So in other words you do define knowledge subjectively.
(as we all define our worlds, but) I define 'knowledge' as 'believed' (to one extent or another) memory. The content of one's mind at any moment of which you are aware, memory, if 'believed' to be some reflection of some 'ultimate Truth', I would call 'knowledge'. I don't 'know', I think. I view/am memory.)
We each just know what we know based on our own, unique perspective. I may be color blind and see green as red, and I might be a brain in a vat, and it all might be the matrix.
Therefore, you are writing to yourself on this forum.
Of course. What an excellent tool for 'self understanding and 'thought' honing and clarification.
You aren't responding to what people write, you are resonding to what you read and how your unique consciousness interprets it. Under these circumstances do you think it would be possible for you to change my mind?
No. I do not think it is possible to 'do' anything.
But, even if so, why would i ever want to do that?
The only thing that comes to mind is as a prop for a weak 'ego'; "look what "I" can do; look how powerful "I" am!!"
I find pleasure in finding someone that won't choke on the food for thought that I offer. A good conversation provides uplifting fruit for 'all'.
Interesting. I can't really refute your point of view, but I think it does discredit the word 'know'.
'Know' is a perfectly fine word, like holocaust or daffodil or genocide or butt... I would never attempt to 'discredit' it, just offer a critical examination (this Perspective) as, perhaps, some food for thought.
a) What distinguishes the word 'know' from word 'belief'?
b) What would be the value in telling somebody I know something?
a) After a certain point, nothing.
b) The value would be to the 'hearer'. Were I the hearer, for instance, you would be telling me that this is an area of 'belief' (to one extent or another) for you; that you are egoically/emotionally identifying with the 'belief'; that you will, therefore, defend
your 'belief/knowledge', rather than be open to any 'critical updates' or abandoning the 'belief' altogether. New data is unnecessary when one already knows the 'truth' about something.
I did not post this topic to establish an objective view of reality. It was to invite someone to establish the credibility of the concept of knowledge in the face of my proposed unreliability of memory.
I find the "concept of knowledge" (as I described it) incredible in any face.
Whether 'memory' can be relied upon, for what, when and in what context would, for me, be another question.
Thats how I see it.