Gaining Knowledge without Learning

01 January 2021

如果我让你说出一些认知的方式,你可能会提到一些熟悉的。你可以通过使用你的感官观察来了解一些事情:你可以通过向窗外看来知道天是黑的。你可以通过证词来了解一些事情:你可以通过听你的朋友告诉你Barney’s正在打折。你也可以通过心算来了解一些东西:你可以通过68和57相加来算出68 + 57等于125。

In each of these cases, you’re coming to know something that was already a matter of fact: it was dark before you knew it, the sale ran before you knew it, and 68 + 57 has been 125 since at least the dawn of time. In other words, each of these cases of coming to know something involvedlearning: gaining knowledge of a fact that was a fact even before you knew about it.

但还有另一种了解事物的方式,我敢打赌你一开始不会想到。这种了解的方式不涉及观察事物、获取证据或计算任何东西。And it doesn’t involvelearning: coming to know in this way doesn’t involve coming to know a pre-existing fact. For these two reasons, it’s unlike other ways of knowing things about the world. But it’s not exactly mystical or inaccessible. On the contrary, it’s positively commonplace. This way of knowing arises when you do something intentionally.

There’s a rich history of philosophical debate about the precise nature ofintentionalaction,但基本原理是相当直接的。当你有意地做某件事时,你心里已经有了要做的事情,你可以控制发生的事情,从而实现这件事。例如,有意地打响指需要控制中指和拇指的动作,这样才能发出“啪”的一声。的声音,当我的手指碰到我的手掌。If I control my motions in just that way because I havesnapping my fingersin mind as the thing to be done, and I really do end up making that ‘snap!’ sound as a result, then I count as snapping my fingers intentionally. (Note that all-important condition: if the sound doesn’t result, then the whole action doesn’t count as snapping my fingers. It’s called “snapping” for a reason!)

When you do act intentionally, you tend to know what you’re doing—you’re the one doing it, after all! It can’t be a surprise to me that I snap my fingers, given that I’m snapping my fingers intentionally. It also wouldn’t be a surprise to you if you wandered into a closed-door discussion of your promotion—if you were doing thatintentionally. The fact that you tend to know what you’re doing, when you’re doing that intentionally, was first discussed extensively byG.E.M. Anscombe(in her 1957 bookIntention),and then a little later byStuart Hampshire(in his 1959 bookThought and Action).这在哲学上是一个开创性的观点,但在直觉上也是可信的。这也许能很好地解释为什么你不能故意给自己挠痒痒(你知道什么时候会痒!),以及为什么你在蜿蜒的山路上开车时不太可能晕车(没有弯道或转弯会让你可怜的胃感到惊讶)。

One remarkable thing about this kind of knowledge, which Anscombe labeled “practical knowledge,” is the way in which you get it. You don’t have to perceive yourself acting, or gather testimony from others, or even do any calculations, in order to know what you’re doing while you’re doing something intentionally. You don’t have to relate to the world in any of these other ways you relate to the world when you gain knowledge.

This is remarkable partly becausewhatyou know, when you know what you’re doing, is a fact about the physical world. For example, when I know thatI am snapping my fingers, I know that something’s going on that involves a quick, sharp noise, and I know that the hunks of matter that constitute my fingers are making that noise. But I could wear perfect noise-canceling headphones, numb my fingers, and close my eyes while intentionally snapping my fingers, andstillknow that my fingers are moving in such a way that produces that quick, sharp ‘snap!’ The possibility of cutting off information from my senses, and still having the same knowledge, illustrates the fact that this kind of knowledge doesn’t rely on observation by the senses at all.

更明显的是,我对自己故意行为的了解并不依赖于任何人的证词,也不依赖于我能在脑海中做出的任何计算。甚至不清楚哪种类型的计算与我知道我在打响指有关。很少有人会告诉你你故意在做什么。

把所有这些放在一起,我们就有了一种不依赖于感性观察、证明或计算的知识形式。这已经足够让它变得特别了。But there’s something else that’s remarkable about practical knowledge, too: this kind of knowledge doesn’t come aboutafterthe fact it is knowledgeof. Instead, since you know you’re snapping your fingers while doing that intentionally, this knowledge is born as the very fact is made. You come to know you’re snapping your fingers by starting to snap your fingers, and you know that as soon as it’s happening. That means that this way of coming to know doesn’t involvelearning, in the sense of gaining knowledge about a pre-existing fact. That’s a second special feature of practical knowledge, on top of its not being based on observation, testimony, or calculation.

实践知识的这两个显著特征可以用同样的方式解释:当你有意识地行动时,你是这里的控制者,是让事情发生的人。当你能控制某件事是否发生时,你不需要从你的感官或其他人那里得到保证,以便在你让它发生时知道它发生了。你有能力让它成为现实。And the fact of its happening is somethingyou创造:你带来它,你让它发生,所以你是那个让它发生的人。有意行为中的控制关系到实践知识的这两个特殊特征。

Photo byKreative KwameonUnsplash

Comments(9)


sminsuk's picture

sminsuk

Friday, January 1, 2021 -- 6:29 PM

Hmm. I don't think this is as

Hmm. I don't think this is as mysterious as the "rich history" seems to be making it out to be. It's called "proprioception" (literally "self perception"), and it is, in fact, a perfectly ordinary sense, though not one of the "five senses" that people normally think about. There are receptors, called "proprioceptors", within our muscles, which, like the receptors of any of our other senses (pressure and temperature sensors in the skin, rods and cones, taste buds, etc.) send signals into the nervous system and ultimately to the brain. This is how we "know what we're doing". It's also what makes it possible, for example, for a person -- even a completely blind person -- to pick up food and put it directly in their mouth without missing!

