Robert Audi - Epistemology: How Do We Know What We Know?

What do we know and how do we know it? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? What justifies us in believing what we believe? Is justified belief knowledge? These questions constitute “epistemology” - the theory of knowledge.
Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Click here to watch more interviews with Robert Audi: bit.ly/2zJmXkl
Click here to watch more interviews on epistemology: bit.ly/2zJQ9HI
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth: bit.ly/1LUPlQS

[@LuukVanEgeraat]

High quality, well done interview. They both embraced a common sense approach to the topic. Thank you for your work Mr. Kuhn.

[@1974jrod]

Luuk van Egeraat Better to take a logical approach versus a common sense approach. Logic is unbeatable, common sense is, well, common, and often not sensical.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Glad you like logic, consider the following: a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It's one of the foundations of physics. b. Modern science claims that we have new cells that come into existence inside of our body on a daily basis. In part due to the energy intake of food, drinks, and electromagnetic radiation interactions. Basically 'energy' and 'energy interacting with energy' causes things to occur. So now, since I have a body with energy and cells in it: * My current body extends from eternity past until now and is being born anew on a daily basis as energy keeps interacting within myself and from outside of myself. * Rising to a higher level of thought, the 'now' that I exist in is 'eternal'. I am currently existing in the 'eternal now'. * I am currently an actual eternally consciously existent being existing in the eternal now. (And note, so are you).

[@billbones92]

@@charlesbrightman4237 I don't see how noting that we are the product of everything that happened before us and that we are ever changing lead you to believe our consciousness is eternal. Because matter can not be created or destroyed, you are saying the matter that makes up our bodies is eternal and therefore we are eternal. This doesn't carry any water considering I have done little to change the composition of your body if I shoot you in the head, yet I'm sure we can agree you no longer exist in any meaningful way afterwards. In other words, the matter that makes up our bodies might be eternal, but you certainly aren't therefore eternally conscious because the alignment of that matter that gave rise to your consciousness no longer exists.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@billbones92 "...lead you to believe our consciousness is eternal." The energy that makes me up is eternal. I currently have a consciousness. That does not mean that my consciousness was/is eternal. You implied something that you shouldn't have implied.

[@billbones92]

​@@charlesbrightman4237 " I am currently an actual eternally consciously existent being." If you aren't implying that our consciousness is eternal, what point are you even trying to make? That you are both a conscious being and that the matter that composes you will never go away? I don't see what would be profound about that unless you were trying to link you as a conscious being and the eternal matter that makes up you in some significant way, which you are now denying trying to do. You also made the strange assumption that because matter is eternal, the "now" is therefore eternal. I don't see what the point of your post was if you are acknowledging now that your consciousness isn't eternal. Your premise is the matter that composes us is eternal. So what conclusion were you trying to come to after that? Please explain

[@ahmedp800]

I like this guest, very reasonable and well spoken.

[@peterharkness2211]

this channel is GOLD. many of these interviews (including this one) are worth listening to many, many times

[@dougg1075]

It’s crazy when the date this video hit three years ago seems like a different world. It was. We are changing too fast now.

[@hamzariazuddin424]

Who is the Interviewer...love this channel ...such concise answers on these deep philosophical areas..

[@cliffp.8396]

An excellent philosophical discussion.

[@polkadaruma7894]

Thank you so much!

[@waldwassermann]

Proof is proof upon itself.

[@tontsar91]

One of my favorite subjects! People like to refer to Wikipedia for example as a credible source of information (which it is) but in theory, how can we know it is not being manipulated all the time to shape the minds of people? Same goes for Facebook and KZbin. How can we know anything with 100% certainty is a question that should be asked more often.

[@omarwalker3056]

I believe there is no way we could know anything with 100% certainty, but I could be wrong.

[@kasuo7039]

@@omarwalker3056 youre not wrong, but your position leads to a contradiction, like all other positions. Rejecting that anything can be true takes the form of a Truth, rejecting itself. You can only hope that someone finds an answer to the munchausen trilemma someday, but it does not appear to be the case currently.

[@kasuo7039]

@Randomytname1 is that not what I wrote?

