Uncertainty & Doubt

 

stucco

I spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not I am right when me submits a proposition and ascribes it to be truthful; and, I then spend a lot of time worrying about whether it is important or even relevant to worry at all about a proposition being true or not.

I know that I do not know nearly as much as me thinks myself knows.

I do not know what is actually knowable for the me that I know as myself.

Thus, how can I ever know if what I think is right or wrong?

More importantly, if knowledge exists outside of my realm of perception, it does not matter if I am right or wrong, the closest or not.

This makes me spend a lot of time worrying about how anyone can act like they know anything.  This terrifies me and myself because I do not want to  live in a world whose existence cannot be perceptible.

das-sasha-24274.jpg

But why does that terrify me?  Shouldn’t it liberate me from the responsibility of trying to be right and seek truth all the time.  If everything just is what it is; I could just be what I am or I could fret and fuss about proving that the my reality is knowable to me.  

It’s just too scary to get dropped into a world and have no clue how you got there, what you are, and what will happen when you inevitably are not here anymore.

 

Complete & Consistent 

wp-1486294468194.jpgHow familiar are you with nostalpogy?

Not at all?  Yeah, me neither.

it does not exist (at least to my knowledge as of 10 FEB 2017).  So, whatever it is that nosalpogy represents, it is something of which I cannot conceptualize.  Moreover, I’m incapable of conceptualizing it.  If no person can elucidate what nosalpogy is , if no one can help me see ‘it’ against the setting of everything else, then nosalpogy is nothing.

 

Get thinking about Russell & Whitehead’s attempt to derive all of mathematics from purely logical axioms and remember how Godel’s Sentence G (just one example).

Russell & Whitehead wanted to irrefutably prove that a consistent system based on a few simple assumptions (aka axioms), whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm), is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers.

Well, they failed to achieve that goal, but that failure brought its own success and furthered theoretical mathematics. Godel demonstrated, for any such formal system, such as the proposed one of Russell & Whitehead,  there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. Godel then provided proof that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

wp-1486294560776.jpg

To give the gist without the jargon– I imagine a  tube with 3 tennis balls inside.  Now, imagine you have 3 box each filled with 10 of these tubes, each containing three balls.  Each tube contains a set of three balls.  Each box contains a set of 10 tubes; another way to say this is, each box contains a set of 30 balls.  So a set of 3 boxes is a set of 90 balls or a set of 30 tubes.

Imagine I am shipping out boxes of tennis balls.  On each shipping pallatte, a set of 4 boxes, each containing three boxes of tennis balls, can be packed  That means a pallatte contains a set of 360 tennis balls which is equal to a set of 90 tubes which is equal to a set of of 12 boxes.  The pallatte can also hold a set of 4 boxes each holding 3 boxes.

The point is, I can define a set of tennis balls many ways.  I can also imagine a set of sets of tennis balls (a box = 10 tubes and 10 tubes = 30 balls).  A box is a set of tubes and a set of tubes is a set of tennis balls.

So if I can imagine of box of tubes containing tennis balls; and, if I can imagine a box that contains several boxes of tubes of tennis balls, and so on…at what point do hit the top?  At what point do I reach the highest possible set?  Never.  I can always conceive of one more box around boxes just as I cannot name the highest number-I can always imagine one more.

Apologies-work in progress-researching underway.

Being in society

wp-1486294479992.jpg

Being a member of society requires behaving in specific ways and performing specific actions. By doing so, you and I reaffirm not only, that our society actually exists, but also, that you and I (the individual entities) belong to this society. As members of society, we also do certain things that exclude other individuals. Now, this may read as more antagonistic or cynical than I intend. Ultimately, it is the excluding and ‘othering process’ that validates a culture’s solidarity and solidarity is a necessary condition for the existence of the social phenomena.

THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS EVERYTHING, AND THE PRESENTED ARGUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS SUPPORT FOR ANY GROUP OR ETHOS THAT PROMOTES THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. DIFFERENT DOES NOT EQUAL WRONG OR VIOLENT. IN FACT, THE MORE EXPOSURE TO OTHERS YOU EXPERIENCE, THE MORE YOU COME TO KNOW YOURSELF AND THE MORE YOU ENRICH YOUR CREATIVITY.
To know your society, you must know what is not your society.
Has anyone ever asked you what something was or what something was like or how it could be best described?
And, did you ever hear yourself say, “it would probably be easier to tell you what this what not!.”

