Is Knowledge rooted in perception?

Following up on the previous post, today’s introspective examination will turn to the idea of knowledge. Knowledge, truth, facts, beliefs. These are very similar words used by us. How do we know whether something is true? We might go through a series of observations, logical deductions, or we might have heard it from a reliable source. To us, it becomes knowledge, facts, truth or beliefs. Why discuss beliefs together with truth or knowledge? They are actually not so different after all. To see why, consider the possibility that your senses are being deceived by a demon, or inputted from a computer. Consider too about your chain of reasoning; why must you accept that ‘a’ implies ‘b’? Is it not a assumption on your part that it is so? Consider further that your supposed reliable sources, books/teachers/friends, that they themselves are perhaps wrong too. If a book presents you with a figure about a fact, perhaps about France’s GDP for last year, surely you cannot just accept that at face value, or you would accept everything that you read. If you say that you know that the book is reliable, compared to some other thrashy newspaper, then my question would be, how did you come to the conclusion that it is reliable? Even the most reliable source may slip up once in a while. To judge a certain source’s reliability by a certain set of rules is certainly arbitrary. After all, whoever said those rules were solid standards of reliability?

The idea that there is may be absolute truth is very tantalising for us who take comfort in the idea of rock solid foundations. However, the problem is that we are human, flawed. Our methods to ascertain this fact about absolute truth is itself in doubt because we cannot ascertain the absoluteness of our methods used. In other words, we cannot proof the correctness of our own methods by our own methods. This situation calls to mind about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Essentially, Godel, a mathematician proved that given a set rules and system in math that is consistent internally(that means no clashes, no paradoxes, no kaboom when you try to divide by zero), there remains some theorems no matter how hard you try. You can only prove these theorem by introducing new rules, aka patching the system. But that would be cheating according to math. Anyways, the parallel is similar here – I cannot imagine a circular definition proving anything definitive. A word of caution here though, just because something cannot be proven in absolute terms, and can at most be defined circularly, does not mean it does not exist. Or that you are not allowed to believe in it. If that is the case, then you wouldn’t believe in 1+1=2. We certainly can believe whatever we want. However, we need to be mindful of its sources.

To see how knowledge is rooted in our unreliable perceptions, we first consider that the facts that we receive are as always, through our senses. We see this, we hear that, we feel it. So far, the easy part. Next, we need to consider other aspects of knowledge. For example, knowledge that is derived from those basic facts, via a series of deductions, connections, etc. If it appears that these knowledge are in itself rock solid, even if the foundation is not, think again. Consider the very logic reasoning that we use. Are we so sure that this procedure is free from flaws? Take the simplest logic deduction: A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C. Do we have incontrovertible proof that this reasoning is sound? Did we not after all, assume that this is it? Surely we saw around that this was case, and therefore, assumed that because it occurred around us all the time, that it is the absolute truth.

To see further how logic may sometimes fail us, take a look at the following line of reasoning: Define a set A where there are no members inside. There is a curious property about this set, because this set is not a member of itself. Obviously, you say. Next, we define a set Z where the criterion for its members are any set that is not a member of itself. Clearly, A is a member of Z. In looking for the members of Z, we look through the list of possible sets, and.. what do have here? Z is on the list of sets to be considered. After all Z is a set. So, the problem is, is Z a member of itself? If its not, then Z should belong inside set Z. But then that would validate the consideration that Z is a member of itself. Wait a moment here, which means Z does not belong in itself.. We have fallen into the trap of self-reference. On a side note: lets look at a difference self-reference trap – consider the claim that some things are ‘necessary’ and others ‘a choice’. How would we draw up 2 lists of things, one titled ‘Necessary’ and another titled ‘Choice’? We would have to select a method, do we not? Would this not make the things of the list of ‘Necessary’ rather arbitrary? Different people would adopt different methods, and their lists of ‘Necessary’ would all differ. Which means nothing in the list of ‘Necessary’ is concrete, and that really all things belong into the big list of ‘Choice’. In the consideration of this list ‘Choice’, we come across this thing to be considered: About making a choice whether to make a choice. It certainly looks like its a necessary thing, you really need to make a choice about making choices. Even if you choose not to make choices, you are choosing. So this is a necessary thing, and belongs on the list of ‘Necessary’. Wait just a minute here, did you just try to pull a fast one on me? You chose to put choosing the necessity to make a choice into the list of ‘Necessary’?  So it really belongs in ‘Choice’ after all, and now we are forced to consider where does [‘Choosing the necessity to necessitate making a choice’ or in other words ‘Choosing to choose to choose’ ] belong. Clearly, we might have avoided this infinite spiral, by not asking the question about choosing to choose, and simply accepted that all things belong into the list ‘Choice’. But is it not weird that we are allowed to ask some questions and not allowed to ask others. Would this not block our passage to obtaining absolute truth? Similarly, in the above consideration about sets, we might have avoided that self reference trap, by not asking about sets that belong in themselves. But then again, it would be an arbitrary choice about able to ask some questions and not for others. Once again, absolute truth appears to be a choice, and does not seem so absolute after all.

So, even the methods by which we further derive other knowledge are arbitrary and based on “common sense”. Are do we even know if anything is absolutely, really, really true? Looks like we have to take a lot of things on faith alone. Its a personal choice which things you want to believe, and which you do not want to believe in. You choose to believe in your senses, and hence about what you see about the world through these senses. There might be a real and absolute object right next to you. But because we necessarily perceive this object through a series of lens (in the metaphorical way), the object might appear different to you, and you have no way of telling its difference. Worse of all, everyone’s lens is different, because everyone have different beliefs, different perspectives, different perceptions and conceptions, and therefore the object appears differently(even if only slightly) from one another.

If I am really dreaming, I would want to be enjoying my dream as much as possible.