"Dialectical materialism epistemology holds that knowledge is the reflection of the subject's initiative to the object. This dynamic reflection has two characteristics: on the one hand, reflection is imitative, that is, human knowledge, as a reflection of objective things, must be based on objective things, and it always tries to reproduce the state, attributes, relationships, essence and laws of objective things in its thinking. The imitation of reflection determines the objectivity of reflection. On the other hand, reflection is creative. The imitation of reflection is by no means an intuitive description of the object, nor is it a mirror reflection of the original. If people's reaction to phenomena is regarded as a process of information activities, then in this process, there are not only the acceptance of knowledge objects, but also the analysis, selection, application, reorganization, integration, construction and virtuality of information of knowledge objects. "
Of course, the above is the unique view of dialectical materialism epistemology on the nature of cognition. Due to the development of modern science and technology, it requires us to further supplement and improve the definition of cognitive essence on the basis of the original understanding. Of course, this is also in line with the theoretical development view of materialist dialectics, that is, the theory should be continuously improved and developed with the deepening of practice.
Here, we define the essence of cognition as: the essence of cognition is the process of the subject's reflection on the object's entry into an official position. Admission reflex refers to the reflex process through sensory organs, that is, admission can occur with normal sensory ability. We call the cognitive process of becoming an official perceptual knowledge. In-dimension reflection refers to the further reflection on the object on the basis of on-the-job reflection through thinking, that is, the process of analyzing, selecting, applying, reorganizing, integrating, constructing and virtualizing the object information obtained from on-the-job reflection by using thinking. Its relationship with official reflection is that there is a sequential relationship in time, that is, the subject must reflect on the object before he can reflect on the dimension. There is a progressive relationship at the level, that is, intra-dimensional reflection is a process of analyzing, selecting, applying, reorganizing, constructing and virtualizing the object information obtained by the subject on the basis of on-the-job reflection, which is a higher level than on-the-job reflection. Similarly, we call this cognitive process of dimensional reflection dimensional cognition or rational cognition. Although our definition of the nature of knowledge seems to have little difference from the original viewpoint of dialectical materialism epistemology, our views are quite different. Why?
First of all, although dialectical materialist epistemology saw perceptual knowledge and affirmed perceptual knowledge when defining knowledge, it denied perceptual knowledge when summarizing the nature of knowledge, that is, I said that the subject reflected the object in the field of vision and only saw rational knowledge, that is, I said that the subject reflected the object in the field of vision and dimension!
Secondly, other animals can have the same cognitive process as human beings, but there are differences between them: other animals can only have the knowledge of entering the official, while people can have the knowledge of entering the view and entering the dimension. Generally speaking, people can have both knowledge and insight. Of course, when Chile is very low, that is, almost close to zero, they can only have insight and must have normal senses, such as mental patients who have lost their intelligence and normal senses. But some people can't even understand it officially, such as a "vegetable" in real life, because such people have lost their sensory ability, and the understanding of entering the dimension is based on entering the official understanding, let alone entering the dimension. So, why do animals have cognitive processes? Because as long as they have normal sensory organs, they can have official cognition. Animals have senses, so they can have official cognition, but they have no thinking, so they can't have dimensional cognition.
To sum up, when we sum up the essence of cognition, we should not only admit the knowledge of entering the official, that is, perceptual knowledge, but also admit the knowledge of entering the dimension, that is, rational knowledge. Dialectical materialism epistemology denies that animals have eyes, ears, nose and tongue, and people with low senses in Chile also have eyes, ears, nose and tongue, because perceptual knowledge itself is the instinctive reflection of human or animal senses to the outside world. You said that when our animal came to the edge of the cliff, why did it go back instead of falling directly into the cliff? Why should we drive the cow to the mountain and let it find what it wants to eat and know what it wants to eat? Because they can be recognized as officials. In addition, people with low senses in Chile can have a cognitive process of "taking objective things as prototypes and subjectively reproducing the state of objective things in their brains", but they cannot have a cognitive process of "analyzing, selecting, using, reorganizing, constructing and virtualizing the object information obtained by inputting official knowledge". So we don't ask them to enter the official knowledge of the object, which is perceptual knowledge? Here, I want to ask: "Who supports the original viewpoint of dialectical materialism epistemology on the nature of cognition, so that mental patients who have lost their intelligence and normal senses can analyze, select, use, reorganize, integrate, construct and virtualize the object information obtained by inputting official knowledge?" I don't think even Marx can do it, but they can really know each other, which is just a wrong and distorted understanding of the object.
Therefore, the essence of cognition should be the reflection process of the subject's view or view and dimension on the object.