Reply to the Response to Entry 91.

"You have no justification for attempting to distinguish between "absolute" and "limited" knowledge. The gist of my argument, the part which you cannot get around, is the fact that if the proposition is to be intelligible to me, I must understand who "we" or "I" am at some ordinary level. The knowledge I have that I am not a fish is knowledge. I do not claim or need to claim to understand what you mean by "absolute" and "limited" knowledge.

As far as I can tell, knowledge is knowledge. You claim that the "nature of knowledge" is "absolute" or "limited", then you blame me for not making the appropriate distinction of the kind of knowledge I claim to have of myself (either absolute or limited). I am in no way committed to having to make a distinction, and it is not clear to me that there is such a distinction. The very question of 'absolute' or 'limited' knowledge is irrelevant to my argument.

You must deny me that claim that I know I am not a fish. At first, you did not deny this. But then you defer the issue of knowledge to 'limited' or 'absolute' without recognizing that the condition that makes possible my understanding the proposition at all is an understanding that demands that I know *at some basic, ordinary level* what "we" or "I" means.

You demand (covertly) that I must have some deep, profound knowledge of myself--as you claim in your first response to me (by your use of the word "truly")., and in your second response to me (by your unjustified and vague distinction between 'absolute' and 'limited' knowledge). My point is very clear, reasonable, logical and true: I know I am not a fish. do you accept this or deny this?

If you deny this, then I suggest you examine the condition that makes possible your understanding of the statement "I know I am not a fish". It is clear as day, there is nothing complex to understand. I either know I am not a fish, or I do not know that I am not a fish.

If you accept that I know I am not a fish, then you must accept the condition that makes possible such knowledge.

Part of what makes such knowledge possible is that, in knowing I am not a fish, I must know at some level (it does not matter what level, or if it even makes sense to speak of 'levels' of knowledge) who or what I am. I do not clarify or explicate the knowledge of what I am. It is enough that I know what I am not--I know I am not a fish.

Most of your response to me does not address my major premise--that I know I am not a fish. Do you deny this? If you accept my knowledge claim, you must accept the consequences as well. By pretending my knowledge claim is somehow non-obvious, by introducing unjustified distinctions

My original argument is as good as ever. The major premise is obvious. By making the parts of the premise un-obvious, you create a problem that is not there. I'm not a fish, I know it, you know it. There is nothing complicated about that. Now if you wish to discuss the second part of my argument (which is also obvious), then go ahead. For now, I wish you realize that my knowledge that I am not a fish is knowledge plain and simple. I am correctly using the words (fish, knowledge, etc). If you have some bizarre concept of 'knowledge' (or 'fish'), then the 'contest' is entirely in bad faith.

PS I assume many people have probably already succeeded at "overcoming" your proposition--but the only way you could recognize the 'overcoming' of the proposition as the overcoming of the proposition is if you yourself already know the solution. (Read Plato's Meno). But there is nothing complex about the proposition.

What are the credentials of the people in charge of 'judging' this contest?"

Rick C August 23 2000

Response:

The problem with your challenge (ie. "I know I am not a fish", and therefore, I know at *some basic, ordinary level* what "we" or "I" means") is that it is so general, or open to interpretation, from your reluctance to clarify terms, that your challenge becomes unreasonable from vagueness.
Moreover, as we made clear in the definitions of the challenge proposition terms, a challenge reasonable within its own system of thought does not qualify as overcoming the challenge proposition. Challenges must be able to defend their positions against antagonistic arguments in order to be considered reasonable. Vagueness is not considered a reasonable defense.

To overcome the apparent vagueness of your challenge, you need to clarify the following:

1. What do you mean by "know"?

2. What is the conception of you yourself, at the so-called "basic, ordinary level", that allows you to know that you are not a fish?

3. By claiming to know what "we" or "I" means, are you claiming to know who you are? If so, how do you get around being who you are and knowing who you are at the same time?

In short, unlike earlier responses, we do not accept or deny that you know that you are not a fish, and therefore you know what "we" or "I" means, until you answer the questions above.

Also, your statement that "the only way we could recognize the overcoming of the proposition as the overcoming of the proposition is if we already know the solution", ignores our ability to reason, and thereby recognize the overcoming of the proposition. In other words, just because someone is not aware of the solution to a problem does not mean that he or she would overlook it if he or she were presented with the solution.

