Belief vs knowledge

[Talking Ass]

Does the cat believe there are mice, or does he know there are mice?

[Carl G]

How could we know the answer to this?

[Atum]

You are some kind of mad genius.

[Blair]

I assume he is making an analogy with those who believe in God eg. your average Christian, and those who know God.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The real question is if the cat believes in the ass his long ears.

[Talking Ass]

How could we know the answer to this?

Let me restate then: Do we know the cat knows there are mice, or do we just believe that the cat only believes there are mice?

[Blair]

Are you piece of shit, or do you just act like one for some unkown reason?

[brokenhead]

How could we know the answer to this?

Let me restate then: Do we know the cat knows there are mice, or do we just believe that the cat only believes there are mice?

How do you know we don't believe the cat knows there are mice? I believe we do. At least I think I believe we know this. In fact, I know we believe the cat knows there are mice, so I believe we know the cat believes there are mice, even if we don't think so, you know?

[Ryan Rudolph]

This is a very problematic way of starting off a debate on epistemology. Frankly, because a cat doesn't believe anything or have knowledge for that matter. Knowledge and belief implies some level of consciousness, and therefore cognition. An animal's actions are more the result of thousands of years of environmental pressure, and it emerges as biological conditioning. A cat just acts on instinct, which is a form of programming.

The real question remains - how to we come to know or believe something?

Because an authority told us?

Because it feels good for our egos to believe it?

Because rigorous scientific testing confirms that it is a fact?

Because our empirical senses tell us so?

Because logical reasoning confirms that it is true?

These are all different ways of coming to knowledge or belief.

[Loki]

yeah but are knowledge and belief synonymous. That's the question.

[Talking Ass]

Okay, Ryan, okay.

Yet, suppose some adult has told a child that he has been to Venus. The child tells me the story of that man and I say, 'It was only a joke, that man had never been to Venus; no one has ever been to Venus; Venus is a long way off and it is impossible to climb up to it or fly there'.

If the child insists, saying 'Perhaps there is a way of getting to Venus which you don't know!'---what reply might we make to him? Or, what reply could we make to the adults of some tribe who really believe they go to Venus (perhaps this is how they interpret their dreams), and who indeed grant that there are no ordinary means of climbing to it or flying there?

Too, we must take note that a child will not ordinarily stick to such a belief and will soon enough be convinced by what we tell him seriously.

How many things, those thing we consider 'certain knowledge', do we believe and accept as fact analogously to the 'child' in the example I mention here?

PS: I knew someone with a very, very complex and convincing dream-life. She regularly dreamed that she visited a far-away planet and spent large blocks of time there. She knew specific people she would regularly 'spend time with' (how else would one phrase it?). Strangely, she even had property on this far-away planet. A condominium! I swear by my own ears that what I am telling you is the truth, I am not making this up. The people she befriended on this far-away planet told her one day that she was extremely lucky to have gotten a place on this planet, that they were very hard to come by, and many persons wanted such accommodation, and that there was a waiting list!

When she told me all this, in perfect seriousness, I didn't know what to say. I just stared at her with my mouth open. The only thing I could think to do was to place my head where she might scratch behind my ears, which she did, bless her heart. Thereafter, I let the matter drop.

[Talking Ass]

I just realized that my life, the life of day to day experience and the continuity of this experience, essentially consists in being content to accept many, many things.

The other realization---I get these from time to time---is that with doubting and non-doubting behavior, there is the first only if there is the second.

[Carl G]

This is a very problematic way of starting off a debate on epistemology. Frankly, because a cat doesn't believe anything or have knowledge for that matter. Knowledge and belief implies some level of consciousness, and therefore cognition. An animal's actions are more the result of thousands of years of environmental pressure, and it emerges as biological conditioning. A cat just acts on instinct, which is a form of programming.

How do you know that any of the above assertions -- your beliefs -- are true?

The real question remains - how to we come to know or believe something?

Because an authority told us?

Because it feels good for our egos to believe it?

Because rigorous scientific testing confirms that it is a fact?

Because our empirical senses tell us so?

Because logical reasoning confirms that it is true?

These are all different ways of coming to knowledge or belief.

Exactly.

I believe we know pretty much diddly about the consciousness of cats. If you or anyone knows otherwise please quote the study that shows evidence.

[Talking Ass]

"We know so little about what goes on in cats. We know tragically less about what goes on in us." ---Mayer Spivack

We know tragically less about what goes on in us. Oh, man, does that hit home or what?
______________________________________________

What you point to, Carl, if I understand right, might correspond to the Child, in the example I used, who listens to adults speak 'in all seriousness' about what is and what is not, and who eventually accept the world-view provided to them by authority.

