Is more knowledge the solution to our problems?

[Eaglerising]

Do we really understand the limitations of knowledge and how it is affecting every area of our lives? Would we attempt to solve our problems by accumulating more knowledge if we understood the limitations of knowledge? Has the increase in knowledge about obesity reduced the amount of obesity? Would our educational system be declining if we really understood knowledge and education? Would we confuse knowledge with understanding if we really understood them?

[Moreno]

I think it depends on how we define knowledge. If knowledge is mere information - certain truths about reality - than often, no, it is not a solution. How to prioritize knowledge, how to apply knowledge, when to apply specific knowledge, these types of knowledge, sometimes called wisdom, are a subset of knowledge that would be solutions to our problems.

[Eaglerising]

Excellent point Moreno! There are many different meanings and emotions contained within the word "knowledge." Furthermore, our perception and definition of knowledge has changed over the years. How would you objectively prioritize knowledge? What criteria would you use to determine their priority? How do you take into account the changing accuracy and validity of knowledge?. How do you prioritize opposing knowledge about the same subject? These questions illustrate the complexity of prioritizing knowledge.

Is there a simpler way or an alternative to prioritizing knowledge? I ask this question because prioritizing knowledge involves some type of authority. And isn't the entity that does it, establish him or herself as an authority?

[Nick_A]

Do we really understand the limitations of knowledge and how it is affecting every area of our lives? Would we attempt to solve our problems by accumulating more knowledge if we understood the limitations of knowledge? Has the increase in knowledge about obesity reduced the amount of obesity? Would our educational system be declining if we really understood knowledge and education? Would we confuse knowledge with understanding if we really understood them?

The emphasis on knowledge tends to ignore the third direction of thought which is the source of human "meaning"

Scott wrote a nice article which makes the point that philosophical knowledge is meaningless if a person doesn't act upon it.

[off topic content removed]

[Eaglerising]

Nick_A pointed out – “The emphasis on knowledge tends to ignore the third direction of thought which is the source of human ‘meaning’.”

The questions in the original post are about meaning and understanding. Can you understand something that has no meaning? Furthermore, thought is a product of knowledge. In the absences of knowledge there is NO thought. This has been proven by neuroscience with the aid of CAT scans.

Nick_A also pointed out that – “philosophical knowledge is meaningless if a person doesn't act upon it.” The decision not to act is an action. Knowledge is knowledge, whether be philosophical, mathematical, or scientific.

[Sy Borg]

Do we really understand the limitations of knowledge and how it is affecting every area of our lives? Would we attempt to solve our problems by accumulating more knowledge if we understood the limitations of knowledge? Has the increase in knowledge about obesity reduced the amount of obesity? Would our educational system be declining if we really understood knowledge and education? Would we confuse knowledge with understanding if we really understood them?

If by "our lives" you are referring to middle class westerners, then maybe. New technology is obviously needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on the natural environment.

Whatever, the growth of our collective bodies of knowledge of knowledge (aka science) are only one part of the equation. It's safe to say that the combined and competing interests of governments and multinationals will continue to rapidly accumulate knowledge and press forward technologically in their tussles for dominance. So we can safely say that history repeats in rendering most people to be effectively expendable pawns in a larger game.

In the light of overpowering external dynamics one may effect small changes in the local realm but the one sure solution to our problems lies within. But how does one change the way they feel about something if their feelings come unbidden? Answer: Self awareness in the moment (what new agers call "mindfulness") and logical personal philosophies. I see a lot of unhappiness about "our problems" and, yes, the losses we little people or our descendants will face are going to be extremely saddening on a personal level. Then again, every life finishes with death so that kind of sadness is unavoidable anyway.

However, the extreme negativity about the world per se today strikes me as psychologically unhealthy. "Our" demise may well be positive in the grander scheme of things, and not as the demise of an aberrant parasite as some have suggested. It may well be that we are the springboard to something greater than ourselves.

Consider the dinosaurs as their time started to come to a close as the "asteroid winter" settled in. Food and clean water would have been harder to come by, with more dangers, more disease. Whatever their limitations, the dying dinosaurs would have experienced emotions tending more towards fear and discomfort than would their predecessors living in less stressful conditions.

