The information contained in your post would suggest otherwise.

Has BTM2 hacked your account? This is coming in at about his level. You're welcome to continue the conversation with neeeel, and I encourage you to do so.

heh, are u saying Im on a low enough level to engage him ?

Well, at least this selective quote wraps it up nicely.

You offer little substance. You argue, but offer no opinion on which to assess the expertise in you that you accuse others of lacking. You claim you do not say I am wrong, yet you repeatedly offer assessment of how poor the presented views are, how poorly they are researched, how my contemplation is poor and how little they coincide wih the accepted views.

What is the accepted view? What is the good research? How should it be contemplated? How should it be presented.

Please answer this, and show neeel, the unfortunate bystander, how this should be done - and display why your judgments on this issue are valuable.

Thanks. I'm glad you approve of my assessment. Welcome back, and change your password.

If I hold you to any particular understood standard of "knowledge" then you're wrong. But "wrong" here is relative to those definitions. I invited you from the start to provide your own definition, and you refused for an extended period of time. I gave a clear assessment of the misalignment between your concept and the standard concepts. I don't know how you could not be understanding this.

Maybe you don't even know what "right" and "wrong" mean relative to your own concepts? I have to agree to your definition first before you can know anything, right?

And in your only attempt to support your concept with external sources that actually speak directly to "knowledge" were SEP and wikipedia. You were not able to demonstrate that support, and I maintain that this support is not there.

After your long post, I asked you to provide a link to support your neuroscientific concept of knowledge. And you didn't do that, either.

You said SEP. You said wikipedia. This is what you suggested I read to find support for you. You took a neuroscience view. I'm not as deep into the neuroscience, so I asked for a reference. You gave none. What is the most reasonable conclusion based on these efforts?

Wait no longer.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Here, as we're discussing a definition, "proof" lies in the realm of commonly understood definitions in the appropriate field. For example, if I say "knowledge is justified true belief" then I can "prove" that claim by pointing to the SEP article on epistemology that includes that statement and an explanation of support as to why this concept is appropriate.

This doesn't prove that "knowledge is justified true belief" is the "right" way to define knowledge, it just proves that the concept has been accepted in that form by the appropriate academic field.

Standard conceptions of knowledge contain some form of consistency with an objective reality (objective = mind independent, not whatever you mean by it). Standard conceptions of knowledge have something to do with the concept of "belief." Some problems are addressed by the quality of reasoning. Your concept has none of these. This makes it of dubious value relative to the common concepts.

Your claim: "Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms." You have provided no "proof" that this concept of knowledge is broadly accepted, despite being given multiple opportunities to support that claim in some way.

Therefore, in my judgment, your definition should not be accepted by me as being one that is broadly accepted within the appropriate field. It's certainly not accepted as part of a standard epistemological definition. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that I should accept it as a neuroscience definition. It's not my job to find it. You made the claim; you provide the supporting evidence.

You can dispute this easily: Find a neuroscience definition of "knowledge" that clearly points to "an agreement of terms" as the starting point. Not some vague narrative about how people think, but something that you would find in a textbook.

Your move. Take up the first of your burdens and prove that you have some worth in this conversation.

I think probably the closest link to a discussion of the view tame_deuces is talking about is this SEP article about Wittgenstein's view of language.

Well it is a lot of words to say little, but at least it is progress:

Some comments:
A) No, objectivity does not mean mind independent. This is the classical philosophical view, which I have stated every time it should not be confused with. In research objectivity means qualified agreement and the ideal that subjective bias should be removed as much as possible.
B) Swarm intelligence and social constructivism are central views in the neuroscience and social science respectively. Both have been named and commented upon by me.
C) You did not start off by asking for definitions, you did this in your 5th reply to me. You started off by telling me how little I must have contemplated the issue.

As for the rest... There is no agreed upon neuroscientific definition of knowledge, for the same reason there is no agreed upon neuroscientific definition of blue. Knowledge in psychology means pretty much its everyday meaning, because it does not exist as an isolated phenomena in the brain (as a minimum it is a combination the interaction between perception, cognition, memory, language and emotion - which all do stem from specific brain regions ) and therefore doesn't really need an operationalized definition.