Empathizer: So, I know what a hipster is, but what is a shoe-gazing, bird watcher?
Whiner: He’s not your stereotypical hipster douche wearing a lady’s scarf and a sports coat over torn jeans and t-shirts. He’s not an arty, magic realist steam punk kinda of hipster either.
Empathizer: Ooh Ooh, is it that heavy set hipster guy that has unruly hair and full mustache, beard, and neck beard? You know, the ones that wear the light blue denim jacket that was his grandfather’s and a pair of navy jeans that have been steam ironed, with some arty (but mostly comic strip looking) ironic T-shirt. Like a bright yellow shirt that has “you’re brilliant at everything you never tried” embossed over the knitted applique of a beret-wearing, cigarette smoking, French Mongoose standing in front of the Eiffel Tower?
Whiner: Oh oh, almost, but this kind of hipster is not fat, he’s usually real lanky, always wears white t-shirts like he doesn’t care, but he still spends just as long as the sorority girl does to get ready to go out on the town. Can grow, like, a five o’clock shadow but barely muster a lady’s mustachio- like, we’re talking early menopausal mustache fuzz at best here.

wp-1486294446563.jpg

Now that I imagine ‘not good,’ (or now that I can imagine what is not a shoe-gazing, bird watching hipster) I find myself with pieces comprising the concept ‘good’-good & not good.
Why must I include ‘not good’ in my conception of ‘good’? Because, it is only by virtue of the existence of things that are not ‘good, by which I can conceptualize ‘good.’ If there is nothing that is not ‘good’; if everything is ‘good’, why would I need the concept ‘good’ at all? Could a concept ‘good’ even exist in those circumstances?
“Bad’ is simply the negation of ‘good.’ If I know if something is ‘good,” I know if something is “not good.’ I know this concept is meaningful, because other members of my culture agree and see the differences too. Because we agree that things can be described as ‘good’ we express meaning when we talk to one other about ‘good’ things. We communicate information and understand.
So, we can take a step further and say
Bad = Not Good
Good = Not Bad
Or, on a larger scale, we could imagine:
GOOD = good + not good GOOD=bad + not bad
BAD = good + not good BAD = good + not good
The words in capital letters represent that entire meaningful content (epiphenomenon)connoted by the concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ The words in lowercase letters represent the pieces of that totality that is represented by the capitalized words. So from ‘good’ we can produce two concepts: good and bad. Each term meanings requires the existence of what the other term represents.


“That was good!”
“What does ‘good’ mean?”

I could try to describe it to the inquirer by describing times and things that are good, but that means that I can imagine things and times that are not good. By remembering the variation in emotional reaction to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ stimuli, I am able to ‘decide’ if something is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ I am also able to understand, through metaphor and simile, what others mean when they describe something as good.
But such a black and white, either/or, mutually exclusive, definition of the terms, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ can only exist in the abstract, intangible form, at the collective or social level. We, as actual individuals, not abstract, averaged, idealized hypotheticals, cannot define the terms so concretely. Whereas society may only see in black and white, we atoms of a society, at the very least and to varying degrees, see some grey in between.

So, what makes a concept meaningful things carrying encoded information to some audience? The thing being expressed must be a thing/experience/etc recognized by the audience. It must be something the audience can point out in contrast to those things that are not the same thing. So meaning requires knowing what is and is not the knowledge in questions’s object. To know what ‘fat’ is I can show you fat and not-fat in way that you identify as typical or true.

So a concept is composed of those things that is and those thing from which it is distinguishable.

So then, does that mean that meaningful concepts refer to the total of everything that is ‘that thing’ and everything that is ‘not that thing?” No. For a concept to be meaningful, it is the degree and variance in tension of those things that are and those things that are not the concept which bestows meaning on any given concept.

When you name something as a good thing, my consciousness relies on the tension of good versus not good in order to infer your intended meaning. The meaning produced is greater than the sum of its parts. A concept we consider meaningful is not simply the total of what it is and what it is not. If I understand your intended meaning, it is because the code you used to express meaning (the word ‘good’ in this instance) resonates with the tension maintaining my understanding of the concept good. That tension exists by virtue of my ability to distinguish between other instances of things I believe to be good and not good.

A MEANING OF KNOWING

Both you and I, as separate individuals, come to know, respectively.