Yet from the dinosaurs' destruction came intelligent mammals and eventually us humans. Their pain was our gain, and the gain of some other species. If you think of the Earth as developing from its Hadean period, through to life's emergence four billion years ago, various ice ages, atmospheric changes, extinction events and new species, then the whole "Earth project" seems to be moving along well. The Earth is certainly a more complex and aware place than it was 4 billion years ago.

There appear to be two logical possibilities for the future:

1. either human/machine hydrids or autonomous post-human technologies become the next step in the planet's development or,

2. as most people seem to think, humans and their technology will become entirely extinct in the next 1,000 years.

Even if #2 is the case, given the accelerated progression of evolution after each major extinction event, there's plenty enough time for the Earth to produce another intelligent species - and one whose progression would be rapidly accelerated when their first excavations produce our technological remains buried beneath.

I personally think it psychologically comforting to graciously accept that, as with dinosaurs, humans are apparently not the endpoint in evolution's journey, that we too will be succeeded and improved upon both intellectually and morally. Rather than a "problem" for the Earth, more likely we humans are a link in the chain. Rest asured, we are doomed. Seven billion people are not going to be packed on space ships to travel to uninhabitable alien words within protective enclosures. We are all going to die anyway.

Hopefully this will cheer a few people up :)

[Eaglerising]

Greta – Are you saying "everything serves a purpose," even death? Or, are you saying something different?

Technology only has value when it is "understood." And, understanding is different from knowledge. I define knowledge as being the comprehension of data which is thought. Thought makes possible the comprehension of data. Comprehension is different from understanding. The field or domain of understanding is beyond the field of data, knowledge, comprehension, and what is commonly called thought.. In other words, the field of knowledge and understanding are two separate and different fields of existence. Observation, examination, and experience transforms transforms and elevates knowledge to understanding.

Knowledge (thought) s a lower form of consciousness than understanding. The consciousness of thought is outside the reach of understanding and unaware of its existence. On the other hand, the consciousness of understanding is aware of thought.

Contrary to what thought may thing or perceive, what I have stated in this post are merely words that don't make sense until they are experienced, observed, and examined.

[Sy Borg]

Greta – Are you saying "everything serves a purpose," even death? Or, are you saying something different?

It appears to be that way. Our cells die and are replaced but we remain, for a while. And when we go we are replaced in our society, and so forth. I see the Earth as a living system and, like any living system, it continues to develop unless it's hit by catastrophic bad luck. Each "disaster" on Earth has resulted in a significant rebound and progression.

Technology only has value when it is "understood." And, understanding is different from knowledge. I define knowledge as being the comprehension of data which is thought. Thought makes possible the comprehension of data. Comprehension is different from understanding. The field or domain of understanding is beyond the field of data, knowledge, comprehension, and what is commonly called thought.. In other words, the field of knowledge and understanding are two separate and different fields of existence. Observation, examination, and experience transforms transforms and elevates knowledge to understanding.

This is something that may come in the future. At present we have gigantic economic entities in intense competition with each other. The main understanding they appear to seek is understanding how to use technology to gain a competitive edge. It's the tragedy of the commons, which is a recurring theme with our burgeoning populations.

[Moreno]

Excellent point Moreno! There are many different meanings and emotions contained within the word "knowledge." Furthermore, our perception and definition of knowledge has changed over the years. How would you objectively prioritize knowledge? What criteria would you use to determine their priority? How do you take into account the changing accuracy and validity of knowledge?. How do you prioritize opposing knowledge about the same subject? These questions illustrate the complexity of prioritizing knowledge.

Is there a simpler way or an alternative to prioritizing knowledge? I ask this question because prioritizing knowledge involves some type of authority. And isn't the entity that does it, establish him or herself as an authority?

At a certain point you have to prioritize intuitively. In general you would prioritize around your goals, but at a certain point, you are going to have to make an intuitive choice. I have no personal organized system. I am interesting in knowledge that either 1) gives me a satisfying a ha experience of knowing about the world. Something that pulls together what seemed like a lot of disparate experiences or other knowledge. 2) knowledge that helps me change things, in me, in the world, that I want to change. Category 1 may do what category 2 does, but I simply like it because of how it feels to get that experience. I suspect that my liking it is connected at least in part to a sense that number two will be satisfied also. Some kind of authority will determine what is knowledge, and in the end it will be you giving that authority or taking it.

