Knowledge

[AshvinP]

How do you figure time and space are not experienced?

I mis-wrote.. it should have said .. time and space are not perceived. Off course they are experienced, otherwise you and I would not talk about it

Every experience of a 'particular object' is experience of qualia.

I would say that the "qualia" would be the sense data (and feelings) ... which are not particular to any object. If they ignite a concept ... like "elephant" ... then that is the object, but it is not perceived, but rather cognized, from (internal) concepts !!

The experience of the concept also possesses qualia, including feelings. Under idealism, there is no difference between what you perceive/conceive and what exists in reality.

[Mandibil]

The experience of the concept also possesses qualia, including feelings.

I would disagree. Sense data (qualia?) organised in a perception, in my opinion, ignites concepts in a cognition. Certain combinations of sense data will ignite certain concepts. Feelings on the other hands are ignited from the concepts. It may be that some sense data alone create a mood or a mental state of bliss or something. But important emotions, imo, are ignited from specific concepts

Under idealism, there is no difference between what you perceive/conceive and what exists in reality.

That is some claim You need to unpack that for me

[AshvinP]

The experience of the concept also possesses qualia, including feelings.

I would disagree. Sense data (qualia?) organised in a perception, in my opinion, ignites concepts in a cognition. Certain combinations of sense data will ignite certain concepts. Feelings on the other hands are ignited from the concepts. It may be that some sense data alone create a mood or a mental state of bliss or something. But important emotions, imo, are ignited from specific concepts

And you agree that 'important emotions' are qualitative experiences (qualia), right?

Under idealism, there is no difference between what you perceive/conceive and what exists in reality.

That is some claim You need to unpack that for me

Under idealism, all of reality is conscious activity. Perceptions and thoughts (which, btw, cannot be separated) are subsets of conscious activity. So therefore they are real. Put another way, there can be no forms of conscious activity which are not real under idealism.

[Mandibil]

And you agree that 'important emotions' are qualitative experiences (qualia), right?

If I imagine a tiger, I will not have the same "emotions" as if I have the impression of a tiger. The second one will ignite an array of emotions, the first one won't. That is why I am working from a connection between concepts, in the impression form, and emotions. Imaginations that only make you feel and not act, are less important to me atm from a philosophical pov.

Under idealism, all of reality is conscious activity

I will disagree. I would call reality that which is realized. And that would be what is known. The rest is not reality, just a useful "scaffold" for getting to knowledge

[AshvinP]

And you agree that 'important emotions' are qualitative experiences (qualia), right?

If I imagine a tiger, I will not have the same "emotions" as if I have the impression of a tiger. The second one will ignite an array of emotions, the first one won't. That is why I am working from a connection between concepts, in the impression form, and emotions. Imaginations that only make you feel and not act, are less important to me atm from a philosophical pov.

They may not be the same emotions or as intense, but they are still feelings which are qualia. And if you meet a tiger in a dream, the emotions and intensity will be closer to meeting a tiger when awake.

Under idealism, all of reality is conscious activity

I will disagree. I would call reality that which is realized. And that would be what is known. The rest is not reality, just a useful "scaffold" for getting to knowledge

Do you agree that you have experiences which are you are not aware of? If so, are those experiences unreal because you do not know you are having them?

[Mandibil]

If I imagine a tiger, I will not have the same "emotions" as if I have the impression of a tiger. The second one will ignite an array of emotions, the first one won't. That is why I am working from a connection between concepts, in the impression form, and emotions. Imaginations that only make you feel and not act, are less important to me atm from a philosophical pov.

They may not be the same emotions or as intense, but they are still feelings which are qualia. And if you meet a tiger in a dream, the emotions and intensity will be closer to meeting a tiger when awake.

Dreams are kind of non-meta-conscious aspects of mind, and I hesitate to compare that to waken meta-conscious aspects.

Under idealism, all of reality is conscious activity

I will disagree. I would call reality that which is realized. And that would be what is known. The rest is not reality, just a useful "scaffold" for getting to knowledge

Do you agree that you have experiences which are you are not aware of? If so, are those experiences unreal because you do not know you are having them?

Awareness is another term for meta-conscious right ? Consciousness i believe is way larger than the meta-conscious, because the meta rationalises what is "worth" being aware of. It may not be worth it but I believe there is a selection of cognised concepts compared to environment and needs (urges).
(Also I find that our discussion is too far from the original question. (it is not a chicken out thing, if you wanna go down this road, start i thread in general discus)

[wmngreer]

Plato taught that the common view of learning is wrong. As I understand him (but in my words), he taught that learning is impossible. Instead, learning is actually an act of remembering what we've known all along.

That is, before this life we were virtually omniscient, but when we were born we completely forgot that knowledge. As we grow and engage the world, our knowledge "fog" begins to clear (ever so slightly) and continues to do so until we develop or encounter some adversity that diminishes our ability to know.

When we "learn" something we are actually encountering a "rift" in the dense fog of our awareness. These "rifts" are triggered by various (probably unidentifiable) events in life that prompt our recall. That is, when we develop from ignorance to knowledge we do so via a series of epiphanies.

[AshvinP]

Plato taught that the common view of learning is wrong. As I understand him (but in my words), he taught that learning is impossible. Instead, learning is actually an act of remembering what we've known all along.

That is, before this life we were virtually omniscient, but when we were born we completely forgot that knowledge. As we grow and engage the world, our knowledge "fog" begins to clear (ever so slightly) and continues to do so until we develop or encounter some adversity that diminishes our ability to know.

When we "learn" something we are actually encountering a "rift" in the dense fog of our awareness. These "rifts" are triggered by various (probably unidentifiable) events in life that prompt our recall. That is, when we develop from ignorance to knowledge we do so via a series of epiphanies.

I think Plato's teaching is a solid one, and it is actually helpful to think of learning/knowledge as the process of re-membering long-forgotten truths. But there is no reason to disconnect that process from the Thinking activity we are always engaged in, such as right here on this forum. We do not need to confine the re-membering process to a "series of epiphanies" rather than a gradual accumulation of qualitative knowledge which moves vertically (not only horizontally), and thereby re-members, re-integrates, re-deems, re-cognizes, re-[pretty much any other word associated with thinking activity].

[Lewchuk]

I think it is important to recognize a certain distinction.

In talking Plato we are dealing with metaphysics; maybe some epistemology and value.

However, there is a pragmatic notion of true that may not provide "meaning" per se but which definitely alleviates suffering (Aristotle / Buddhism). Knowing how to create a vaccine may tell us nothing of metaphysics or epistemology but it does help us alleviate some suffering.

[Martin_]

Is there a cat in the box? I don't know
I open the box. Look, there's a cat!. There is a cat in the box. I know there is a cat in the box.
How did I go from not knowing to knowing? I was given new information (which I then processed).

Unless you're going all philosophical on me :p and this knwoldege you speak of is something much more complicated then the naive meaning of it, I don't really see where the problem is.