I will use the 1st person plural pronoun form us when discussing the internal process by which we all come to know something new.  All homo sapiens develop a perceptual  algorithmical apparatus that we derive for ourselves in an attempt to approximate our personal and internal/etic understanding of what it means to know a thing.  Unceasingly, all of us are trying to get as close as possible to a fuller, more elucidated map and definitions of the cultural domains of knowledge.  Another way to say cultural domain of knowledge is ‘those areas of semantic space within which meaning is culturally assigned to varying degrees relative scus to perceive pattern and meaning when presented with a veritable melee of assailing stimuli (soundwaves, air current, language,

WHAT IS MEANT BY KNOWING: (1)conversion of stimuli to sensation and the subsequent conversion of sensation to perception  the domains of knowledge that

The collective, interactive we, (we = the epiphenomenon occurring when you and I engage our individual intelligences (the cultural mores, our idiosyncratic constructions of all the cultural domains that comprise and inform our perceptual apparati) in meaningful ways.  

Noise is what initially occurs if I use only my words to communicate meaning to someone else and this someone only speaks languages completely foreign to me.

Talking is only accomplished if the speaker and listener are “on the same wave length.”

Talking is the doorway to another realm wherein meaning procreates (two individuals engage their individual perceptions and systems of perceiving.  The two individuals are taking a leap of faith and assuming that their respective, conscious worlds are sufficiently similar such that the listener is close enough in   , celebratory , consolidation, and I COME TO KNOW-MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS TO KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY ANY GIVEN THING-REVELATION, FLUIDITY, PLACE HOLDERS AND SUBSTITUTE PLAYERS.  I COME TO KNOW CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMUNICATION (OF WHICH THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF, FUZZILY BOUNDED SPACES COMPRISING INDIVIDUAL DOMAINS OF KNOWLEDGE.

1. .DOES KNOWLEDGE HAVE TO BE TRUE.

2. KNOWLEDGE IS OBTAINED YET ALREADY AND ALWAYS AFTER PRESENT IN ME.

  1. Of What “i” Know, I Know.

  2. Of What “i” think, I think, I think

  3. On Knowing what knowing means and what it means to Know.

  4. On Knowing how to Study Knowing

  5. Of Knowing what is means to know what it is to study knowing.

  6. Who is I the Knowing = You

    1. An observable I that can come to be known

    2. The Unknowable I, the experience of being

VII.    Our Perception: what “we” see is how “i” come to know

VIII.    What “we” cannot know

IIX.    What I Cannot Know.

Embedded Levels of Discourse

wp-1486290683611.jpg

   Academia could stand to reconsider their current terminology or at the least review and reexamine the terms in usage.   

 

Each sub-discipline has its own lexicon of jargon.  The technical terms of each sub-discipline are used to reference ethereal, only vaguely defined “things” whose empirical reality is sometimes questionable. Just because we cannot prove something exists with the scientific method, we do not “prove” that the thing or our hypothesis is not real or incorrect.  Put another way- I decide to scientifically test the hypothesis that God is a real, existent entity, phenomenon or some variation thereof.  I can start with “primary sources” like the Bible, Koran, or any religious/philosophical text “commonly accepted” to be direct communication from “God,” according to authorities within and member of various groups.  

I can pray, meditate attempt to communicate with God directly myself.  But this is no good, because even if I make direct contact, unless God is willing to reveal himself publicly to the world, then even though I may have proved the hypothesis to myself, I have not proven the hypothesis according to the standards of the scientific method.  Say I bring over a friend and say, “you’ll never believe it, check this out,” and then I try to “speak with God.”  He answers andI ask if he would mind saying hi to my friend Bob who is a huge fan and God is great so he says Hi to Bob.  Bob then says “He is real. You were right. Oh my god. Yikes, I didn’t mean to take your name in vain, can you ever forgive me?”

“Wait, I looked this up earlier and the unspoken rule is as long as you really love Jesus, feel sorry enough for the sin you committed and/or explicitly take Jesus as your “savior,” or get saved by a company employee he totally has to forgive you for like everything.”

