So I elaborated for him since he was obviously getting at something, but didn't know how to express it.
"If you think to yourself, 'hey I think that the flu is caused by a virus' and then find out later you were right, then did you know something without knowing you knew it?"
He looked me straight in the eye, and rolled his eyes at me...then with his superior grade 3 science, told me that that would be making a hypothesis and making a conclusion from using the hypothesis.
Dang. He got me.
But check this out. My fiance mentioned to me how she always "sees past things." Like when she's looking for her stapler on her desk, she'll have trouble recognizing it for a moment, even though it's right there. "If it were a snake, it woulda bit ya," they say. My fiance arguably percieves the stapler, since her eye is open and focused on the desk, and the light from the stapler is passing through her retina. But she does not see the stapler, or she would recognize it immediately--right?
In my experiment, I attempted to account for the slave-boy phenomenon by assuming that knowledge involves not only the having of a mental image, but also (in certain cases) the basic capacity to "call up" or recollect a mental image. For example, I know the name of my kindergarten teacher even though I am not always thinking about it; I don't always have to have her name in my consciousness in order to know it.
Nevertheless, all of your points are well taken. I wonder, where does our knowledge go when we're not conscious of it? Perhaps I am wrong and we do not have it when we are not conscious of it. Maybe it rises and sets like the sun, or vascillates like certain subatomic particles between Being and Nonbeing.
My experiment has taken us into mysterious realms, twilight zones, dark sides of moons.
Kennethamy, I think you're right. My fiance does, on one level, see the stapler; but she does not see that the stapler is there. How in the world do we explain this phenomenon?
I like to think that all information has always been in our soul, and our brain is only a medium that is used for transferring data from our soul into us.
You think that the information that Quito is the capital of Ecuador has always been in my soul?
Sorry i did elaborate on that. I think that form of information is not necessary to be collected in the soul. For it can be Loja of Puyo in a decade, or maybe a century.
Other information (maybe mostly information we have not named or discovered yet) will be collected into the soul. Too be honest i don't quite know what has to be collected in the soul, maybe it's the basics on which the universal truth lies, maybe it's lessons we have learned, but in that way we pull karma in the discussion... I still think some information has to be remembered by the soul, but as you stated, remembering all information about everything is not possible, or for any reason needed.
So some information is, and some is not, remembered in the soul. How am I to tell which is, and which is not?
In other words, Can we come up with an idea of knowledge that--although it does not necessarily represent a real state of affairs--is theoretically, metaphysically perfect?
Don't you get the feeling, from all of this, that human beings are shamefully flawed creatures?
And yet we want to find a way to recast our imperfections as perfection!
What if we tried another kind of experiment, and attempted to explain what a perfect being would be like--how they would think, how they would know, how they would exist? Obviously, a perfect being would have knowledge, right? And if not knowing that one knows is an imperfection, then this perfect being would necessarily know that it knows.
What if ... we just scrapped the whole Human Concept? What if we stopped trying to look for knowledge in some combination of psychological, material, real elements and instead tried to imagine a Perfect Concept? Would we succeed? Or would we fail, ending up with yet another flawed idea that can be refuted, doubted, etc.? In other words, Can we come up with an idea of knowledge that--although it does not necessarily represent a real state of affairs--is theoretically, metaphysically perfect?