What is Knowledge???

[AntonioLao]

Understand yourself, and you will understand everything.

The general form of this statement is called the Principle of Humanity. This principle supplements the Principle of Charity.

[Guille]

The general form of this statement is called the Principle of Humanity. This principle supplements the Principle of Charity.

I had no idea that this was a principle that existed (well, maybe I had imagined it) and, what is the principle of charity?
Actually, not even I agree with my signature. I might change it.

[AntonioLao]

The principle of charity is a philosophical principle originated by N. L. Wilson in the late 50's that when making interpretation of another, particularly of different language, we should make assumptions about intelligence, knowledge, sense of relevance and so on, that will make almost of what is said come out true.

[Guille]

Could we say that
Knowledge is a property of our mind acquired by our brain intelligence?
So, I have another question, what is the relationship between mind and brain. Please, define before comparing.

[AntonioLao]

Brain is the tangible of cognition and mind is the intangible. Once the tangible is removed you also lose the intangible. For example, brain damage and memory loss.

[JAK]

Knowledge can be considered a mixture of consciousness and understanding.

I think we need to set some ground rules. Within any behavior as well as within a computer, "change" or "difference" is significant. Through "change/difference" we determine identity and process. This is very low level, and some would deem this "data" or "information" and not knowledge.

Does knowledge imply the application of a behavior to the "data/information"? In other words, is perception (the 5 senses) the "data/information" and post-perception mental processing the "knowledge"? In other, other words, is knowledge the application of behaviors to perceptions?

[Guille]

ALL WE KNOW, IT IS THROUGH OUR INTIUTION.


I will carry on tomorrow, and will explain it, so please don't comment it or judge it before then.

[Guille]

Can we be sure of being sure? In other words, can we know that we know? No.

Why not? This is because we would be using our knowledge in the theme of knowledge. It would be like using a word in its own description. Not possible. So, knowledge we can't or shouldn't speak about, because we are using it when we do this (at least some of us ).

So our knowledge is acquired by our intelligence via intuition. Everything is actually a hope. Our imagination, when we create, when we think, when we memorize.....all is intuition.

[AntonioLao]

Can we be sure of being sure? In other words, can we know that we know?

With respect to oneself, no. two people, yes. Three or more people, surest.
The Chinese philosopher Confucius said:

He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise, follow him.
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep, wake him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not he is simple, teach him.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not he is a fool, shun him.

[Guille]

He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise, follow him.
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep, wake him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not he is simple, teach him.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not he is a fool, shun him.

I knew about this, although they had told me that it was a Spanish proverb, I wonder, who told me that.....maybe my mother, can't remember.
About the fool on the last part,
Order of foolishness (Invented word, I think):
1) The foolish that calls “foolish” the foolish, who itself calls “foolish” the foolish and all followers of the foolish (me)
2) The foolish that calls “foolish” the foolish, and calls “foolish” the followers of the foolish (you, sorry, don't take it too seriously)
3) The not-foolish that simply acts as a foolish
4) The followers of the foolish
5) The commenter of the foolish (me, you, him, her.....)
6) The least foolish of all, is the actual foolish, because he manages to have followers, to have imitators, to have commenter......