我不清楚这门科学的历史,也不清楚1957年第一本书出版时人们对这门科学了解多少。但我怀疑当时很可能已经知道了!

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Saturday, January 2, 2021 -- 6:36 AM

Charles Scott Sherrington

Charles Scott Sherrington coined the term. Sherrington, C.S. (1906). The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press. - is the first "modern" in depth treatment of "proprioception".

Proprioception can be both conscious and unconscious which might make it moot to Antonia's point, if it is understood by this writer.

DRM's picture

DRM

Saturday, January 2, 2021 -- 12:02 AM

Where does losing one's

Where does losing one's virginity fit into this? It is clearly not an act based on pre-existing knowledge, nor can it be an intentional act, as the end product is unknown at the start of the action. Before the world wide web opened up access to all aspects of human existence, watching others perform sex acts was not generally available for most people, so the act of losing one's virginity was not based upon watching the the behaviour of others, as for example, snapping one's fingers could be. The biological drive to copulate is an inherent part of the human condition, but first-time copulation cannot be based upon either pre-existing knowledge or conscious intentionality of a specific outcome. Furthermore, by its very nature it involves the reactions of others. It is not an action I can perform alone.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Saturday, January 2, 2021 -- 7:09 AM

Virginity is lost at the same

Virginity is lost at the same place it was gained - an internal state of ignorance. Some children are raped before they can attain adulthood and never experience virginity loss. Did Bill Clinton have relations with Monica? Certainly he lost his political virginity and the world lost a tipping point that brought us Bush v Gore and arguably the new millennial mess we find ourselves in... if we ever find ourselves.

Have I lost the point? Probably. I'm not sure virginity is helpful here but I would define it first, as rape is the more common historical starting place. Antonia starts her blog posts carefully with a reference to deeper conversations. As bloggers, we don't need to do that.

The idea that watching others perform sexual acts informs is interesting as well. Are we more liberated in a world that puts images to a childs phone and from there to their brain. Is it more liberated to shelter children from pornography until they masterbate or spontaneously orgasm? The idea that the world wide web opened up human sexual imagery is also interesting and wrong perhaps.

Virginity can be lost alone or in groups of people or even at the hands of ones own parents and family.

In general virginity is distracting to the idea of autodidaction through agency which is the OP?? I think there is a lot to unpack there if you really want to get into that. Do you? Let's have at it.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Saturday, January 2, 2021 -- 7:43 AM

The basics of intentional

The basics of intentional action are anything but "straight forward".

I would very much like to know where I come from before I snap my fingers and say I did anything much less know from it.

The feeling of agency does not allow knowledge if truth is the standard.

Does Math exist before consciousness?- hell no - it does not.

假设我们确实有代理,并且存在预先存在的事实。有一个完整的另一个(如果你愿意……“not other”——如果你不想另一个完整的other)需要从意图中消除歧义。本杰明·利贝特是个讨厌的人。这个问题以前已经解决过了,但现在需要提一下。

Hmm... the fundamental concept "of" as ontology and epistemological fact is misleading just as agency or fundamental mathematical truth.

如果不从大脑开始,就不会有什么动力。很快就会变得一团糟。这就是工作。我知道是因为我跟你学的。没有别的办法了。

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Saturday, January 2, 2021 -- 8:07 AM

A very good read and guest

A very good read and guest would be Damon Centola. His book 'Change' looks to me to be timely and helpful on this and other topics of the new year and Christmas' past.

The idea of contagion and change has been lurking in my reading and thoughts these past couple months. The pandemic melody haunts my reverie. Hopefully I can change the subject at some point... not sure if that is possible or wise.

DHaz21's picture

DHaz21

Thursday, February 18, 2021 -- 11:24 AM

An honest question: Does this

An honest question: Does this treatise presume that the "intentional" action that it addresses is undertaken by some conscious choice by the human rendering the act? I ask simply because I have found that my brain skips running the issue by "me" entirely and just does acts on its own, and has done so for my conscious existence. Completely intuitive if you will, and skipping any step of awareness by me in the process. This may read as weird, but when I saw this site I figured it was as good a place as any to pose the question.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Monday, March 8, 2021 -- 12:49 AM

DHaz,

DHaz,

在跳绳的时候,你有没有发现自己在挠自己的痒?

If you did would you laugh?

这是这篇论文的假设。知识来自这个地方。

I am old. When I look upon my reflection what do I feel? It is a good question. The answer doesn't have to be deep. If not asked however it is sad.

I would encourage you to own a little agency even if it is only to peel the onion. There may not be a core, but they can taste great these onions.

I too don't think much of free will. I don't expect a laugh when I make jokes either.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Saturday, February 26, 2022 -- 5:48 PM

My brother and I were both

我哥哥和我都得到了一份礼物。我不知道这是怎么回事。但我们总是有解决问题的诀窍。解决问题。我把这归功于父系遗传的基因。我们的父亲的父亲似乎是个巫师。他可以从垃圾中做出有用的东西……别人扔掉的东西。它往往需要时间和思想——而这些商品却很少有人足够。在我们各自的生命周期中,通过首先考虑期望的结果,我们在项目上节省了许多美元。通常情况下,我们不需要捡垃圾来得到我们需要的东西。 Or, if skills we did not have were required, we acquired them, one way or another. To claim that knowledge was gained without learning is not quite right: if one does not know how to do something, yet 'figures it out', learning of some sort has to take place. Semantics fail us here. But the intent of this post is clear. At our respective ages, we do not know many people who share our gift. His oldest son (my nephew) seems to have the beginnings of it. He is not yet fifty. There is still time.

I've read and agree to abide by the Community Guidelines