Is knowing a mental event?

[kennethamy]

When I claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, am I saying that something that is going on in my mind, or that something is going on in Ecuador? Just what am I saying?

[longknowledge]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

When I claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, am I saying that something that is going on in my mind, or that something is going on in Ecuador? Just what am I saying?

Are you saying that there is something going on in Ecuador because you claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

[paulhanke]

... I think the existence of the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" indicates that knowing is conditional with respect to the possibility of unforeseen change/misinformation to such a degree that this fact has been captured as a cultural truism ... so when you claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, the full implication is more along the lines of "unless things have changed or I have been misinformed, something is going on in Ecuador" ...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by longknowledge

Are you saying that there is something going on in Ecuador because you claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

Yes..............

---------- Post added 11-07-2009 at 03:56 AM ----------

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... I think the existence of the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" indicates that knowing is conditional with respect to the possibility of unforeseen change/misinformation to such a degree that this fact has been captured as a cultural truism ... so when you claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, the full implication is more along the lines of "unless things have changed or I have been misinformed, something is going on in Ecuador" ...

It is seems to be a necessary condition for my knowing that Quito is the capital that something be true in Ecuador. But must not something also be going on in my mind? (Of course, the phrase, "to the best of my knowledge" is not equivalent to, "I know", since the first may be true, and the second false).

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It is seems to be a necessary condition for my knowing that Quito is the capital that something be true in Ecuador. But must not something also be going on in my mind?

... like what? ...

Originally Posted by kennethamy

(Of course, the phrase, "to the best of my knowledge" is not equivalent to, "I know", since the first may be true, and the second false).

... if knowledge of things that can unexpectedly change is always contingent on that possibility, then what is there in this world for you to "know"? ... that is, what in this world isn't susceptible to change? ...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... like what? ...



... if knowledge of things that can unexpectedly change is always contingent on that possibility, then what is there in this world for you to "know"? ... that is, what in this world isn't susceptible to change? ...

Well, for one thing, a necessary condition of my knowing that Quito is the capital seems to me that I believe it is the capital. For another, a necessary condition of knowing that Quito is the capital is that my belief that it is the capital be adequately justified.

It is true that things change. But things also stay the same. It may be true that Quito might no longer be the capital next week. But, as long as it remains the capital, I know it is the capital. If it were to change, and I were still to believe it the capital, then, of course, I would not know it was the capital, although I might still believe it is the capital. But only believing one knows is not, of course, knowing.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

When I claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, am I saying that something that is going on in my mind, or that something is going on in Ecuador? Just what am I saying?

Why are you considering that you are saying something is going on in your mind?

Can you rephrase this one?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Why are you considering that you are saying something is going on in your mind?

Can you rephrase this one?

Because I could not know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador unless I also believed that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and believing is something going on in my mind. Therefore, a necessary condition for knowing is that something is going on in my mind.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Well, for one thing, a necessary condition of my knowing that Quito is the capital seems to me that I believe it is the capital. For another, a necessary condition of knowing that Quito is the capital is that my belief that it is the capital be adequately justified.

... agreed ...

Originally Posted by kennethamy

It is true that things change. But things also stay the same. It may be true that Quito might no longer be the capital next week. But, as long as it remains the capital, I know it is the capital. If it were to change, and I were still to believe it the capital, then, of course, I would not know it was the capital, although I might still believe it is the capital. But only believing one knows is not, of course, knowing.

... then I think you have answered your own question: if "knowing" is a function of the world (you "know" as long as it remains true; the moment it stops being true it is only a "belief"), then knowing is not just a mental event ... from my perspective, however, "to know" is not simply to hold in my mind that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but also to hold in my mind that this knowledge is subject to revision at any time ... in which case, knowing is a mental event ...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... agreed ...



... then I think you have answered your own question: if "knowing" is a function of the world (you "know" as long as it remains true; the moment it stops being true it is only a "belief"), then knowing is not just a mental event ... from my perspective, however, "to know" is not simply to hold in my mind that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but also to hold in my mind that this knowledge is subject to revision at any time ... in which case, knowing is a mental event ...

I did not ask whether knowing is just a mental event. I asked whether it was a mental event. Of course, what I know at one time, may no longer be true at a different time, so that I cannot know it at a different time. But, nevertheless, it is true that when I know something at T1, I will eternally know it at T1. Knowledge is, as you suggest, fallible. That is, what I believe I know I might not know. On the other hand, that does not mean I do not know what I believe I know. But I do not see why the belief that knowledge is subject to revision would make knowing a mental event.