Thanks for the link. This is a genuinely interesting argument. It seems I will finally have to man up and read Wittgenstein.

My first response was "eh?" as an inquiry for you to explain yourself. You responded insultingly, and I followed in kind. You defined it in terms of a technical usage of the word, but you did not describe which technical usage you were intending. I reached my conclusion on the basis of the words on the screen, and you suggested psychic powers.

There are many cases in which one could make the successful argument of "you went crazy first." But not this one.

Thank you. Without realizing it, you've undone virtually everything you had set up, thus showing the absurdity of your position. Even the "Private Language" argument doesn't really support where you've been.

You've declared your definition of knowledge to be non-technical. Since your usage of the word does not actually conform to the non-technical usage of the word, I can declare with confidence that your usage of the word is wrong. Perhaps the "Private Language Argument" might save you, but having read OrP's link and having read what you've said, I put a lot of weight on the "closest link" phrasing as being interpreted as "Kind of this, but not really."

I'm content with the belief that your concept of knowledge is irreconcilable with everything you've stated. You've created sufficient contradiction and nonsense that even if you have considered the topic carefully, you haven't done so successfully.

1. I read something.
2. ???
3. You're dumb

Well, thanks for that lesson in reasoning and laying out arguments. Hopefully I'll manage to live up to such high standards in the future.

I see you're still trying to shift the burden of proof. Aspiring to an argument at this level would be a stretch for you. It may take you several years to get to the point of even being able to find the post where I laid out my argument, let alone understand what it says. Maybe you should start with something simpler.

Tell me what you think it is in the "Private Language Argument" that *ACTUALLY* supports one of the three claims I've questioned. Here they are again for reference.

1) Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms.
2) Knowledge has never been observed in a system that does not share agents capable of communication.
3) Knowledge without the transference of information is, as fas as we know, impossible.

You haven't come up with a single statement to support any of these claims. You have yet to provide a meaningful description of your concept of knowledge. You haven't done much of anything, really. (And I really haven't even challenged you on the sentence that followed your first claim yet, either. Do you realize how much work you have left to do with your argumentation?)

Edit: Here are the two sentences side by side again, just so you can bask in the glory of what you wrote:

I'm not really following. Would you mind pointing out where have I used this "private language argument"?

Please be specific. You have asserted many times in this thread that my reasoning is poor, that my level of contemplation is poor, that I'm not consistent and that I am contradicting myself. Such strong characterizations should atleast put the burden on you to have actually read what I have written.

I mean, It would be rather embarrassing if you're merely arguing against your own caricature.

If you're not using it to support your position, that's fine. I don't think it does, but you seemed interested in it. Maybe you aren't interested in it as support for your position, but as a potential replacement for it because you're seeing it fall apart in front of you.

I've met my burden of responsibility. Now it's time for you to meet yours.

Since you responded before I was able to throw out the two sentences, I'll give them here as well:

"Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms. Religion survives by being rather flexible when it comes to those terms."

I've challenged your definition of knowledge as being meaningful. I think it's absurd because you're trying to be simultaneously technical and non-technical. That's a contradiction. You've claimed it's supported by SEP and wikipedia. It's not. That's a false claim.

But let's say that I accept that your description is meaningful. you've yet to explain how you get from one to the other.

You're really arguing against yourself. I keep quoting what you're saying, and you keep avoiding it. You have yet to address yourself by taking up your burden of responsibility in the argument. It starts from your claim. You haven't supported it with anything. Not with a definition, or with an explanation, or even with a discussion. You've provided no evidence that you've considered your argument and no evidence that one should see your argument as being successful.

If Person A makes a claim, Person B asks that person to explain the claim, and Person A can't do it, what is the most reasonable conclusion that Person B should reach about Person A's level of cognitive engagement with the claim that was made and the quality of the claim itself?