Finally, in our view, the credentials of the people "judging" the competition are irrelevant, and just as the credentials of the people entering the competition are as well. What matters are the reasons given and the competition itself. We suggest that you read the conditions for the competition, in which you will see the mechanisms in place to minimize the chances for human error.

93. Entry:

"First, define knowledge. This is NOT the same as your definition of "know" because "knowledge" and "to know" are two VERY different things.

First, I'll state what I don't agree with:

Premise (1), Conclusion (a), and Premise (3): I disagree because I believe there is no such thing as "knowledge itself". Knowledge is an accumulation of information, not a thing.

Premise (5), Premise (6), and Conclusion (e): Knowledge is NOT a form of language. Language is a label for a specific aspect of knowledge. Language is communication. Knowledge is information.

Premise (7): I disagree entirely here. I would go so far as to say we cannot know something without intrinsic CONNECTION to it.

And from there, I find your proof falls apart without the first few lines.

Let's try this YOUR way:

Definition, knowledge: that which is retained by all living beings through the process of learning.

Definition, learning: the process of accumulating and manipulating sensory information, as well as previously stored knowledge, and storing new information as knowledge.

Definition, sensory information: information passed to the human mind through senses

Definition, technology: that which is fabricated by humankind

Premise (1): all human beings have form

Premise (2): knowledge has no form

Conclusion (a): knowledge is separate from humanity

Premise (3): knowledge is an accumulation of information

Conclusion (b): there is no such thing as "knowledge itself", contrary to your Premise (1) and your Conclusion (a)

Premise (4): human senses are natural

Premise (5): learning is sensory based

Conclusion (c): learning is a natural process

Premise (6): a living organism's natural goal is survival

Premise (7): all of technology is based on our learning capabilities

Premise (8): technology has aided human survival

Conclusion (d): technology is NATURAL (something you don't seem to agree with)

Premise (9): our environment is constantly changing

Conclusion (e): adaptation is required for survival

Premise (10): technology is the adaptation of the human species through knowledge

Conclusion (f): technology is our natural defense to a naturally changing environment

Conclusion (g): we cannot survive without technology

Conclusion (h): we SHOULD NOT give up technology

Premise (11): technology is a part of knowledge

Premise (12): who we are is based on the knowledge we have accumulated

Conclusion (i): technology is a part of who we are

Premise (13): knowledge need not be communicated in order to be known

Premise (14): knowledge is based on perception

Premise (15): human perception is individualized and imperfect

Conclusion (j): we cannot know anything for sure EXCEPT who we are

Conclusion (k): your proposition is false"

Marc Reside August 24 2000

Response:

We agree that there is no such thing as knowledge itself. Premise (1), conclusion (a), and Premise (3), from the Proof support this position.

If knowledge is an "accumulation of information", what is behind the "accumulation of information"? Could knowledge, and information, be an empty form, since we assert that knowledge itself is non-existent?!

How can you distinguish between language and knowledge, since they both require each other to exist? (ie. knowledge is a form of language such as a word or symbol, and at the same time a form of knowledge with specific meaning, just as language is a word or symbol and a form of knowledge with specific meaning.)

It appears that your claim that "we cannot know something without intrinsic connection", contradicts your other claims that "knowledge is separate from humanity", and "knowledge is non-existent.

If technology is "fabricated by humankind", are you asserting that our learning capabilities, the basis for technology, are 'fabrication capabilities'?

It does not follow that all living organisms (ie. unconscious organisms) are conscious of so-called natural goals like survival.

Further, it does not make sense that technology will always aid human survival, because as you assert, knowledge and technology are separate from humanity, which implies that by existing through knowledge and technology, we are gradually diminuting ourselves. Moreover, by existing through technology, it appears that we are shielding ourselves from having to exist directly for ourselves, and thereby making ourselves weaker in relation to unconscious nature.

Yes, we agree that adaptation is required for survival, but it does not follow that adaptation always results in survival.

Yes, advancing in technology appears to be form of human adaptation, just as biological changes in us through the use of technology are as well.

Yes, technology has become our natural defense to the changing environment, and yet because of its separation from ourselves and our dependency on it, technology appears to have become a natural weakness of ourselves as well.

We agree that we cannot survive without technology. Though it does not follow that we would always be dependent on technology for survival. In our view, we think we have no choice than to exist without technology, thus stop our diminution through it.

