. The dictionary makes it clear that the definition 8b of "information" is applied to computers. Even if we apply that definition to humans, the word "data" itself leads to another definition of "information", one which necessarily has to be "knowledge" in order to end the cycle.
So at best, "information" is knowledge. What kind of "knowledge" it is would vary. You are assuming that it cannot be definition number 3 of "knowledge" yet have given absolutely no reason.
quote:
No shit? I figured ignorance to be some utility I could conquer the world with http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
Thank you for agreeing. Now please stop wasting bandwith, space, time and resources by posting something which you yourself judge as having absolutely no use.
quote:
Occam's Razor is based around a different definition of both information and knowledge; my claim of ignorance is based around the definitions that I outlined in my prior post. Even without knowledge as I see it; other definitions of it that are completely valid exist and are workable, thus Occam's Razor is still applicable.
No, the problem is that if you claim that no certain knowledge exists (besides "something") then you forfeit the right to use Occam's Razor as there is no certain way of concluding what is simple, what is complex, or even what is evidence. Occam's Razor rests on an epistemological basis where things are certain - not in the absurd universe where nothing is.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-13, 23:40
So in other words, Occam's Razor is a construct based around false axioms?
So say you, though I find it hard believing an ignorant uneducated man.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 20:04
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
So say you, though I find it hard believing an ignorant uneducated man.
And I find it hard to believe someone who thinks they're not an ignorant and uneducated person.
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
No, the problem is that if you claim that no certain knowledge exists (besides "something") then you forfeit the right to use Occam's Razor as there is no certain way of concluding what is simple, what is complex, or even what is evidence. Occam's Razor rests on an epistemological basis where things are certain - not in the absurd universe where nothing is.
Sounds like Occam's Razor is useless, cause this is an absurd universe! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Knowledge/'information' received through the study of quantum physics shows how uncertain and changeable things are. It seems nothing is certain and IMHO calls into question all of what was thought to be true. This has happened before, even till relatively recent times humanity believed the universe to be in a fixed state, that it worked to clockwork style laws and, now to discover - the universe is expanding! Expanding into what? How can there be anything beyond the universe for it to expand into?
Perhaps that's a 'dark energy'/'dark matter' field? Whatever, it's expanding, and at just the rate needed to prevent regression due to gravity. Or so is thought now, how long before we find out this too was wrong?
What is it about the great thinkers like Einstein, Jeays, Plancke, Kepler, Galileo, et al? The great minds seem able to stay clear, not hold onto ideas as 'true', but stay fresh, stay in the moment and learn - even if it means throwing out thoughts that have immense appeal.
Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 20:55
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
So say you, though I find it hard believing an ignorant uneducated man.
Well, only an axiom is an absolute certainty; thus Occam's Razor is as flawed as any other construct, as it is based on the certainty of information that is actually uncertain and incomplete.
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:
And I find it hard to believe someone who thinks they're not an ignorant and uneducated person.
Don't be silly, you don't know what you find hard to believe! Thanks for the comment though, if only you weren't ignorant, it might have meant something...
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-14-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by redzed:
Sounds like Occam's Razor is useless, cause this is an absurd universe! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Knowledge/'information' received through the study of quantum physics shows how uncertain and changeable things are. It seems nothing is certain and IMHO calls into question all of what was thought to be true. This has happened before, even till relatively recent times humanity believed the universe to be in a fixed state, that it worked to clockwork style laws and, now to discover - the universe is expanding! Expanding into what? How can there be anything beyond the universe for it to expand into?
Perhaps that's a 'dark energy'/'dark matter' field? Whatever, it's expanding, and at just the rate needed to prevent regression due to gravity. Or so is thought now, how long before we find out this too was wrong?
What is it about the great thinkers like Einstein, Jeays, Plancke, Kepler, Galileo, et al? The great minds seem able to stay clear, not hold onto ideas as 'true', but stay fresh, stay in the moment and learn - even if it means throwing out thoughts that have immense appeal.
Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
Hmmm.... okay...? What's your point? I don't see anything which questions what I said, nor agrees with what I said. Is this a friendly off-topic remark? Then great.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 21:01
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
You find it hard to believe anyone because you know nothing. Thanks for the compliment.
Limitations on my knowledge do not apply to my information and faith. I can study anything that has related data available I choose to study, and I can believe anything I choose to believe. Having studied a subject, and having a belief in something, does not bring the information gained, nor the faith gained, into the realm of certain knowledge.
That still does not change the fact that you don't know what you find hard to believe or not. You have no point.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 21:18
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
That still does not change the fact that you don't know what you find hard to believe or not. You have no point.
No shit? I always wondered why I'm suicidal...
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 23:05
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
You still do!
You don't know that with any certainty...
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:
You don't know that with any certainty...
Are you wasting bandwith again...
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-14-2006).]
Hexadecimal
2006-10-14, 23:26
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Are you wasting bandwith again...