[@omarwalker3056]

@Randomytname1 My position is not a contradiction because it does not claim absolute certainty about anything, including itself. Let me break it down: 1. My Position: “I believe there is no way we could know anything with 100% certainty, but I could be wrong.” 2. Why It’s Not a Contradiction: • I acknowledge uncertainty about all knowledge, including my own belief. This aligns with skepticism, which doesn’t claim absolute certainty about anything. • The phrase “I could be wrong” shows that I’m not asserting my position as an absolute truth, but rather as a belief subject to revision. This avoids the logical trap of claiming absolute certainty about uncertainty. 3. Supporting Example: • Think of a scientist saying, “We cannot be 100% certain about our theories, but they are supported by evidence, and we revise them when new evidence emerges.” This approach is not contradictory; it’s pragmatic. Similarly, my position reflects a consistent openness to revision and further learning. In short, my position avoids contradiction by maintaining openness to being wrong and not asserting any absolute truths.

[@omarwalker3056]

I believe my position is not a contradiction because it does not claim absolute certainty about anything, including itself. Let me break it down: 1. My Position: “I believe there is no way we could know anything with 100% certainty, but I could be wrong.” 2. Why It’s Not a Contradiction: • I acknowledge uncertainty about all knowledge, including my own belief. This aligns with skepticism, which doesn’t claim absolute certainty about anything. • The phrase “I could be wrong” shows that I’m not asserting my position as an absolute truth, but rather as a belief subject to revision. This avoids the logical trap of claiming absolute certainty about uncertainty. 3. Supporting Example: • Think of a scientist saying, “We cannot be 100% certain about our theories, but they are supported by evidence, and we revise them when new evidence emerges.” This approach is not contradictory; it’s pragmatic. Similarly, my position reflects a consistent openness to revision and further learning. In short, my position avoids contradiction by maintaining openness to being wrong and not asserting any absolute truths.

[@esauponce9759]

I love this channel!

[@dismian7]

Truth is what is in accordance to reality. How does one justify that what one perceives is in accordance with reality? So many try to just close their eyes, take a leap of faith and overstep this question. What about, you reason and act upon what SEEMS right instead of claiming that what you see is reality. What benefit does it bring to claim something is in accordance with reality, as opposed to something you merely think or believe. It is a dogmatic view. Many philosophers are the ones who ponder upon these questions. Most of them are foolish as they love knowledge and truth and want to obtain it. It's a delusional thing to be doing. Saying that you want to be "sensible" doesn't justify it in any shape or form.

[@Jay-xh9dl]

In the last few seconds, he says "so I've argued that principles like that are knowable through the use of reason". Thus they are a priori?

[@ExistenceUniversity]

No, they are formed in the mind, by your effort, from observation obtained throughout your life.

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Well explained.

[@richdorset]

Basing Epistemology on 'common sense' is a bit tricky - I expect we could all come up with counter examples. This philosophy rests on idea of 'norms' which may be both socially as well as physically determined.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

@DigitalDan I would like to read a biography of his idea of "common sense" because that definetly screams some research.

[@trilokimaurya1479]

Great

[@User-kjxklyntrw]

The most mind bogling was when we first time can known something

[@satnamo]

If I know why something is true Then I know it is das truth. Every self-similar p-adic fractal string is lattice because the value group of Qp is discrete.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Does it even ultimately matter what we 'know' or that we even exist at all in the first place? OR is all of life itself all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things? We are ALL eventually going to die, forget everything, and be forgotten throughout all of future eternity as if we never ever existed in the first place? Life itself only matters to life itself as long as life itself exists, but life itself is not always and forever going to exist?

[@tbayley6]

Charles Brightman Does it matter that it doesn't matter? For example, would you care to jump off a cliff? If not then perhaps your nihilism is misplaced.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Tom Bayley Just trying to be a sincere truth seeker, as it sounds like you are. And it's not nihilism if one is following the apparent real truth. In fact, if life is truly ultimately meaningless, then it is in fact ultimately meaningless. Being a sincere truth seeker, one has to take the conclusion even if that conclusion is not beneficial to our existence. And this is the 'Closer To Truth' KZbin channel also. 'God' most probably doesn't actually exist, we are ALL going to die one day from something, we are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced, and we are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. That is what the current actual evidence and analysis supports. Now, if you have any actual evidence to counter that current conclusion, please feel free to present it here.