When Ryan says that 'a cat doesn't believe anything or have knowledge for that matter', he is---and we are all guilty of this, more or less constantly---merely repeating what someone enunciated to him with authority. How quickly, how quickly indeed, will we abandon our own ('original') ideas, feelings, beliefs and understandings and accept those that are force-fed to us. We 'absorb' these views and understanding---indeed a whole structure of view where language and metaphor is the prop---from our environment. Change environment and---presto-chango---the world view shifts!

My own experience, as you have gathered, is decidedly unique and different. I take all the barnyard animals at face value and allow them to reveal themselves to me, as they will and in their own time, and this has revealed many different levels of profundity and not a few 'Ah-ha!' experiences which continue to this day, even here among the 'barnyard animals' of the GF. I do not define them and then force them (in essence this is what it is) to my a priori. Rather, I cease formulating thoughts, I go silent inside, and allow their consciousness to influence my own.

I assert that the entire structure of our world-view is artificial and arbitrary, and yet when we clearly see this, and internalize it, we can then focus on the 'word-games' that shore up our oh-so-solid perception (belief) about the true nature of the world. Also, the world has no true nature! It has multivalent nature! Extraordinary! And you heard it from an ass who talks! (Dumb and dumber---phooey, Tomas!)

"What constitutes cat-experience and cat-mindedness? Most people who are taken care of by pets wonder what goes on in their animal minds, and attribute their own human thoughts, emotional range, and motivations to their iguanas— turtles— snakes— birds— frogs— and dogs— and cats— and horses. To think at all about such questions we start with ourselves. We apparently need to make other (species, and people, etc.) resemble ourselves in order to believe that we understand them. Tautologically having projected our limitations we are then constrained to operating within our own transference, and can no more understand our cats than we understand ourselves. We know so little about what goes on in cats. We know tragically less about what goes on in us."

From:Topological Morphology of Cats and Consciousness

[Blair]

And yet you keep up this Ass persona.

Haven't you figured out its time for you to give it away...

Grow up man, spiritually. You are not an animal.

[Robert]

I believe we know pretty much diddly about the consciousness of cats. If you or anyone knows otherwise please quote the study that shows evidence.

A study not on cats, but crows;
Joshua Klein on the intelligence of crows (TED talk).

[Carl G]

And yet you keep up this Ass persona.

Haven't you figured out its time for you to give it away...

Grow up man, spiritually. You are not an animal.

Are you a prince?

[Animus]

Well I can tell you that both belief and knowledge require some antecedent element. There is at the very least the need to have been exposed to the concept. All belief and knowledge follows from convention (Democritus) and works by association (Pavlov, Freud, Hebb, etc..). The difference between belief and knowledge is really one of truth. The only way to test if a belief is true is to measure it against the requisites of knowledge, namely a contiguous nature (causal association), and perform tests for predictive qualities.

As regards the human brain, there is virtually no difference between belief and knowledge, the structure is the same. Many neurophilosophers (Churchland, Walter, etc..) feel that "belief" and "knowledge" are themselves inaccurate terms for describing the neurological correlates. More or less the view supported by them is one of an evolving predictive model.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The ass,

When Ryan says that 'a cat doesn't believe anything or have knowledge for that matter', he is---and we are all guilty of this, more or less constantly---merely repeating what someone enunciated to him with authority. How quickly, how quickly indeed, will we abandon our own ('original') ideas, feelings, beliefs and understandings and accept those that are force-fed to us. We 'absorb' these views and understanding---indeed a whole structure of view where language and metaphor is the prop---from our environment. Change environment and---presto-chango---the world view shifts!

The other ass Carl,

I believe we know pretty much diddly about the consciousness of cats. If you or anyone knows otherwise please quote the study that shows evidence.

Just watch cats Carl, they are content rubbing up against you for pleasure, purring when you pat them, and when they are not manipulating human’s emotions to secure survival, they enjoy chasing string, getting lost and confused when you shine a light on the wall, and stalking tiny birds outside. This evidence alone that is common to all cats tells me that there is little consciousness in cats. Their behavior indicates that they have no higher language capable of reasoning or complex thought. Cats should be taken as exactly as they are at face value, nothing less, nothing more.

[Talking Ass]

The Ass who Talks™ says:

Ryan, there is one true ass around here. All others are mere immitations.

Personally, I think many animals have a great deal going on in them that they just can't quite put into words.

[Blair]

Are you a prince?

