Red/Blue Programming & false flags

[Pablo Esco Bars]

From the dictionary:
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"

[Pablo Esco Bars]

From the dictionary:
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"

Originally Posted by Pablo Esco Bars

From the dictionary:
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"

Through experience. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Pablo Esco Bars

From the dictionary:
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"

Through experience. Hmmm.

[Pablo Esco Bars]

the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Hmmmmmm.....looks like we're both right

[Pablo Esco Bars]

the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Hmmmmmm.....looks like we're both right

[NOBLE]

There are many definitions for knowledge. The most reliable comes from philosophy in general and epistemology specifically. I read a lot of philosophy and have given a lot of thought to what constitutes knowledge. The best definition, imo, is a "justified and true belief." It's not just a matter of whether what you believe is true, but why do you believe it? You have to be justified in believing it before it constitutes knowledge unto you. Otherwise it is just information.

[NOBLE]

There are many definitions for knowledge. The most reliable comes from philosophy in general and epistemology specifically. I read a lot of philosophy and have given a lot of thought to what constitutes knowledge. The best definition, imo, is a "justified and true belief." It's not just a matter of whether what you believe is true, but why do you believe it? You have to be justified in believing it before it constitutes knowledge unto you. Otherwise it is just information.

[Pablo Esco Bars]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

There are many definitions for knowledge. The most reliable comes from philosophy in general and epistemology specifically. I read a lot of philosophy and have given a lot of thought to what constitutes knowledge. The best definition, imo, is a "justified and true belief." It's not just a matter of whether what you believe is true, but why do you believe it? You have to be justified in believing it before it constitutes knowledge unto you. Otherwise it is just information.

By that definition then knowledge is subjective. It's based on what you can justify. In that case I have knowledge of the Anunaki and the fact that they created humans to mine gold for them

[Pablo Esco Bars]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

There are many definitions for knowledge. The most reliable comes from philosophy in general and epistemology specifically. I read a lot of philosophy and have given a lot of thought to what constitutes knowledge. The best definition, imo, is a "justified and true belief." It's not just a matter of whether what you believe is true, but why do you believe it? You have to be justified in believing it before it constitutes knowledge unto you. Otherwise it is just information.

By that definition then knowledge is subjective. It's based on what you can justify. In that case I have knowledge of the Anunaki and the fact that they created humans to mine gold for them

[NOBLE]

...which you justify based on something you read...lol.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

Have you read the Enuma Eliesh (Gilgamesh Epics) yourself in the original cuneiform? How do you know the authors saying Enki and Enlil were extraterrestrials are correct then?

[NOBLE]

...which you justify based on something you read...lol.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

Have you read the Enuma Eliesh (Gilgamesh Epics) yourself in the original cuneiform? How do you know the authors saying Enki and Enlil were extraterrestrials are correct then?

[Godbody]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

The scientific method is not knowledge. It is a method for arriving at knowledge. A proposition such as "the scientific method works" cannot constitute knowledge unto YOU until it is proven by YOU. If you make such a proposition based on having read about other people who have used the scientific method successfully, its still information to you rather than knowledge. Go do some actual experiment using the scientific method. Then you can claim to "know."

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------


No, it doesn't, unfortunately. If you have spell books, that doesn't constitute knowledge until you're actually performing the spells and find that they work. If you're doing that and claim to know spells, then more power to you. But just having read some books, whether from the "highest authorities" or not, simply means you have some information written on a page. It doesn't mean you have knowledge.

If niggas know shit and they write it down for others to learn it, it's knowledge. What you're doing is semantics. Literally. "Just because they wrote it down doesn't mean they knew what they were writing and it doesn't mean they wrote down something true bla bla"

Your logic is incredibly flawed and only works under the premise that people purposely write false shit to mislead others. Or that the MAJORITY of written information is false. Which I dont think is true. You're trying too hard to be right when you're wrong.

[Godbody]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

The scientific method is not knowledge. It is a method for arriving at knowledge. A proposition such as "the scientific method works" cannot constitute knowledge unto YOU until it is proven by YOU. If you make such a proposition based on having read about other people who have used the scientific method successfully, its still information to you rather than knowledge. Go do some actual experiment using the scientific method. Then you can claim to "know."

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------


No, it doesn't, unfortunately. If you have spell books, that doesn't constitute knowledge until you're actually performing the spells and find that they work. If you're doing that and claim to know spells, then more power to you. But just having read some books, whether from the "highest authorities" or not, simply means you have some information written on a page. It doesn't mean you have knowledge.

If niggas know shit and they write it down for others to learn it, it's knowledge. What you're doing is semantics. Literally. "Just because they wrote it down doesn't mean they knew what they were writing and it doesn't mean they wrote down something true bla bla"

Your logic is incredibly flawed and only works under the premise that people purposely write false shit to mislead others. Or that the MAJORITY of written information is false. Which I dont think is true. You're trying too hard to be right when you're wrong.

[NOBLE]

Read the story of Socrates. I think it will illustrate where I'm getting at very well. He famously said "I am the wisest man in the world because I know one thing: that I know nothing at all." He started his journey because someone told him the oracle of Delphi said in all the world, there is none wiser than Socrates. He was confused by this because he knew he didn't really know anything. So he set out to prove the oracle wrong by seeking out people who would know more than him (politicians, magistrates, doctors, etc). The whole point of his story is what we can truly claim as knowledge is a very tiny part of a spectrum. You guys should humble yourselves with all these claims of "knowing", especially "knowing" based on what authors tell you when you haven't done the legwork and experiments yourself.

[NOBLE]

Read the story of Socrates. I think it will illustrate where I'm getting at very well. He famously said "I am the wisest man in the world because I know one thing: that I know nothing at all." He started his journey because someone told him the oracle of Delphi said in all the world, there is none wiser than Socrates. He was confused by this because he knew he didn't really know anything. So he set out to prove the oracle wrong by seeking out people who would know more than him (politicians, magistrates, doctors, etc). The whole point of his story is what we can truly claim as knowledge is a very tiny part of a spectrum. You guys should humble yourselves with all these claims of "knowing", especially "knowing" based on what authors tell you when you haven't done the legwork and experiments yourself.

[Godbody]

By the way back to the original topic of red/blue programming

I'm watching the NBA playoffs Rockets vs Thunder and the Rockets fans have shirts that say "See Red"

[Godbody]

By the way back to the original topic of red/blue programming

I'm watching the NBA playoffs Rockets vs Thunder and the Rockets fans have shirts that say "See Red"

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Godbody

If niggas know shit and they write it down for others to learn it, it's knowledge. What you're doing is semantics. Literally. "Just because they wrote it down doesn't mean they knew what they were writing and it doesn't mean they wrote down something true bla bla"

Your logic is incredibly flawed and only works under the premise that people purposely write false shit to mislead others. Or that the MAJORITY of written information is false. Which I dont think is true. You're trying too hard to be right when you're wrong.

Naw...you don't see where I'm coming from at all.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Godbody

If niggas know shit and they write it down for others to learn it, it's knowledge. What you're doing is semantics. Literally. "Just because they wrote it down doesn't mean they knew what they were writing and it doesn't mean they wrote down something true bla bla"

Your logic is incredibly flawed and only works under the premise that people purposely write false shit to mislead others. Or that the MAJORITY of written information is false. Which I dont think is true. You're trying too hard to be right when you're wrong.

Naw...you don't see where I'm coming from at all.