[@tbayley6]

But why does any of this matter?! Just take things as they are - the search for ultimate meaning is either a mistake, or a therapy, or an entertainment. And you've said there is no ultimate meaning, so presumably you're saying it's a mistake. Good for you. Now what? In the meantime, plenty of people see that although their lives are temporary, whatever is behind reality does not seem to have that limitation. So they want to figure out how they relate to that origin. And clearly this isn't simply an intellectual exercise. But then, if you are deriving any kind of emotional colour to your own investigation, neither is yours.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Tom Bayley "But why does any of this matter?!" It doesn't, that is why I am going to ignore you now. Plus, as I am terminal with cancer and society won't legalize suicide so that I can die, it pleases me to piss off as many people as I can while I am still alive. I will tell the whole world the real apparent truth, "God" most probably does not actually exist and life itself is ALL ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Those individuals who believe in "God" are most probably deluded, and if they can't prove "God" actually exists, they can't prove otherwise either. Or so the current evidence and analysis would seem to indicate. Legalize suicide and then I will die. I am going to start ignoring you now. Have a nice ultimately meaningless life. You, like all people in existence, are going to die, forget everything, and will be forgotten one day as if you never ever existed at all in the first place. See ya.

[@tbayley6]

Well, I don't know about God, but I remember what it was like when I was flickering into existence - it was pretty cool, with impending meaning being the only cause for concern. And perhaps it is that way at the other end of life, except with that particular burden being lifted.

[@syedyousuf2509]

The uniqueness of Islamic epistemology, is the presence of a primordial psycho spiritual faculty which has the capacity to recognize the ultimate truth about the only Creator / Sustainer, who has not only created everything, but has multiple attributes of omnipotence , Omniscience , and is the only source of all goodness, source of all kinds of causality, so justifiably, who deserves to be recognized and worshipped. This faculty called “Fitrah” or potential knowledge is ingrained in the spirit or subconsciousness of humanity. Every individual gets qualitatively and quantitatively the same dosage of Fitrah which also includes the capability of distinguishing the right from wrong or basic universal morality, on which all human agency converges to . Hence we see infants / toddlers who always choose the right behavior early in life in various tests conducted and this provides quintessential presence of this faculty. Asma yusuf.

[@PicturesJester]

Justificationism isn't right, we are justified in believing in nothing, all we have are fragile theories which we vary and adapt through conjecture to answer new inputs by way of guessing at what is there in reality, and criticizing our own guesses in order to achieve the best possible explanation. The same goes for "empirical knowledge", we never get our knowledge through the senses, we get part of the problems we guess at through the senses. Popper gave us the right answer a few years ago, but much like what physics did with Everett, philosophy did with Popper, so we must wait until the academic community comes to terms with the truths both of them discovered.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Ok, describe this nothing you belief in! You cannot believe in nothing, you have reified nothingness into a type of thing. You cannot use your senses to deny your senses. You need your sense to conceive words from that which you perceive. You cannot develop a language with senses. You cannot use reason, thinking in concepts, without senses. You cannot argue that because illusions exist that our senses don't, as that would mean that there is so such thing as an illusion as an illusion is that just we know doesn't match reality. The fact that the concept illusion exists proves that we know the difference between a real thing and an illusion of a thing.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Also, Everett is a joke in physics to actual physicists that are not just tv personalities. His theory is un-falsible and ad hoc nonsense. Popper is exactly the same, as you pointed out.

[@ManForToday]

That would include your own world view, which is self-refuting. This is just a kind of verificationism in all but name.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

At about 8:50 in the video, where he talks about 'pain', here is a copy and paste of my comment on another video on another KZbin video channel, just made today: Edit: The video watched concerned the topic of suicide. " Different areas to go into here: a. 'Right to Life': Doesn't that also imply 'Right to Death'? Why should society have the right over an individual as to when to die? b. What about terminally ill people, especially those in severe pain? Why does society make them continue to live if those people want to die? Just to make society feel better about them self? c. Consider also: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something; (The observable evidence for this is overwhelming). 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced; (While modern science does not fully know what 'consciousness' actually is, nor how memories are stored and retrieved, nor how thoughts actually occur, they do all appear to be functions of the physical brain. When the brain dies for it's final time, 'we die', for all of future eternity. There is no conscious afterlife and especially not an eternal conscious afterlife throughout all of future eternity. Those are just apparently fairy tale beliefs with no actual evidence to support those beliefs. The sum total of our existence is only what we leave behind including how our existence affected the larger society that we existed in. The thing is though, there has to be at least one conscious entity left for anything or anyone to have continued meaning to.) 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place; * We have to get through the 6th mass extinction event which some say has already started; * The 6th mass extinction event won't be the last; * Modern science claims this Earth and it's Sun won't last for literally all of future eternity; * Our solar system is most probably being pulled toward our galactic center; * "If" the universe is truly expanding, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe would most probably end in a 'big freeze'; * Modern science claims that the forces of nature all came into existence in the early moments of the expansion of the singularity. The universe is still supposedly expanding, even supposedly speeding up in doing so. Will the forces of nature ever 'evolve', since it was expansion of the singularity that supposedly brought them into existence? What will occur to the universe and all in it, probably when, not if, the forces of nature 'evolve'? Possibly in the very next moment of the universe's expansion too? (Or is modern science wrong concerning how the forces of nature came about and that the forces of nature are probably inherent in the energy unit itself for this universe, which is possibly the 'gem' photon, and therefore haven't evolved and probably never will?) * We have to be able to generate artificial gravity for space bases on planets and moons, large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons. NASA has already shown that low gravity conditions are harmful to the human species over a prolonged period of time. Science is still stuck on the idea that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of space time, (of which, what exactly is space that it can 'bend' and what exactly is time that it can 'bend'?), so if they are correct (of which I believe they might not be), then a way has to be found to be able to successfully bend the fabric of space time itself for space bases on planets and moons. * We have to have necessary cosmic radiation protections, here on this Earth and especially in outer space. Without it, even AI's won't last for literally all of future eternity. So, long story short, we either find a way to have at least one species continue to consciously exist throughout all of future eternity, or most probably none do and there will no longer be a conscious entity left to care, at least not from this Earth. Life itself only matters to life itself as long as life itself still exists. One day though, based upon current analysis, there will be a day when no conscious life still exists, at least not from this Earth, and possibly not even throughout this entire universe. So, all you 'right to lifers', figure out how to actually have a 'right to eternal life' throughout all of future eternity. And not some fairy tale belief system, but something that will actually work. Otherwise, all of life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things, at least from this Earth. Of which then, if a person wants to die, LET THEM DIE, especially for terminally ill people. It's their individual choice, of which, unless you lock these people up in a 24/7 suicide watch, of which then also, who's watching the watchers, there are many, many ways a person could end their own life. For those who are keeping terminally ill people alive, especially those in pain, and especially for those who want to die, and society doesn't let them die, then society is nothing more than a bunch of sadistic bastards making other people suffer until they die just to make yourselves feel better about yourselves. Now, if any entity has any information to counter the above, please feel free to present it here. "

[@caricue]