I am interested in it. The remainder of this sounds dangerously close to a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, onto this:

Those are harsh judgments. Would you mind pointing out where I made this claim? Again, be specific. You are after all the one who has carried the torch for contemplation, reasoning, consistency and burden of proof.

Here is what you said in full, emphasis mine:

The statement here seems to suggest to me that I would be surprised that someone would state something on their own or without consulting a resource. Presumably, one would not have to consult a resource because they are already familiar with that material and believe it to be consistent with that material. This is especially true if one is claiming that the presentation is somehow consistent with what already exists (specifically, that words mean what people expect them to mean).

Now, you're welcome to correct me on that. Maybe you're saying that I would be surprised that someone would just make up stuff as they go and say things that don't fit at all into the scheme of information that already exists. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. But I don't know why I should take such a presentation seriously.

You stated that I had made the claim that my use of knowledge coincided with the SEP/Wikipedia. Even a very gracious understanding of your statement is not supported by what you quote here. I'm not saying I necessarily think there is a conflict, but I haven't read the SEP or Wiki articles on knowledge in a long time, and since both those works change frequently I always check before making direct claims regarding their articles.

Anyway, jumping to two big and erroneous assessments, one even used to call me a liar, does not reflect well on grandstanding contemplation and consistency.

I'll leave it at that. Have a nice day.

Do you think what you've said is in conflict or not? After accusing me of not making affirmative claims, I've started to make affirmative claims to move the conversation forward. Now it's your turn.

Is your concept of knowledge consistent with standard epistemology or not?

As an aside, I will demonstrate the progression of my statements to show how I left opportunity for you to address the SEP/wikipedia statement over time. Your repeated non-admission to using a non-standard concept was eventually taken as support for the idea that you really do think you're consistent with standard resources.

I've given you plenty of opportunity to speak up about your definitions and consistency. You never did, and so I filled in the blanks. If after several dozen posts you haven't responded to a repeated issue like this, I don't mind being shown wrong in an assumption such as that.

Essentially what you're saying is that in your 5-page posting torrent criticizing me for my lack of contemplation, consistency and reasoning, you don't mind being wrong about accusing me of false claims. I have many bad sides, lying is not one of them. I have no patience for being called a liar by an internet persona who does not live up to his own expressed standards.

As for the rest, maybe you should take a step back and breathe deeply. It is obvious at this point that you are too busy tilting at windmills.

Correct. If you proceed as if you're using language in a standard way, and you don't ever tell me you're not using language in a standard way despite repeated requests to clarify your language, I'm going to assume you're telling me that you're using language in a standard way. It's not an unreasonable thing to do.

In context, the standard way is the way that it appears in the knowledge articles of wikipedia/SEP or a dictionary definition. You brought up wikipedia/SEP as something you felt you didn't need to bother checking, presumably because you felt it was already consistent with what you were saying. (Edit: Were you really bringing it up to say "I'm making this stuff up as I go and I could be all over the place" instead of "I don't need to check, I know what I'm talking about"?)

I care little about your patience for being called a liar. There were many other things I could have called you over the duration of the conversation. I never claimed to be perfect, and have admitted I can be wrong in my assessments at multiple points during the thread.

Being wrong doesn't bother me. Why should it? I'm perfectly capable of admitting it. You never actually said explicitly that your claims were supported by SEP/wikipedia.

Nah. Your two sentences together make no sense (not these, but the ones at the start of the conversation which I requested for you to clarify), and the rest that followed demonstrate that you're merely obstinate and you have lacked of intellectual engagement in the discussion, and it seems to reveal a lack of careful thought on the topic. I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point.

Vintage Aaron ITT. This is an awesome opener to a "debate".

My opener was "Eh?"

That was my first rebuttal.

Vintage Aaron continues. You are truly the master of both nitpicks and condescension. When they come together to be condescension over a nitpick it gives me goosebumps it is so awesome.

As none of them are plausible, I disagree with your stated thesis.

Eh, idk. A unicorn is more plausible than, say, a centaur wizard with laser eyes and immortality.