Is consciousness the same as knowledge?

Alright Dean, rational (and even irrational?) agents act on information, I'll give you that -- but THAT (the acting) doesn't make it knowledge, because the information could be false.

Your definition of knowledge -- while intellectually esthetic -- appears to be unable to account for fact-contradicting (ie. wrong) information. According to your def'n, the acting on -- and processing of -- information is what it is that makes the information: 'knowledge' -- rather than whether or not the information has a factual basis or not. And that's unsettling to me.

Ed

Post 41

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 2:28am

You failed to actually say something that is rationally addressable.

Ed, here you sound like a respectless Randroid. (With a grain of salt: I don't think you actually are an ARI-programmed computer.)

This futuristic scenario begs a key question -- that it is possible for an electronic chip to "feel" like it is a human. In doing so (in begging this key question without ANY evidence), this scenario has crossed over into "the arbitrary."

Of course that may be annoying to you, but it's is not "arbitrary". It is a "thought experiment-like" hypotesis made by Mr. Poundstone in his Labyrinths of Reason.

The key question here does not relate to your hypertrophic need for self-assurance, but to the limits of human knowledge: you can't know very much about the simulation capabilities of XXXth Century computers.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/08, 3:30am)

Post 42

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:05am

Dean stated:

I don't like the definition of knowledge that so many people use: "justified true belief".

Science --scientia is the Latin word for "knowledge"-- works in the basis of justified beliefs. When having to choose between two medical treatments, one with a 51% of success probability and another one with a 49%, we must try the former one. The selection is justified.

The apparent truthfulness of justified beliefs may eventually change over time --e.g., the (currently considered) false belief of Heliocentrism had been considered a justified true belief.

That definition of knowledge does not bring the utopia of total certainty, but has been amply justified by the resounding success of science.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/08, 3:27am)

Post 43

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6:04am

Ed,

Why does allowing the definition of knowledge to include false information make you feel unsettled?

It seems silly to me to define knowledge as only true information. Then I can't be sure whether the majority of things I think about are knowledge or not (are the majority of things I think about consistent with Reality?).

Lets say I told you my eyes are blue while talking over the phone. Do you now have knowledge about my eyes? Then you tell others that "Dean's eyes are blue." Now other people know that my eyes are blue, right?

Yet, my eyes are green. There must have been some kind of mis-communication over the phone. These other people know my eyes are blue, but they know false information!

Why is this unsettling?

Post 44

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 9:48am

Dean, because the purpose of the concept: knowledge -- is to differentiate things known from the concept: opinion (ie. from believed things which can be false). That's why we have the concept: knowledge -- because we can be wrong in our beliefs.

Ed

Post 45

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 9:54am

Joel,

==================

This futuristic scenario begs a key question -- that it is possible for an electronic chip to "feel" like it is a human. In doing so (in begging this key question without ANY evidence), this scenario has crossed over into "the arbitrary."

based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Post 46

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:18pm