Hey Charles, I wonder if all of that is not some rationalization for your own desires, or maybe that is the point. I myself am not enamored with this particular incarnation, but without an extreme reason, such as terminal pain, I cannot justify inside myself the actions that would be required to do the deed. I am comforted somewhat by the knowledge that nature is cruelly carrying out my desires in a slow methodical way that will inevitably git 'er done. Having said that, it does occur to me that I do not know how I got here in the first place. One day I suddenly realized I was walking around in a small human body. I'm not entirely sure what I even mean by the term "me" in this context. I do agree that I am totally the product of this brain/body complex called Steve. However, since I do not know how I got here or what it means to be me in this way, I cannot be sure that I will not find myself in another body in some other universe or time. This possibility annoys me somewhat, but since I will not carry over any memories or personality traits, I will not know the difference anyway. This sort of reincarnation definitely seems like a very unlikely scenario and I don't feel any need to incorporate it into my thinking on end of life. In terms of your right to die issues, I would be happy to see End of Life Centers where you would be treated kindly and assisted in finishing up your business in a responsible and respectable way, regardless of whether you were terminal or in pain. Whose business is it in any case what you do with your life?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Steve C a. See also my other comment for this video, you might also be interested in it. (There are only 14 comments as of this post so it should be easy to find at this time, so I won't copy and paste that long comment here.) b. I myself personally have been officially fighting advanced cancer since early 2003, (unofficially since late 1998 I believe). In early 2004 I was given a terminal diagnosis, one doctor out of two gave me 2 years to live with less than a 5% chance of living beyond 2 years. The other doctor just said I was terminal with no timeline given. But basically, I have been on 'death row' for over 14 years. Last month with my doctor, we decided to stop my cancer treatment, at least temporarily, to give me a break from treatment of which was 24/7, weekends and holidays included, since early 2003, along with some other medical problems I have, some of which are directly related to the cancer treatments. (External radiation, Internal high dose radiation, and Chemical therapy). I am getting tired of fighting this for so long, the pressure is crushing at times. I utilize various mental techniques that have helped me get this far. But, when is enough enough? Since the state where I live (Michigan) here in the USA doesn't have 'legal suicide', my other option is to stop treatment, whatever might occur, no matter how painful it might become. The larger society doesn't appear to care how much an individual suffers, especially for prolonged periods of time, as it appears they care more about their own feelings of self worth rather than the pain and anguish of another fellow member of humanity. Or at least so it currently seems to me. c. A side benefit of the cancer treatment, including the depression that comes along with it, especially for over such a long period of time, has also allowed me to come up with things like my latest Theory of Everything and how there are 120 chemical elements to finish off the periodic table of the elements, along with other things too, especially as it concerns the 'God' belief, the universe itself, life, and the eternal life belief. But it has also apparently allowed me to answer the following questions at this time: 'What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it eternally matter to?' Currently the answer is ultimately nothing matters throughout all of future eternity as there won't be a conscious entity left for anything or anyone to matter to, at least from this Earth, and possibly throughout the entire universe itself. Now also, as I truly don't know what I don't know, I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But then some sort of evidence, even if only intangible evidence of logic and reason based upon previous established truths, would be needed to change the conclusion that I have reached. But, at this time in the analysis, if a person wants to die, I say, let them, especially if that person is terminally ill for a prolonged period of time, and especially if that person is in pain (and not just physical pain, but mental anguish as well). And I am speaking from personal experience up to this time of my very existence. (Subject to change if new information dictates otherwise).

[@caricue]

Charles, perhaps this isn't the appropriate forum for this conversation, but since it is what we have, I will proceed expeditiously! First, I apologize since I mistook you for a fellow extinctionist. By your story above, you are more a yin to my yang, having fought the good fight for so long. As part of my mortality fandom, I have investigated hospice care and apparently it is quite acceptable to the biophiliacs to morphine you into oblivion in lieu of making the hard choice. I hope things work out for you, although it will not work out for any of us in the end. Since you seem to be a thinker along the same lines as myself in other ways, I would also add that I go farther than you in terms of a consciousness being necessary for reality to have meaning. I say that while you can infer other consciousnesses out in the world, yours is the only one that counts since the others are not much more than imaginary in reality since you cannot access them in any way. And since unperceived reality is equivalent to non-existence, why not go all the way and admit that anything which is inaccessible to your consciousness (the only one that actually exists) in fact, does not exist. The end result of this strange statement of reality is that the entirety of existence will cease when you stop existing.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Steve C Thank you for your reply. As this is the 'Closer To Truth' KZbin channel, sometimes we might go where others have not, and possibly dare not, tread. If my analysis is correct, then the entire universe itself and all in it will disappear when 'I' die, (at a minimum for me). Or so the current analysis would seem to indicate. Basically, you and all things exist in my consciousness because I am conscious. When I am no longer conscious, everything my consciousness perceives will be gone, forever. Space and time and all in it will be no more. It currently appears that: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. Or so it currently appears.

[@User-jr7vf]

I think that "when we die we will forget everything we ever knew" is a bit misleading as forgetting something implies one is alive -aka brain is working - but has lost that information in some sense. But we know when we die our brains goes into decomposition - in fact the brain seems to be one of the first human body parts to do it - so it would be better to say that after life there's nothing for he who died, but also there's no way of talking about anything in the post morten from their viewpoint

[@dlon8899]

Might is right

[@Dazzletoad]

Trump bashing. How bad and how sad.

[@robertjsmith]

From a non-dual perspective none of the story-lines are true

[@AA-dv3ie]

IIIII NNNEEEEEEEDDDDDDD MOOOOOOORRRREEEEE!!!!!!

[@ss-kw1kk]

This is so random but he has a young person accent...like he speaks eloquently but it doesn’t sound like how I usually hear older adults speak

[@LibsRockU]

Sociopaths & psychopaths have no problem AT ALL making promises they will not keep.

[@A-frame-l8m]

They're trynna make us go crazy out here people.