Only if people don't see anything to that. My guess is that they won't. So to answer you: Most likely.
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:
Only if people don't see anything to that. My guess is that they won't. So to answer you: Most likely.
Hex are you fair dinkum about being suicidal?
Hexadecimal
2006-10-16, 03:47
quote:Originally posted by redzed:
Hex are you fair dinkum about being suicidal?
It's not that I'm actively suicidal...but at the young age of 20 I've already accepted that I'm going to die, and it no longer bothers me to the degree it does others. I'm probably so calm about the idea of dying that it would lead others to believe that I'm considering suicide, when in actuality I'm trying to overcome a fear.
SmokingSalmon
2006-10-16, 08:21
so you're certain of death?
hex, you're so consumed with the whole post modern theme, you forget that our senses DO detect things.
i know agnosicism means "without knowledge" (from what you said "We can conclude many things based upon probability, but they still do not enter the realm of absolute knowledge"), ofcourse but you've stretched it to without knowledge of anything. that nothing can be acertained.
ok, our senses are limited, and information we receive from our senses are manipulated subjectively. ok we perceive the world and any external reality, but we do perceive. and we do know. maybe not as much as you want, but enough.
without going into the semantics of informaiton and/or knowledge, i'd like to give a simple example. if you throw a rock upwards, it falls down. and without knowing how gravity works, i have the knowledge that things tend to move downwards towards the earth. and from repeated observations i can further propose a generalisation about objects falling towards the ground. poof, i've got a functional theory. is that not knowledge? i know from experience that a certain colour variation in a certain food is poisonous, is that not knowledge?
DarkMage35
2006-10-16, 11:54
Our senses do detect things, but that doesnt mean that we can be sure that what they detect is truth; is 100% certain, and therefore knowledge. You forget the matrix argument.
That is, of course, assuming that truth exists. I believe that it doesnt. Truth does not exist, subjectivity does not exist, and objectivity does not exist. The entire attempt to analyse reality is pointless as you cant do that from within it without things going mildly insane (at the very least).
One_way_mirror
2006-10-16, 19:48
None of these arguements are based on reason.
Everyone is recycling the same old names and facts without thinking about whether or not 'Ignorance' can be defined purely as a lack of knowledge.
What if the person holds 'some' knowledge on a subject but not enough to be considered up to YOUR standard?
What if the person is simply mis-informed?
It's a very blunt veiw to merely classify everyone who doesn't know or follow a particular trend or ideal to be ignorant.
Btw, in my opinion; ignorance>dumbfucks.
My definition of dumbfuck is someone who doesn't realise when he or she is out of their depth.
Hexadecimal
2006-10-16, 21:12
One, the argument I'm proposing in favor of personal ignorance is that it is impossible to not be misinformed to some extent...and that *gasp* it's okay to have limits. One of the limits I possess, is that I can never be certain of anything other than 'something'. It's not that it greatly affects how I live my life to recognize this - it's that it has destroyed my judgement of others and self. By accepting my ignorance, both my information and my faith have become more effective - it's easier for me to accumulate new information, and it's easier for me to change my faith into my way of life.
Raw_Power
2006-10-16, 21:20
I see, so you admit you’re ignorant and then use that as an excuse to believe what ever the fuck you want, whether it's bullshit or not? Oops, I mean an excuse to have faith?
Hexadecimal
2006-10-16, 21:43
quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:
I see, so you admit you’re ignorant and then use that as an excuse to believe what ever the fuck you want, whether it's bullshit or not? Oops, I mean an excuse to have faith?
You mistake me for one of the brethren. You can interpret my ignorance in whatever way you wish, but I'm saying nothing that one of the brethren could understand after coming into consciousness.
"I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, yet have revealed them unto babes."
Hexadecimal - is a fuck'n genius!
JesuitArtiste
2007-01-29, 19:56
quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:
I see, so you admit you’re ignorant and then use that as an excuse to believe what ever the fuck you want, whether it's bullshit or not? Oops, I mean an excuse to have faith?
What's wrong with that? Seriously, to make any new kind of discovery you have to be prepared for something that you weren't expecting. Surely an acceptance of all possibilities is a neccesary component in learning, discovering, or thinking about anything?
People are too dependant on what everyone else tells them is true, maybe you should profess ignorance not as a form of denial of knowledge, but as a way to gain more knowledge, to know something more, to explore possibilities.
I try to hold my judgement on a subject. I mean, I never want to say something is either right o wrong for sure, just because I'd be embarassed if it turned out to be true or false... that's all, embarassment. Doesn't mean I can't think it's true, mind.
Lord. Better Than You
2007-01-31, 20:40
" Agnosticism: Literally being without knowledge. "
Agnosticism is believing your are ignorant, not being ignoranct cos of agnosticism (sorry, I just needed to be a pedant there)
Look up "absurdism"
I'm an agnosto-absurdist
[This message has been edited by Lord. Better Than You (edited 01-31-2007).]