Are you a Carl G?

[Ryan Rudolph]

The ass,

Personally, I think many animals have a great deal going on in them that they just can't quite put into words.

Some animals probably experience more complex emotions than others. For instance: based on the current empirical evidence, dolphins and some of the higher mammals such as apes, babboons and so on experience the spectrum of pleasurable and painful emotions. However, many organisms simply function on basic fight or flight responses. And let us not forget that these responses to the environment are programmed survival mechanisms, the instincts ensure that a species does what has worked for its ancestors to survive in the present. That is one of the reasons why some animals go extinct so quickly because if the environment changes very rapidly, the instincts cannot catch up because there is thousands of years of conditioned behavior programmed into the organism. That seems to be what humanity's problem is - too much old animal conditioning blocking the higher faculties from emerging.

An example of an animal whose learned conditioning may cause its own extinction is the Tasmanian devil, from what I've read, the creatures bite each other's mouths and faces in courtship rituals and fighting with other males, but the behavior causes the spread of a cancerous tumor disease that is wiping out the population, and the animals are not conscious of the behavior because they do not possess consciousness, they are merely acting out biological impulses that have evolved through thousands of years of natural selection. Scientists are trying to intervene to save them, but the only way is if they selectively breed individuals that do not exhibit this behavior. Otherwise, they are just postponing the inevitable.

Actually, now that I think about it, the plight that the Tasmanian devil is in is similar to humanity - old habits are threatening the survival of the population as a whole, and there are only a minority of individuals not exhibiting the behavior, However, humanity is different because some of us are AWARE of the plight. Moreover, the conscious ones are aware of the stupidity and delusional nature of the unconscious ones, whereas none of the Tasmanian devil population has KNOWLEDGE or BELIEF that anything is wrong. They are just acting out their instincts, business as usual, meanwhile, their populations are rapidly decreasing, and it is the KNOWLEDGE that the scientists have that just could save the species.

[Talking Ass]

Ryan,

It's not a big deal or anything, and it is not really an ego thing, but I'm wondering if you'd mind using the 'TM' symbol after my moniker. For example (and capitals would be appreciated too) The Ass™, or The Ass™ says. or Talking Ass™ writes. An alternative to any of these, and one I favor, is (the or an) Ass Who Talks™.

The reason is simple: I am an ass and I am, quite frankly, the only bona fide ass on this forum, and so for that reason my name is really a kind of trademark for my entire self and certainly my presentation. Our persona, you will admit, is often hard-won, and for that reason I feel I deserve trade recognition.
_____________________________________________

Are you aware of the studies and experiments that have been done with chimps where they have succeeded in teaching them sign language? (Primate Use of Language). If a chimp can be taught to use a conceptual system for communication, it seems to indicate that their consciousness is similar to our own, yet in an underdeveloped state.

Lastly, you and I are engaged in a quite sophisticated conversation and, unless I am kidding myself, you would not say that you are communicating with a mere 'flight-or-fight' machine, or some sort of emotional blob. And yet you are keenly aware (conscious) that I am a four-legged ass, that I live in a barn, eat hay and barley, have barnyard friends, et cetera. I will not deny that I respond quite readily to the mere sight of food, or that food outweighs many other considerations, and yet, in my better moments, and when I am focused, I believe I communicate in a manner not so much unlike that of yourself and other humans. Please don't say that I am only flattering myself...

Mr Rogers Meets Koko
Koko Goes Berzerk

[Ryan Rudolph]

the ass,

It's not a big deal or anything, and it is not really an ego thing, but I'm wondering if you'd mind using the 'TM' symbol after my moniker. For example (and capitals would be appreciated too) The Ass™, or The Ass™ says. or Talking Ass™ writes. An alternative to any of these, and one I favor, is (the or an) Ass Who Talks™.

a joke right?

Lastly, you and I are engaged in a quite sophisticated conversation and, unless I am kidding myself, you would not say that you are communicating with a mere 'flight-or-fight' machine, or some sort of emotional blob.

yes, I wasn't saying that humans operate merely on the same level as animals, there are differences. Humans are capable of logical cognition and higher forms of communicating, other than just for survival. My point is that any sound an animal makes is for survival only. Two apes do not stare at the stars, and wonder what it would be like to explore and conquer the known universe. Their communication is similar to humans, but not at the same level. They might get angry when another ape steals their banana, so one can see the similarities, but most animals have very little or no consciousness, only instincts and primal emotions.

[Talking Ass]

"The 'real world'---what is it? The 'real world'---it's not."

©2009 The Talking Ass™