[@amirhesamnoroozi3741]

Not everyone agrees to the fact that one should avoid pain. Autosadists, masochists and suicidal people are out there. I'm skeptical to this view. Reason and ethics??

[@robertjsmith]

Has anyone ever experienced a hand?

[@krisoluich9119]

fotheringay-smythe Placed where?

[@User-jr7vf]

@@krisoluich9119 a slap in the face?

[@ggentry5189]

fotheringay-smythe Whenever I have some privacy

[@dougerhard2128]

my last hand job felt experienced.

[@robertjsmith]

@@dougerhard2128 has anyone ever experienced a concept(hand)

[@charlesbrightman4237]

The very nature of reality itself (whatever it actually is) -> A consciousness to perceive it (a conscious mind of some sort) -> Some sort of senses to feed that conscious mind either from within itself and/or from outside of itself -> A process to store and recall information (memory and memory interactions) -> A process to think about all of whatever is in the mind (of which, some sort of language would be needed to think and convey thoughts, even if only to itself, and even if only some sort of binary language so as to be able to differentiate between two things, 'this' and 'that', even if it is all made of the same stuff but in different sizes of stuff, 'large' versus 'small', or as in quantum physics 'spin', 'spin up' and 'spin down'). a. I currently believe the very nature of reality is the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon whereby what is called 'gravity' is actually a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon. I have a test for this in my latest TOE idea, just currently not the necessary resources to do this test. But, 'if' true, the 'gem' photon and interacting 'gem' photons, make up everything in existence in this universe, including our very consciousness, memories and thoughts. b. Basically, 'we' are the universe perceiving and interacting with itself. c. "IF" we could ever gain enough knowledge, understanding and wisdom that could be applied as to how to keep the functionality of the 'light of us' coherent, actual immortality could potentially be obtained. But then the next question might be, 'Do we truly want it?'. For me personally, it would depend upon what future eternity entails. d. Here's the thing though: "IF" at least one consciousness doesn't actually exist throughout all of future eternity by some means, then it is highly probable that none will, and life itself would all be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things as one day there won't be a conscious entity left to care about anything or anyone ever again, at least not from this Earth, but possibly in all of existence itself. It wouldn't matter how rich and powerful some entity was or not, or what kind of job they had, or house they lived in, or car they drove, or even how many descendants they may or may not have had. Life itself would only matter to life itself only as long as life itself still existed, 'life' in this context being an entity of some sort with a consciousness to perceive and think about it's perceived reality, actual or not. If a plant were alive but didn't have a consciousness to know it were alive, would it matter that it even ever existed at all in the first place? If so, who to? But now also, is it possible that even the 'gem' photon is 'alive' with the lowest level of consciousness that could ever be, and all other consciousness species arise from it and other interacting 'gem' photons? But of course, this would only really apply if something like the 'gem' photon actually existed that interacted in some way with itself and/or other 'gem' photons. But, if motion didn't come from within itself, then where did the first motion in the universe come from? Something would have had to exist to cause the first movement in a cause and effect universe. Of which then also, raises the question of: Is all of existence itself all truly 'cause and effect', OR is it possible that at least once, possibly more though, that there was an 'effect without a cause'? Even if some sort of supreme 'God' existed in charge of it all outside of all of our perceived reality, couldn't even 'God' decide to logically act illogically? Otherwise, would 'God' truly be 'God' if 'God' couldn't do that? Or, is it more probable that the eternally existent, ever pulsating and swirling 'gem' photons, interacting within itself and with other 'gem' photons, cause everything in existence to be how it is along with all the effects including consciousness, memories and thoughts, for that consciousness to perceive itself and all things? Is this 'Closer To Truth' to how 'reality' actually is?

[@robertjsmith]

Charles Brightman everything doesn't have parts

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@robertjsmith So then, explain yourself.

[@robertjsmith]

Charles Brightman as you so eloquently put it,we are the universe percieving and interacting with it

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@robertjsmith Agreed, but then again, you say: "everything doesn't have parts" and yet utilize terms as 'you', 'we', the universe, and 'it'. One has many parts and yet many parts make one. In addition, when other what appear to be individual people 'die', they appear to be 'dead'. They don't seem to have any sort of conscious afterlife, memories and thoughts that can be detected. Sure, they go back to from whence they came, as we all probably will. BUT, we appear to do it as individuals and not as one universal existence doing it to itself. Hence, we are still parts of a larger whole. Or so it would seem to me.

