Thinking About Thinking. (Epistemology) – Matthew Gosselin
A quick introduction to my argument: I’ve been feeling very empirical lately, and have wanted to find ways to bridge the gap between empirical science and the typically malleable ideas of philosophy. (Then again, there have been so many paradigm shifts in science that to call modern science, “solid,” or, “factual,” would be ridiculous.) I faced the question, “What is knowledge?” Often times a question such as this is destined for one of two dead ends if there isn’t a specific train of thought behind the formulation of the answer. This is because it can seem impossible to conclude an answer without perfectly true premises, or that it may seem impossible because there are an infinite number of answers depending on how you quantify or qualify knowledge. Therefore, I asked myself, “Can I tell if someone is knowledgeable?” This was easily accepted. Then arose the question, “What do knowledgeable people have in common?” I decided that people are knowledgeable because they formulate answers to difficult questions, regardless of being right or wrong. This is because their logic is valid, but may not always have true premises. To do things such as this, it requires deep concentration and dedication, which have been “proven” to amplify brain activity. This drew a connection, and after defining the principles of my argument, this is what I came up with:
Knowledge by this circumstance’s definition is an awareness for something.
An action of thought occurs when a sequence of neurons fire in the brain.
Neurons fire at any moment in order to process and transmit information.
Information can be defined as what is conveyed or represented by something or someone.
Neuron activity is detectable, measurable and able to be depicted by modern technology.
Knowledge is able to be shown by any and all action of thought.
Obviously, all my assumptions are based off of what modern science deems the factual correctness of my premises to be. (This is especially due to the design of machines to measure predicted things such as neuron activity, which may not be measuring what is truly happening but simply goes along with their hypotheses.) A serious idea that arises from this argument is that society’s idea of knowledge does not abide with my own consensus. There is a possibility of someone who is constantly thinking, however is never able to conclude answers to their own questions due to any number of reasons. This could be because of a mangled sense of logic in comparison to the rest of the world, or simply thinking about things such as the logical flow-chart possessed by dogs etc. (Unpopular topics or socially looked down upon, such as video games.) They would popularly be seen as dim-witted, although may be, by my definition, the most knowledgeable person alive. Without the omniscient knowledge of a higher being to understand the true nature of human beings, who knows? Then again, if that was the case, we would have the knowledge to every answer already. Hopefully it brought you enjoyment to read my thought process along my path to enlightenment!
A Dedicated Philosopher