[Guest]

Is anyone right saying that if i don't remember something, then as long as i can't remember it, i don't know it at all, as well? For, as we know, what logic obliges us to accept from the sentence

'either i don't remember it or i don't know it' (which is an acceptable sentence)

is the sentence

'if remember it, i don't know it'

the last sentence,of course, being an unacceptable one ...Is it a solution to say that the ''paradox'' of the last sentence do no exist, if we accept that, if i don't remember something, then i don't know it as well?

[unreality]

If you remember, you know

If you don't remember, you know [or "knew" at one time, since you "don't remember" as opposed to never having learned it in the first place]

So what you remember at this moment in time is a subset within what you know and have stored away in your brain. Have you ever, after some time of doing something else, said "hey guess what - cats exist." A second before, you had no idea that cats exist. And then "Brazil exists." A second ago, you didn't remember that Brazil existed. But you still knew

[Guest]

If you remember, you know

If you don't remember, you know [or "knew" at one time, since you "don't remember" as opposed to never having learned it in the first place]

So what you remember at this moment in time is a subset within what you know and have stored away in your brain. Have you ever, after some time of doing something else, said "hey guess what - cats exist." A second before, you had no idea that cats exist. And then "Brazil exists." A second ago, you didn't remember that Brazil existed. But you still knew

of course, the common sense is that it is possible that you don't remember something at a moment of time and that at the same time , though, you know it, in the sense that it is subconciously stored somewhere in mind. What i suggest, of course with a degree of uncertainty, is that if we remove the notion of subconcious, in a materialistic analysis, given that we can not recall a truth at a given time, the same truth doesn't exist at the same time for YOU. it appears again, the moment you recall it.

[unreality]

yes it doesn't exist in your higher consciousness, but it's still stored in your brain. Why would we remove the notion of the subconscious? The subconscious is like the iceberg of our brain, while our conscious levels are only the "tip" of the iceberg, so to speak. Ignoring the subconscious is like ignoring 90% of your brain matter

[Guest]

yes it doesn't exist in your higher consciousness, but it's still stored in your brain. Why would we remove the notion of the subconscious? The subconscious is like the iceberg of our brain, while our conscious levels are only the "tip" of the iceberg, so to speak. Ignoring the subconscious is like ignoring 90% of your brain matter

I am of those who strongly believe that behind almost every act of men lies what we call subconscious. I mean, we must not remove subconscious. what we are doing in this topic is playing with words and their meaning. In this frame, what i suggest is not to analyze things in the absence of subconscious, but to define 'know' (consequently 'knowledge') as whatever is present in a the level of consciousness in someone's mind, at a given time t. So, if we don't remember something which is at the same time stored somewhere in brain, the fact is that it is indeed STORED, but NOT KNOWN

[Guest]

I am of those who strongly believe that behind almost every act of men lies what we call subconscious. I mean, we must not remove subconscious. what we are doing in this topic is playing with words and their meaning. In this frame, what i suggest is not to analyze things in the absence of subconscious, but to define 'know' (consequently 'knowledge') as whatever is present in a the level of consciousness in someone's mind, at a given time t. So, if we don't remember something which is at the same time stored somewhere in brain, the fact is that it is indeed STORED, but NOT KNOWN

Mirriam-webster defines knowledge as "something learned and kept in the mind" while defining know as "to perceive directly : have understanding or direct cognition of."

Cognition "of, relating to, or being conscious mental activity (as thinking, remembering, learning, or using language)

I think we got ourselves a paradox. Unless you keep reading. It goes on to define knowledge as "clear perception of the truth" and know as "to be aware of the truth of." Sounds like they agree, but with what exactly?

I was prepared to argue against the OP, but I had to rethink. If you look at this idea using computers as an analogy, knowledge would be the hard drive, knowing would be RAM. Information is stored in permanent memory as knowledge, but you only know something if it has been retrieved and placed into RAM for processing, if you are aware of it. If you don't save that information to the hard drive before you forget it, you cannot remember it later, but you still knew it at one point.

Let's say there's a power surge (brain injury) that damages access to (but not the information within) part of the hard drive (brain). That information is still part of your knowledge set. It is still "something learned and stored in the mind." But, do you know it? You can't remember it. You don't even get that familiar nagging feeling that you know it but just can't remember. In this case, it would seem, the availability of knowledge to your concious mind would be the defining factor of knowing.

That's all I've got for now. I'm late getting home and I don't know what I did with my car keys.

edit: clarity

Edited January 7, 2009 by Grayven

[Guest]

Lets see. Hmmm. Aha! 4 words to solve it all: Forgotten and remembered dreams.

[Guest]

Lets see. Hmmm. Aha! 4 words to solve it all: Forgotten and remembered dreams.

What do you mean; do you mean that stere are times where we have forgotten the details of a dream, and nevertheless we have a general ''image'' of it? so, what? the fact remains: the details are not known (they are forgotten). What is known is just this general ''abstract'' image.