How can technology be part of who we are as you claim in conclusion (i), and yet knowledge, the basis for technology, is separate from who we are?

How can we know who we are for certain, when "knowledge is separate from humanity"? How can we know anything for certain, when knowledge apparently bottoms out into an unknown?

We assert that your claim that "we cannot know anything for certain EXCEPT who we are", is incorrect, because as you assert, "knowledge itself is non-existent" and "separate from humanity" or who we are.

94. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 92.

"2. What is the conception of you yourself, at the so-called "basic, ordinary level", that allows you to know that you are not a fish?" (Excerpt from Response)

This question shows that you are still not recognizing the point of departure of my argument. I do not assert out of the blue that I know who I am. I assert that I know I am not a fish.

*IF* I know that I am not a fish, THEN what condition makes this knowledge possible?

It MUST be possible for me to know as some level who/what I am for me to know that I am not a fish.

Your responses to me suggest that I claim knowledge of myself, therefore, I can claim to know that I am not a fish. That reverses my reasoning.

My approach is a combination of Kant and Heidegger. I begin with the ordinary understanding of the proposition and take the condition that makes possible my ordinary understanding.

Your comments also suggest that I need to explain what I mean by knowledge (that I am vague in my understanding of 'knowledge'). I do not need to explain what knowledge is because all of us already know what knowledge is in the sense that I know I am not a cat.

At least your position is more reasonable than your previous positions in that you no longer accept that I know I am not a cat. This is a big concession on your part, one to which (you only now realize) you are committed to if you wish to deny my overcoming of your proposition. Now I think that you need to justify your claim to all other contestants that my knowledge that I am not a fish is not knowledge you either accept or deny.

Again, I appeal to our ordinary understanding of what counts as knowledge. Any other understanding of what counts as knowledge is doomed to being contrived, limited, and simply not applicable to our ordinary understanding of what counts as knowledge. I do not have to explain what I mean by 'knowledge' because it is the same thing that you mean when somebody asks you, "do you know what time the movie starts?" "do you know what the capital of Texas is?" Our ordinary understanding of what counts as knowledge is not in need of explanation or interpretation. It is ordinary. Again, the strength of my position is the obviousness of my claims.

If you think that the ordinary understanding of knowledge (or any part of my argument) is too 'general' and 'open to interpretation', then I must simply say that it is a vacuous response, since it can be said of any proposition. If I were to use some non-ordinary understanding of a word, then I would need to justify that use. But in using the ordinary use of words (along with logic and a little bit of Kant and Heidegger), I do not put myself in a position to have to explain what I mean by any word I use--I use them as we all use them all the time.

There should be no need for anyone to have to respond to your proposition with a non-ordinary use of words. One must not need to go on and on explaining what one means by a word because that word can be "open to interpretation". Any explanation would likewise be open to interpretation. Appealing to a simple, ordinary use of words (as I do) should not place the burden on me to explain what is ordinary and obvious.

To restate the most important point I wish to make--the order of my argument begins with the claim that I know I am not a fish. This is step #1. If you accept this, then you must accept the condition that makes my knowledge that I am not a fish possible--step #2, that I know at some level what/who I am such that I know I am not a fish. The claim that I have some kind of knowledge of myself is a necessary consequence.

I do NOT (as your responses suggest) go from an unjustified step#2 to step #1.

So the question remains---Do you accept or deny that I know that I am not a fish?

It should be clear as day. You either really do think that I know that I am not a fish, or you do not think that I know that I am not a fish.

I suggest you accept the obvious and find an alternative way of defusing my argument. As it is, it stands for all reasonable people who understand the ordinary uses of words."

Rick C August 24 2000

Response:

The same problem with your challenge still exists as in earlier entries, namely that your challenge is overly vague, and therefore the conclusion you make from your premise does not necessarily follow. In other words, you conclude that "It MUST be possible for me to know as some level who/what I am for me to know that I am not a fish", and yet it does not follow that it MUST be possible for you to know as some level who/what you are, because you may have a limited conception of who/what you are that allows you to know from your limited perspective, that you are not a fish. Hence, your conclusion, with its absolute term (ie. "MUST"), is unreasonable.