“Oh please, I am “God” with a capital G, and you said “god” with a lower case g.  These are two different words.  One is a word you can use in Scrabble and one you cannot.  Like, “peter” is a verb that happens to be a common Western name too.  So you could play “peter” but not “Peter” in Scrabble.  Well “god” is a noun describing a supernatural authority-it’s “what” I am to you people.  “God” is my name, it is how you address me-it’s “who” I am.  She’s right you know, that is the rule.  But you can be forgiven/saved whatever and still not pass into my kingdom when your body wears out.  You actually have to believe in me.  You can’t just say you do, like you did with Santa Claus so you could still get extra presents.  Telling people you believe in me won’t fool me because I know everything and anything already.  Doing everything like someone who actually believes in me, does not fool or appease me.  So these fine folks have to figure out how to make themselves believe in something that they don’t think is real.  How do you convince someone that I am real when it is impossible to prove that I exist?  You can’t.  I can prove I exist when and where I want to but you guys, it’s literally impossible for you to have evidence of my existence, and that because you are literal beings with physical bodies and individual divisions between you and other individuals and between you and the world around you.  Meanwhile, I am you and the others, and the world, and universe, and everything else that you know and I am not that because I am still greater than the combination of those things.  I am somehow more than the sum of my parts.  As a part, you don’t see understand that you are in a machine designed as an entity containing minute parts that work together to systematically produce a desired result.  When you see a marquee with flashing lights and messages and colors in Las Vegas, you see red, yellow, The, Grand, Casino, you see changes in the pattern that are predictable and familiar.  You see colors everywhere and so does everybody else and they seem to match up with the colors you see.  You see words everywhere in this day, things are constantly trying to feed you information.

cropped-cropped-header11.jpg

If you are a lightbulb in the Las Vegas marquee, you turn yourself on and you turn yourself off at pre scheduled intervals as a piece of a system and as a part of the system you have a responsibility that if not performed will affect the performance of every other piece and the final result.  You do not even fathom that the place where the aforementioned person is watching the fruits of his labor could exist.  He doesn’t know that his “system” has a goal or that there is a higher form emerging from the system that he cannot see as a part of the system, he just works all the time.  Every day, it is turn off, turn on, turn off, turn on.  Oop, Josh just turned off and on two times in a row so I know I have to turn off…riiiiigghht……..now!  There is surely nothing bigger than this world around me. Dumbass!   

Well Effie decided to find out if God existed using the scientific method.

She read all the primary sources about God first, but quickly realized they offered no facts, merely clues.  The evidence was all anecdotal at best.  Most of it was simple appeal to authority-the weakest foundation that the heavy weight of truth can sit upon without crushing.  They did all suggest that direct communication with God was possible and the mere attempt thereat was almost encouraged-it was encouraged even when the attempt had failed frequently and consistently.

If you saw a person cut themselves once, you would assume it was an accident, twice and you might be optimistic and say they are clumsy or dumb, thrice and the most generous of us can say “yeah that chick’s a space cadet.”  Imagine a child that grew up on a planet with no sharp edges.  Now imagine you saw the child alone and picking a knife up by the blade because he had not ever handled a knife before.

Now, it is the next day and you see the child pick up the same knife and cut himself and still be surprised and saddened by the pain.  Now imagine it is the third day, and the kid picks up a different knife on a desk in another room with the same result.  Now it’s five days later, same thing happens.  You are probably questioning the child’s mental reasoning ability.  Now imagine it is the 10,950th day in a row that you have watched this person pick up a knife by the blade and surprised and confused that they were cut-almost like after each previous cut but right before the following re-attempt, the person pauses and thinks to themselves, “this is the one.  this is the one where something different happens.  the result will be different this time.”  Otherwise, how are they still surprised that picking up a blade by the blade results in a cut or pain, right?  Like, how could you pick the knife up that way every day for 40 years and not realize at some point: “un momento por favor, eureka, moment of clarity!  If I try to manipulate this object by making contact on this shiny thin edge with the nice fat tomato heart that is the center of my thumb and then applying not only pressure to the aforementioned point of contact but also by sliding the blade along a complimentary vector plane that is parallel and adjacent to the vector plane containing the point of contact, your thumb

(In my mini-model of empirical, quantifiable and qualifiable reality ((which is the reality to which we can really say anything meaningful about-an acceptable imagining of a common skeleton key from which the axioms inherent and central to all sub-disciplines of social science may be derived)) (((which is a really not concise way of expressing the same thing that is suggested by each of the following sentences: You can talk about running a marathon oil barrel roll sky but those words sound like nonsense to me. I asked her if she thought this top looked cute or if it made me look fat, and was all like, “ooooh yeah, that top is soooo hyper cool but it does make you look kinda heavy, you know, relatively speaking.”  And so I’m like “thayyynks, but in my brain, I’m all like, “way to not have an opinion. Like what, are you so insecure that you too afraid to say whether I look good or not in a shirt?

