Depth of Ignorance

[Hexadecimal]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

You misread my post: I differentiate between knowledge and information.

http ://diction ary.refere nce.com/browse/information 8b http:/ /dictionar y.referenc e.com/browse/knowledge 3

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]

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

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?

[Rust]

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

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]

So in other words, Occam's Razor is a construct based around false axioms?

[Rust]

So say you, though I find it hard believing an ignorant uneducated man.

[Hexadecimal]

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.