Another problem with your challenge is that you appear to be assuming that the premise, "I know that I am not a fish" is absolute, or something you really know, rather than something you know from your limited perspective. It leads you to conclude that you MUST know who/what you are. To maintain this position, you remain vague about what you mean by "know" by relying on general labels like "ordinary understanding of knowledge". Also, your examples of knowing like "the time the movie starts" and "the capital of Texas" does not help, because we look at your examples as knowledge only certain within a system(s) of thought, which Kant who you claim to be using, would agree with. (ie. "noumenon") Does our view of the limited nature of knowledge constitute an ordinary view of knowledge? Does it matter? No. We are after reasonableness from ordinary and non-ordinary perspectives. (You are in the wrong competition, if you expect us to judge solely on so-called ordinary perspectives.)

A further problem with your challenge is that the sequence of your argument does not make sense. First, you begin with the premise that "I know I am not a fish", without claiming to know who/what you are. Yet, to make the claim (ie. that you know), it follows that you must have a conception of who/what you are, which allows you to compare yourself to a fish, and therefore claim that you know you are not a fish. However, by not conceding this point, your claim changes to:

I believe I am not a fish.

Hence, your step #2, "I know at some level who/what I am" collapses, because your step #1 is not contingent on knowing who you are. (ie. your conclusion may be supported by faith or a guess without knowing who/what you are.)

Finally, another problem with your challenge is that you do not answer the challenge question, how can we know who we are, and instead, you make a vague claim that you know something, and conclude through the claim that you really know who you are. Many people can make similar premises and conclude that they really know something from it. Yet, it is another thing to actually support and defend a claim through clarity and reasonableness, rather than vagueness, against antagonistic arguments.

In consideration of the unresolved problems listed above, we have ruled that your challenge has not reasonably overcome the challenge proposition. In other words, based on your challenge now made up of four entries, we deny that you have reasonable shown that you really know who you are, and accept that you have reasonably shown that you know, from a limited perspective, who you are.

95. Entry:

"Knowledge is flux, being is flux, the two interact in a wholly chaotic fashion. To ascribe arbitrary meaning to arbitrary 'knowledge' or arbitrary 'being' at any point in time is meaningless. Everything is in flux. At the precise moment (if such a thing as 'moment' even exists) that knowledge and being interact, we ascribe arbitrary meaning, but in vain. The moment has fleetingly passed, and we grasp in vain at our loss. To comfort ourselves we then ascribe arbitrary meaning to knowledge, which meaning is not there. To comfort ourselves from this arbitrary knowledge, we then ascribe arbitrary meaning to being, which meaning is also not there. We are ourselves caught in the endless cycle of chaos with which we try to find meaning.

Just as you claim that some ascribe meaning to knowledge which has none, you seem to ascribe meaning to being, which also has none.
You asked me once how can our being be in a state of flux, and still be a basis? My answer is that there is no basis, just a chaotic flux 'entity', which you seem want to ascribe meaning, or 'basis' to. The word 'basis' itself is unfortunate, as our being is certainly not static. The only thing that is certain is change, including our being. There is only the ether, and chaos.

We search in the darkness for arbitrary being, and make propositions (such as yours) that are totally meaningless. Even these vain propositions themselves are an expression of the chaos, and the encompassing darkness, because they are arbitrary, and subject to change. They are also chaos, and have no meaning.

My answer to "overcoming the proposition", whatever that might mean, is that the moment any entities in flux -for example 'being' and 'knowledge' interact, the proposition is overcome. Chaos is its own master. It interacts where it interacts. And when it interacts, knowledge and being become one-thus the proposition is overcome. But this doesn't mean we can partake of that interaction. But 'overcoming the proposition' doesn’t require that we influence this interaction, it only requires that it happens. The moment comes and goes without our being in any way able to influence it, it passes as soon as we vainly try and grasp it, whether in propositions or otherwise."

Signed-An entity in flux. August 24 2000

Response:

If knowledge and being are in flux, how can we know for certain that "everything is in flux"? Certainty implies static, and yet as mentioned you claim that there is no such thing as static.

If all knowledge is arbitrary, why is your arbitrary knowledge about flux and chaos less arbitrary than Garvey’s knowledge about being and knowledge?

You claim that when being and knowledge interact, they become one, and then we know who we are, and yet how can we know anything in such a state, since everything we know is in oneness? In other words, how can we know without separation from what we know?

