[ABCLAW]

There's a common issue in philosophy and epistemology over how we come to know things. We wanted to know what 'knowledge' was, and settled upon the concept of a 'justified true belief' for a fairly long period of time.

However, one day, a philosopher found a situation in which a justified true belief was incorrect. This is the Gettier problem.

What you describe is something akin to a network of baysian conditionals attached to certain proposition, which upon confrontation with new information update their relative weights. We know with certainty that this process has significant benefits in general (it's certainly better than most systems not internalizing new information), but can and does create false reasoning.

In short, it's good but not sufficient to create knowledge. The problem of individuals creating ideological filter bubbles around themselves is very related to the idea that their evidentiary priors become more and more rigid as they note confirmatory evidence over time that justifies their views over time. The issue isn't that they stop intaking new information, but that their priors and the new information are interpreted based upon that belief network.

Thankfully, as a super-organism, we have a great solution for that mental ossification. We die. New people who have less evidentiary accumulation can address the issue with new priors and often that's all that's needed for huge breakthroughs.

[lo_zamoyski]

The Gettier problem is overrated.

The question is "what is knowledge?", not "do we know that we know p?". And I see no issue with the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. Now, if I believe p, and you ask me whether I know p, I may say yes. But whether I actually know p will depend on whether my justification is valid (that it really is a justification and a sufficient one) and whether it is true, which has nothing to do with whether anyone knows whether the justification is valid and the belief is true. It's a separate question, and conflating the two questions leads to an infinite regress of skepticism. So the definition of knowledge qua knowledge still stands.

I would also suggest you try to apply your general approach to the very theory you are proposing. I see an opportunity for retorsion arguments.

[JakkTrent]

This issue is fairly significant for me.

I approach it with words using the idea that everyone has the foreknowledge of the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the words they choose to say in conversation... and something often taken for granted when it shouldn't be.

I know what I mean when I'm explaining things - the definition of the word in context, with some Grammer etc.

What is being interpreted tho? What thoughts come to your mind when I type "Planet Earth" and you read it? Whenever I see the words Planet Earth I recall a memory of an HD DVD BBC Documentary titled "Planet Earth" sitting on the lowest shelf on the endcap display at my local Best Buy - I noticed that many years ago and I've told a few people that, so now it's likely my forever. Lowkey nostalgic almost.

Say I'm having a conversation with a friend that shows a headline about "Planet Earth Be Doomed" how could they ever anticipate my nostalgic correlation with that headline? Am I actually listening if I finish an entire conversation while reliving a childhood trip to best buy?

This only seems like a tangent - knowledge and truth are exactly the same.

I know what I know. I know what I expect you to know. I know what I'm trying to convey and so I use words I know the definition of and feel appropriate in the moment, sometimes I even try my best.

I never know how someone will react/respond/understand.

[neerajsi]

Thanks for your point about death.

Death forces our species wide belief set to go through the constrained channel of education and communication, the same way that our bodily attributes go through the constrained channel of our germ-line genes.

This process lossily compresses the signals, which allows for drift or attenuation when the next generation reconstructs the beliefs and associated behaviors. Transmission also applies stress that acts as a filter to weed out beliefs that are no longer adaptive.

[JakkTrent]

Pfft, death isn't necessary to evolution in the sense your implying.

Transmission of ideas and wealth - even societal restructuring doesn't require all the old people to first die.

Adapt or die. We cease to adapt and so we die. We're we as a species to overcome death individually, we would still collectively be bound by the same mantra.

Not that our evolution would stop - rather I think the opposite.

Assuming cellular commission is similar to a 30 year old and as healthy/mentally capable as a 30 something; so truly overcoming those obstacles - a 300 year old version of me would be better than the me now.

Taxi drivers brain composition changed by driving around London - I'll bet an extra 200 years will do something.

As long as our populace remain "Mentally Liquid" we will be fine - something 300 years of seeing and living constant changes should all but guarantee. Can't be yelling at the kids on the lawn for 200 years right?

I think elongation human life will be necessary in the not so distant future and I expect it to happen.