On 02-May-01, rwas rwas wrote: >> Just as an example, he says most philosophers >> would agree that >> []A->A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This >> is clearly a >> different meaning of the word "to know" that we use >> here in >> Australia. > > I get the impression folks here assume that when one > person knows something, that only that person knows > that something. For other people to know the same > something, they have to discover and assimilate it for > themselves. It also seems that folks here assume > knowledge is some kind of pattern that exists separate > from the truth of surrounding it's existence. > >> From a mystic standpoint, this can't be. To know > something is closer to the analogy of a subscriber > line. When one *knows* something, anything, they > subscribe this pattern.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the usual definition of knowledge is: A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it true. The standard example is that I may believe that Tom has bought a blue car because I saw him drive up in it. And Tom has bought a blue car - so the belief is true. But it isn't knowledge because the car I saw him drive up in is a rental car, not the one he bought. So in this example there is no casual connection between my belief and the fact that Tom bought a blue care, and hence my true belief is not knowledge. Brent Meeker