Moreover, you claim that the moment of knowing who we are comes and goes so that we cannot grasp it, though in that "moment" we know who we are without knowing that we do, because our knowledge is who we are. However, your claim does not make sense because we cannot get outside of our minds, and we cannot know something (ie. knowledge) solely through itself, so whatever we know knowledge itself as, even in the "moment", is not knowledge itself, or the oneness of being and knowledge.

Also, because we do not simply know, and instead we know through what we know, it does not follow how in a passing moment, we can know who we are.

We assert that in your proposed moment of being and knowledge interaction that we cease to know, because we are in a state of oneness.

96. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 87.

"Once I had a dream and saw jewelry crafted in such a way as to go beyond the beauty I could grasp with my mind, an experience of wholeness. Many times in life I've had experiences of superhuman strength/wholeness. I've had many insights/wholeness. The experiencing of wholeness is shocking/enlightening. It is an outside and inside force/intelligence which acts with amazing unlimited power and ability. You can't understand/grasp it, but it is there and does something for you, with you, and in you. You can know when you're in wholeness simply because you are there/one, you just can't grasp it own your own.

When not in wholeness relationships are the only way to see ourselves. By learning to be attentive to ourselves/egos in observing it in all our relationships of life. To find out how attentive you've been simply watch yourself on film in live interaction with whatever. You'll see some very strange things. This is why we must get to know ourselves/egos so that we can end the untruth/evil and regret/misery in our lives.

A relationship with the creator is experiencing wholeness. When in wholeness we can see the truth about many things. For Einstein it was physics, Picasso-paining, Bruce Lee-punching, Jesus and Buddha and Krishnamurti-the simple truth. So, by allowing us to see and live in the truth/wholeness the creator allows us to know who we are. We come to believe it is the truth because when we apply the knowledge to our lives it works and the rewards are there. The ego/self gains wisdom of these things in this way.

How could we possibly know what the creator can and cannot do? I've come to believe the creator could do anything we can think up. You know, it seems to me like mankind can almost create who he is from who he is. Cloning.

" ....In fact, based on the apparent emptiness of thought itself, and "creator" being a conscious phenomenon, it appears that there is no creator, in terms of creation through mind, of our existence." (Excerpt from Response)

That's your perspective now. It was mine once, before I got to know myself and my maker. I didn't make any of this up, no fabrication, just simply what I've seen and experienced."

Kevin Ward August 26 2000

Response:

How does "[being] there/one" allow you to know that you are experiencing "wholeness"? When you saw the jewelry crafted beyond any beauty you could grasp with your mind, how did you know you were experiencing wholeness? Perhaps, you experienced something that was beyond your individual comprehension, which you interpreted as experiencing wholeness?

How can we know wholeness through introspection and external observation of ourselves? How can we know we are in a whole or non-whole relationship, if we have no way of knowing wholeness?

Further, even though humankind can almost create who we are from who we are, the fact remains that as far as we know, humankind cannot create life. Rather, it can only manipulate already existing life.
When you assert that the creator can do anything we can "think up", are you implying that the creator can do anything we think or imagine, or anything we know how to do? If it is the latter, it follows that the creator cannot create who it is through it is, nor can it allow us to know who we are while being who we are. If it is the former, then your assertion is unreasonable, because surely the creator cannot become the creator of the creator, or prove beyond doubt the non-existence of himself. In other words, if anything is possible, it does not follow how we can reconcile contradictory thoughts.

97. Entry:

"Due to the fact that all objects and beings change through the course of time, in some cases seconds and others years, no matter what the case, the human mind is constantly wondering in an aimless space and time frame to which we think about all things and nothing at all. Therefore we are constantly changing so we cannot know who we are due to the change of mind and anything that affects us in the course of our change, for example change in environments will constitute and change in our minds, even if the change is futile. In the same time and space frame though we have a sense of what we are due to instinct, human. No matter what the change in our state of mind, we always have the constant of some repeating thought that gives us a false sense of knowing who we are when at the same time other thoughts change, creating a change in our being, thus proving that we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time."

Scott Sanders August 26 2000

Response:

How does "instinct" give us a sense that we are "human"? In other words, what is it about "instinct" that makes us think we are "human"?

Could the "repeating thought that gives us a false sense of knowing who we are", be the thought of "I", or at the least the conception of identity through "I"?

How do changes in our thoughts cause change in our being, if being is the basis for our thoughts? If being is not the basis for our thoughts, what is?

Entries 86-91 Entries 98-104