[Judaka]

Knowledge in terms of understanding all the observable truths that the universe might resolve a handful of problems but it fails to address the issue of values. To make decisions sometimes a hierarchical system of values is required and no amount of knowledge or understanding can change this. Whenever you have conflicting values, whether it is among people or within yourself, the issue becomes less about what is the "correct" answer and more about which answer is most acceptable. I won't even bother using an example of pure values because this question doesn't require that kind of explanation, instead let's look at an issue purely based off knowledge - global warming. You could say that global warming is an issue of knowledge, either our Earth is in grave danger and we must act or the threat is exaggerated or imagined and we shouldn't bother changing anything to fix it. In the instance that the former is true, the problem now is that we need to implement the most efficient changes to reduce carbon emissions. The same problem exists with obesity, no matter what we learn about health that won't change that cakes are tasty and stopping yourself from eating them is a challenge. Knowledge at best tells us what the answer is but that doesn't mean that implementing what we know is not a challenge within itself and in that sense knowledge does not fix our problems. As I said earlier though, most philosophical, political and personal problems are value based and here knowledge only helps to create valid arguments but it does not resolve disputes of values.

[Eaglerising]

Moreno, what you call "intuitive" may be consciousness rather than thought. You can tell the difference by closely and attentively observing if it is the same as thought. If you look around the room and focus on 5 things. Observe if thought names them or not. Consciousness is able to observe them and what is in the room without naming anything thing.

Secondly, knowledge which has been comprehended is often mistakenly viewed or perceived as "understanding." Here again, it takes a lot of attentive observation WITHOUT THOUGHT to see and understand the difference between the two.

My motive for providing this post was to challenge the readers perception and hope a few will bserve how they respond. In other words, do they automatically respond based upon their perception and defend their perception. Or, do they acknowledge "I don't know" and investigate it freshly from the unknown. The mind doesn't investigate what it knows. Acknowledging, "I don't Know" instructs the mind to investigate. In turn, something new is seen and experienced.

[Moreno]

Moreno, what you call "intuitive" may be consciousness rather than thought. You can tell the difference by closely and attentively observing if it is the same as thought. If you look around the room and focus on 5 things. Observe if thought names them or not. Consciousness is able to observe them and what is in the room without naming anything thing.

We each have ways of using these words and it's good to get the definitions out front. To me consciousness is awareness. You can be aware of things in the room, or thoughts or sensory input, etc. When I mention intuition I am contrasting it with linear reasoning. You could call it a kind of thinking, but since the process is not linear and often not completely worked out in consciousness, then it is something else.

Secondly, knowledge which has been comprehended is often mistakenly viewed or perceived as "understanding." Here again, it takes a lot of attentive observation WITHOUT THOUGHT to see and understand the difference between the two.

Or clear definitions. I would tend to use those words similarly, though I may also at the same time recognize two separate activities that match how you use those terms. What is the difference between the two for you?

My motive for providing this post was to challenge the readers perception and hope a few will bserve how they respond. In other words, do they automatically respond based upon their perception and defend their perception. Or, do they acknowledge "I don't know" and investigate it freshly from the unknown. The mind doesn't investigate what it knows. Acknowledging, "I don't Know" instructs the mind to investigate. In turn, something new is seen and experienced.

It might instruct the mind to investigate, it might not. One can be curious without saying 'I don't know.' One can explore without saying I don't know. Also not knowing vs knowing is not binary. One can get a sense of incompleteness or notice an anomaly. IOW one knows that a detail does not fit with what one knows or appears not to fit. There is no binary I do not know, but a moment of cognitive dissonance between a perception or event or fact and what we think is true. So we explore. To explore does not entail a binary I do not know. It is usually more complex than that. There is something that I do not know here, it seems, and we explore. But we do not explore from a place of pure unknowing, at all.