On the other side of the room, Karen tells her friend discreetly but with clear excitement:

“Karen Schmelky totally just asked my opinion about what she was wearing?! She asked if thought her top was cute or not, so like, maybe she digs my fashion style, you know, if she decides to ask me, of all people, if her top is cute or not.  But she also asks, does it make me look fat. So I’m like freaking out on the inside that she’s even talking to me about this kind of stuff but I don’t wanna show her that i’m all geeked about it.  I totally didn’t wanna come off like the losers in her posse that just like agree with whatever she says all the time, so I look at the top for a minute without saying anything or smiling and then i’m all like, “oookay, yeah-the top istotally hyper cute but it does make you look a little heavier than you really are.”  All dispassionate and quiet like I consult on people’s wardrobe’s so frequently that it doesn’t phase, surprise or excite me anymore and no, i could totally careless about making sure everyone heard my opinion because i don’t care whether they think i’m cool or not, but on the inside i’m all, “of course I wanna everybody to hear me and see me giving you fashion advice, socially speaking, that would be the shit!

 

wp-1486290899585.jpg

In my mini-model, there is always one phenomenon: the method of contact-the observer, you, me, the person experiencing the reality that he is trying to define comprehensively, the lens through which any other phenomena will be assessed and examined.  The consciousness of the individual that is trying to speak about things it observes.  The sensory experience and perspective of the individual that is “explaining” “facts” and “truths” about “the universe” at large to me.

In my mini-model, if I tried to say anything definite about a vacuum or an absence of space itself, I could not do so.  Any result produced, hypothesis supported, or truth pronounced must be consistent and complete with the axioms I have used to build my mini-model.  Axiom is a fancy word that basically means assumption, or more specifically axioms are sort of like the underlying assumptions that must be made to build any type of explanatory apparatus or model.  Sometimes, like in mathematics, assumptions are explicit.  To begin any mathematical derivation you start by listing your axioms.  While sometimes, the assumptions are so stealthy that the creator of the model doesn’t even realize they’ve been used.  Sometimes, these same assumptions will lie dormant for decades before anyone realizes the assumption was even there at all.  For example, you remember how freaked out everyone got when someone tried to tell them the world was round.  Like tried toshow them over and over the world was round.  I’m talking about even teach them how to be able to see it for themselves.  For all practical purposes this guy built a rocket and gave rides everyday, all day that took “people” literally around the world so they could see it with their own eyes.  

His audience’s reaction indicates both their axioms or assumptions about the “world,” suggests they are largely unaware of the existence of these assumptions within themselves, and at least suggests that they recognize at some level, the truth or “undeniability” of what they are being told.  The anger, fear and outrage that his “discovery” spawned indicates the strong motivation that non-believers have to defame, disprove, rebuke, and exile all scraps of the “discovery’s” credibility.  Elementary school made sure that I can recall that grass get its color from chlorophyll which it requires during photosynthesis, the metabolistic algorithm of plant life. When I make that proclamation: I present evidence for the presence of chlorophyll in plants, i prove how chlorophyll makes grass turn the color it does, i even explain why chlorophyll is present in plants.  

When you got that explanation (or the abridged elementary school version all public school kids have gotten for fifty years) did they present proof that plants possess color?  no, that would be like saying “would you like me to prove to you that i asked you if you’d like me to prove to you that i asked you would you like me to prove to you?”  Did they prove that green is a color? No, because you know you know green is a color.  Even if you are colorblind and can’t perceive it, you know that “green” is a color.  Did they prove to you that everyone sees “the same color” when they look at grass?  How many plants would they need to reference before you would believe the axiom “grass is green.”  Like two, and only for posterity and archaic practices that lost their value long ago.

 

Bertrand Russell

“lN DAILY LIFE, WE ASSUME AS CERTAIN MANY THINGS WHICH, ON A CLOSER SCRUTINY, ARE FOUND TO BE SO FULL OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS THAT ONLY A GREAT AMOUNT OF THOUGHT ENABLES US TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE REALLY MAY BELIEVE.”EVE.”

wp-1486292573652.jpg