...but that confidence in our beliefs can elevate--internally--those beliefs to something that we call "knowledge." In that way, we can see that while the one can affect the other, they are not synonymous in any way. Finally, while I agree with all six equations, I don't think that all of them are applicable to what I wrote.
You seem to be suggesting that belief + confidence = knowledge (sometimes referred to as justified-true-belief).
I consider knowledge to be everything we know. Basically data. Knowledge is not necessarily "true" or "false", it's simply neutral data.
I'm glad you technically agree on my proposed glossary of terms, think of them more as attempts to stake out common ground (to facilitate further discussion) and less as specific counterfactuals aimed directly at your comments.
When you say that one's humanity is verifiable and that one's love of pizza is not, you are--it seems--relying on outside perceptions to determine the existence of both proof and fallacy.
I'm drawing a bright line between the realm of science (Quantifiable) and the realm of private personal experience (Qualitative).
Only the Quantifiable can be considered provably true or provably false.
What is Qualitative is pure opinion and carries no "truth value" and cannot be properly considered "true" or "false".
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
If I did not believe in my own existence, I would have to look to others to prove that I am real, which places the verifiable truth of me in external hands.
Let's just jump right into the classical problem of identity.
You can only be absolutely 100% certain of logical tautologies.
For example, there can be no such thing as "nothingness", therefore, everything I know and perceive is "somethingness".
It is possible to doubt one's own "humanness" but it is logically impossible to doubt one's own existence.
Also, 100% confidence in one's perception is neither justified nor required in order to take effective action.
Generally, perception is our best source of data.
Even (IFF) we are immersed in a hypothetical solipsistic dream, even (THEN) the scientific method is still the most reliable method of gathering data.
The efficacy of the scientific method is not affected by the solipsistic dream hypothesis.
Can I prove that I love pizza? That's a toughie. Where is the line drawn?
Your love of pizza is unfalsifiable. You might convince me that your love of pizza is sincere with a compelling emotional demonstration or an impassioned plea, but there is no way to "prove" it.
It is a category error to even attempt to assign any "truth value" to a purely Qualitative opinion.
This is totally cool. There is no one around here with whom I can have this kind of "conversation." However, it's Saturday (errand day), and I can't take the two or three hours that I would require to give this the reply that it merits.
Still, I can't resist one observation: The difference between inner and outer reality. Science looks at the outer reality, that which is quantifiable, as the final word. If nothing else, duplicability requires it.
But inner reality must be satisfied before outer reality is. That is, if I observe something and decide that it represents my reality of the moment, the "test" that I have applied is not quantifiable because it is not repeatable by another individual. My decision that it meets my standards of reality are completely personal. It really comes down to perspective. The individual who contends that outer reality is the "true" reality sups more from the scientific plate; the claim that inner reality is the "true" reality belongs more to the realm of the philosopher.
Okay, one more thing. There are pathologies in which an individual is convinced that he or she doesn't exist. The most extreme one that I have found is called variously Cotard delusion and Cotard's syndrome. It is contradictory to say--and believe--"I do not exist," yet, it happens; your statement that it is logically impossible to doubt one's own existence makes perfect (logical) sense, but humans don't always make sense.
When I now say "find the flaws," I am not being snide. I have a great deal to learn and every time I read something that you write, I have to spend hours figuring out what you mean and how I can counter it. It isn't just that it's "totally cool" but that it's totally educational as well.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Qualitative, personal, experiential, imaginary, internal perception is the source of all meaningfulness.
Quantitative, verifiable, scientific, true, extant, factual reality is necessarily emotionally meaningless.
Intuitively we often conflate what is "real" with what is "meaningful" when actually they are mutually exclusive.
What is real cannot be meaningful (in and of itself) and what is meaningful cannot be real.
Standards of true and false only apply to our "shared external scientific" space where we need to negotiate standards of true and false.
Internal Qualitative experience is not "less true" than shared Quantitative reality. It is simply not held to the same standard (it has no truth value). It is unfalsifiable.
In the same way that "red" is not properly described as "less blue".
It's something else completely.
People can doubt their existence, but it doesn't make them disappear. This makes their belief provably false.
It is however, perfectly valid to doubt one's own meaningfulness.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit