1
   

Will 'Understanding' be Extinct by 2050?

 
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 11:14 am
As the man said, while passing the 3rd floor window, who sought to prove that a person could survive falling off a 15 story building "so far so good".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 11:18 am
You're just a pessimist Chuck.

Read the Book of Job. That'll cheer you up.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:56 pm
book of job.
is job the guy who gets his faith thoroughly tested?

I think god robs him of everything. No wonder he clings to faith. It's all he has left in the end.

Now, shower him with toga babes and gold... I bet even job would forget god then...
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 05:24 pm
Re: Will 'Understanding' be Extinct by 2050?
coberst wrote:
I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.


The only thing they are useful for is highlighting your determination to maintain a pessimistic outlook on the present, at all costs, no matter what. Beyond that, the numbers are totally contrived and meaningless. You had your conclusion in place before you started formulating the matter (as you happily admit here), so it is not surprising that you try to bolster your argument with imaginary statistics.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 02:27 am
Shapless

Perhaps my world view is pessimistic perhaps it is realistic. It is a subjective judgment based upon much reading and consideration. It is based upon an attempt to understand and understanding requires curiosity and caring and hard work.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 03:41 am
coberst, I wonder if another person would have done the same study with the same care, and yet come to a completely different conclusion, and choose a completely different course of action. Someone like Ghandi perhaps.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 04:49 am
Eorl

My understanding is subjective and may be different than yours. Knowledge is about truth, understanding is about meaning.

Understanding is a work of art and may change throughtout ones life. Nevertheless the experience is universal to humans who seek it.

I claim that there are two distinct experiences; one is knowing the other is understanding.

We know 3x3=9. Few of us understand math.

I claim that knowing 3x3=9 requires nothing but memorizing. I claim that understanding math requires caring, curiosity, and hard work.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 05:02 am
coberst wrote:
Perhaps my world view is pessimistic perhaps it is realistic. It is a subjective judgment based upon much reading and consideration. It is based upon an attempt to understand and understanding requires curiosity and caring and hard work.


Those are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For one thing, understanding also requires the discipline not to give in to confirmation bias--what you referred to in another thread as "ego influences":

Quote:
I think it is true therefore it is.
I want it to be true therefore it is.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:54 am
Shapless

I do not think understanding is about truth it is about meaning.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 10:33 am
Quote:
I do not think understanding is about truth it is about meaning.


However you want to define it, it still falls apart if you start with the conclusion and work backward. Fictitious numbers will not bring you any closer to either truth or meaning.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 10:39 am
Shapless

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 10:43 am
Perhaps... but just for clarification, what are we agreeing to disagree on? That working backward from the conclusion is a valid form of argument, or that fictitious numbers can support claims to truth and meaning?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 01:32 pm
Shapless

My purpose in writing essays is because it helps me understand. The reason I post my essays is to introduce to the reader an idea that the reader is not likely to be conscious (attention) of. If the reader becomes conscious of the idea maybe s/he might become curious enough to explore the matter further. I want the reader to become knowledgable about the idea because I think these ideas are important to the individual and to the society.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 05:06 pm
That didn't answer my question, but whatever. The exchange is just about out of steam.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 10:02 am
coberst wrote:
The reason I post my essays is to introduce to the reader an idea that the reader is not likely to be conscious (attention) of. If the reader becomes conscious of the idea maybe s/he might become curious enough to explore the matter further. I want the reader to become knowledgable about the idea because I think these ideas are important to the individual and to the society.


My reasons are pretty much entirely oposite. I do not presume to enlighten, and I post my thoughts to be challenged or proven wrong(whenever I don't post in sheer vanity:) ). I will resist, of course, but if a valid objection cannot be explained I have gained something. So my motives are pretty selfish, because I think that imposing your critical nature on another can deprive that one of his chance to find his own critical nature.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 11:00 am
Cyracuz wrote:
coberst wrote:
The reason I post my essays is to introduce to the reader an idea that the reader is not likely to be conscious (attention) of. If the reader becomes conscious of the idea maybe s/he might become curious enough to explore the matter further. I want the reader to become knowledgable about the idea because I think these ideas are important to the individual and to the society.


My reasons are pretty much entirely oposite. I do not presume to enlighten, and I post my thoughts to be challenged or proven wrong(whenever I don't post in sheer vanity:) ). I will resist, of course, but if a valid objection cannot be explained I have gained something. So my motives are pretty selfish, because I think that imposing your critical nature on another can deprive that one of his chance to find his own critical nature.


There are many important concepts that most people are unconscious of.

When I have studied a matter and feel confident about my understanding. I write an essay to organize and analyze my understanding I post these essays because it is important, I think, that everyone become conscious of these matters because consciousness is the begining of knowledge.

Hopefully the reader will become curious and go to the books to determine for him or herself what they think is the truth of the matter.

If those who have experienced a matter intellectually and do not try to enlighten others who will write the books and the articles and the essays that lead to knowledge and understanding.

I think we should resist all the anti-intellectual efforts to make people fear to display intellectual accomplishments. Such anti-intellectual attitudes play havoc with the attempt by young people to excel in school.

Everyone should be proud of intellectual achievements.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 12:51 pm
Quote:
consciousness is the begining of knowledge.


Are you sure it's not the other way around. I mean, what came first? Fire or our understanding of it.
My point is that our consciousness about fire is a result of our knowledge of it.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2006 04:40 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
consciousness is the begining of knowledge.


Are you sure it's not the other way around. I mean, what came first? Fire or our understanding of it.
My point is that our consciousness about fire is a result of our knowledge of it.


Consciousness is awarness plus attention.

We are aware of many things but we are conscious of much less. When we drive to work we are aware of the shoe store ten blocks from our house but only when we turn to the yellow pages looking for a close shoe store do we become conscious (awareness plus attention) of the shoe store.

We are conscious of much more than we are knowledgeable of and we understand much less than we are knowledgable of.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2006 12:14 pm
coberst wrote:
We are conscious of much more than we are knowledgeable of and we understand much less than we are knowledgable of.


...we understand much less than we are knowledgeable of...

That is only true if you count ignorance as a kind of knowledge.

If you don't understand something you cannot measure the worth of your knowledge of it. And if your knowledge is fake, then it is not knowledge, it's fantasy.

So if you don't understand something you are in ignorance, and all knowledge is meaningless to you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 04:49:55