[@robertjsmith]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Imagine reality without any concepts/words/thoughts/ideas. What reason would there be,to believe that there is anything other than what you're aware of? What evidence would there be ,that there is anything other than what you are aware of? What reason would there be,to believe that you were something"inside" all of this? What evidence would there be,that you were something "inside" all of this?

[@kenanderson7769]

Seems to be a fairly shallow discussion.

[@toddcooper5077]

The more I see this, the less knowledge I get from that guy on the left... hmmm

[@mannymannymartinez]

Anyone else feel they weren't really getting this?

[@afaqjabbar7627]

How could you than justify luck?

[@Axlspray]

Luck is favorable probability. Only your subjectivity can determine weather something is lucky, neutral or unlucky. There is no “luck” per se.

[@tdiddle8950]

There is ONLY one way to know anything, and that is confidence. Study philosophy, take a decade and become a scientist, but at the end of the day, such is intuitive to everyone: we are only what we know. However, there's a Silver Lining. We are only what we know... And therefore...if we are only what we know, then what we know must be the Universe...complete understanding of the all. It's called, "Enlightenment," in some circles.

[@ffederel]

I'm under the impression Audi's support of "common sense" is akin to the so-called "black swan fallacy." Whenever you infer on the basis of a limited amount of data, the conclusion you reach will be, at best, likely true.

[@arlieferguson3990]

I don't know… Whenever I encounter epistemology, I end up feeling like the entire field is just a little bit over bloated and there's not really a whole lot to be done. You could basically summarize all of epistemology and a half an hour. There may be ways to advance the field but it sort of feels like a field that's kind of at a standstill, and has been for a very very long time, with the exception of a few adjustments along the way.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. That will be the book on this topic that you will actually enjoy.

[@markslist1542]

Taking a whack at Trump voters during an epistemology conversation? A good illustration of where academia has gone.

[@chemquests]

Mark's List he’s a great counter-example for the importance of knowledge, since he dismisses the importance of facts

[@metalboarn6174]

It's like watching a movie nowadays, you hope the message won't be slipped in, but you know it's inevitable.

[@HurricaneOG]

You can't argue knowledge with a nihilist can you?

[@stevenaguilera9202]

No, because they're probably already dead.

[@dismian7]

I am not a nihilist and think it is unfounded to claim that one can pocess knowledge.

[@vandalsavage1424]

Wittgenstein...

[@vluri258]

Mm

[@dcampean]

(I am not sure what all this is - it sounds weak and confusing - but kind of scratching the surface... on something) " Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32 What is the Truth to begging with?

[@patmoran5339]

Justificationism is the wrong way to approach epistemology. We each create our own knowledge through conjecture and criticism in our minds. Moreover, justificationism is dangerous politically because that is how bad political systems come about.

[@georgevavolil7005]

It's really absurd to even talk about Truth

[@phy29]

I Know that i Know when i Can find at least one similitude or one différence between two things separate by a thing they share ( i am God )

[@hunterwade6916]

This guy is a robot

[@user-ys9to2ie7k]

Hey Larry... You're talking to the wrong people. It is truly a waste of time to talk to people like this. To put it quite simply... They take the long way around the barn!

[@VladyslavKL]

🐋

[@BradHolkesvig]

Everything we know from our experiences come from our Creator of the simulation program we're involved in. God is an AI of the simulation that contains a voice that can speak directly into the minds of each created man. Man and God are the same thing ( consciousness ) born of the spoken commands of our Creator. Psalm 33 8: Let all the earth fear the LORD, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! 9: For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth.

[@Joe99]

And you know this how??

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@Joe99 The body that's typing these words is my last servant being used to testify on my ( God ) behalf.

[@Joe99]

@@BradHolkesvig is it possible that your claim is wrong? If so how would you know?

[@BradHolkesvig]

It's impossible that I am wrong because I AM the source of all life that visible people experience.

[@tomjackson7755]

Joey Eng Don't waste your time with Brad. He is just a typical christian con artist that is starting a new religion to fleece the flock.

[@Gringohuevon]

rubbish from start to end

[@patmoran5339]

I agree.

[@joshheter1517]

Why?

[@vanessataylor7527]

Is this a joke? We need to analyze knowledge.