[Eaglerising]

Once again you have defended your perception rather than consider it a "possibility" and examine it. Your so busy defending your perception that you missed the whole point of acknowledging "you don't know." You don't even consider the possibility that your perception isn't as accurate as you think it is. Your responses are based upon memory. Thus, no investigation takes place and nothing new is learned.

Have you ever taken it upon yourself to challenge your perception by talking to neuroscientists studying the difference between thought and consciousness? If you did, they would probably show you the difference with CAT scanned images. Likewise, have you talked to those involved in quantum mechanics or theoretical physics?

And, as I pointed out to you in another post, thought cannot examine or challenge itself.

[Moreno]

Once again you have defended your perception rather than consider it a "possibility" and examine it. Your so busy defending your perception that you missed the whole point of acknowledging "you don't know." You don't even consider the possibility that your perception isn't as accurate as you think it is. Your responses are based upon memory. Thus, no investigation takes place and nothing new is learned.

You presented your beliefs. I responded by presenting my beliefs on the subject. In doing this one allows room for exploration. One of the ways I explore is by presenting things I believe and seeing what happens when others respond to this. I have other approaches to developing, learning, growing, exploring. When I wrote my thoughts, you responded with beliefs about what I wrote AND beliefs about me. You seem to allow yourself to be fixed, express your beliefs, not examine or question your beliefs - since you assume I do not, I will take your lack of open self-examination and evidence that you are fixed. I am not sure why when you express your beliefs this is OK and also somehow open or considering possibilities, but when others express their beliefs they are are not examining, considering possibilities, but I see no justification for this.

Have you ever taken it upon yourself to challenge your perception by talking to neuroscientists studying the difference between thought and consciousness?

Sure. And I do not think they are the same, though I do not think you are using the words like neuroscientists do.

If you did, they would probably show you the difference with CAT scanned images. Likewise, have you talked to those involved in quantum mechanics or theoretical physics?

Sure, I have. Feel free to explain how anything I have said contradicts neuroscience or quantum physics.

And, as I pointed out to you in another post, thought cannot examine or challenge itself.

yes, I noticed you expressing this opinion and repeating it here. Is it an opinion you can question yourself?

-- Updated May 5th, 2017, 4:59 am to add the following --

Once again you did not respond directly to the points I made. I am afraid I prefer discussion partners who can, in fact, examine their own ideas and the ideas of others and integrate what the other person says into the dialogue. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about me as a person. Just for your information I have mediatated for decades and have a lot of experience of being conscious without thinking. I also have a solid background in natural science, professionally in the neurosciences, though I do also have an interest in quantum physics, especially quantum physics in biological processes - for example that in photosynthesis or say with the quantum zeno effect in migrating birds magentic perception, though certainly not limited to these ideas. It seems like you may be coming from Krishnamurti'sj work and I also have experience with both him in person and with his work. So for me there is tremendous irony in you jumping to telling me what I am, not examining your own ideas and not actually responding to my posts, while telling me that I am not willing to challenge myself or open to possibilities. I am afraid it is you who seem fixed. I will avoid you in the future. I hope perhaps you can reflect on your own approach here with others who do not immediately accept your doctrines.

[Eaglerising]

Moreno, I understand how you may feel as you do about my responses. I realize you are a curious and intelligent individual. It is only natural to want to discuss things with others who are relying upon knowledge and thought. Unfortunately, a millions or words or thousands of books cannot provide you with want you want from me. The reason being is understanding isn't transferable from one person to another like knowledge. It can only be gained through observation, examination, and experience.

The whole purpose of this initial post was to point out the limitations of knowledge and experience the difference between knowledge and understanding. I am not knocking knowledge, because it is a useful tool, when you DO NOT EXCEED the limitations of knowledge. You don't try to repair a boat with a can opener because you understand its limitations. It is the lack of understanding the limitations of knowledge that cause people to exceed them. People's dependence upon thought, knowledge, and belief prevents them from experiencing a more viable alternative. The alternative is vastly different and unobtainable by knowledge or thought because it is outside the field of thought and knowledge.

In other words, I responded the way I did because i CAN NOT give or provide you with what you want. I realize how you feel because I used to feel the same way prior to experiencing an alternative to knowledge.