Does A Limit of Comprehension Limit Knowledge?

[TigerNinja]

Undeniably, we, as humans struggle to comprehend things. This is due to the human mind can only go so far in being able to grasp certain things, as we are defined by our experiences and so are our limits. Noting that only someone who has experienced something, a food for example can comprehend exactly what it is to smoke explains comprehension in a whole lot more detail.

The fact that I don't know what it is like to eat a certain food, but do know how it's been described still does not clear it up. These descriptions require me to experience another food mixed with another food and I have not tried that combination. In and of itself, that still does not give me the exact taste of that food. But does my lack of comprehension for that taste but knowledge of how it has been described give me knowledge?

Knowledge is often seen as being birthed of comprehension, as to truly know something you should be able to understand the underlying concepts within it. Because of this, comprehension is often seen as the determining factor of whether or not someone truly knows something or is solely regurgitating facts. A question which then appears is what defines knowledge. If I don't understand why or how 2+2=4, but nonetheless I completely memorize that fact to the extent of it being seemingly knowledge, do I know it or have I solely remembered a statement? Does a limit of comprehension limit our capability to know?

[Philo_soph]

Such questions normally probe into the distinction between understanding and epistemic knowledge. But I’d agree that memorizing a copy of something cannot produce “knowledge”. Maybe one could say true knowledge relies on an investigative act of understanding. In your examples, there is an empirical and a rational case. I believe in both cases “being-engaged-in” is the actual root of knowing.

Knowing about the food (its texture, quality, taste) and knowing why some people think 2+2=4, both require active engagement. As for memorizing a copy of a fact/possibility, I’d say it just involves an “account of informational content.” That is, someone reports that something is like this or that, but may not really know why it is so. We could call this reporting “information” or “data,” but not knowledge.

[Amm9440]

It does to a great extent. But always because of lack of comprehension but because of limits set by language and empirical data which after a point is not flexible. If you look at a new born baby there are far more emotions going on in our mind which cannot be expressed in words, which will then a matter of comprehension for another person. Same is the case when we try to see past a certain distance or a certain detail the naked eye cannot detect, sure, we can use scientific methods are there to magnify/zoom in on certain things, but history is proof that the more we look closely the more it subdivides and the more we look afar, the more its there to see. So the tools for comprehending anything should be enhanced to the point of flexibility then only it will be possible to go beyond certain limits that is set by the language and other things. But the limits are also set by us in a way. The language gets strained by traditionalists sometimes and science by supremacists. So collective effort for the better is the only way, but easier said than done.

[Eaglerising]

TigerNinga –

Undeniably, we, as humans struggle to comprehend things. This is due to the human mind can only go so far in being able to grasp certain things, as we are defined by our experiences and so are our limits.

Have you considered the possibility that comprehension is a limitation of knowledge? Can you comprehend knowledge and its limitations without examining its relation to "thought." Is there an alternative to thought and knowledge? If so, what?

[Burning ghost]

I don't struggle to comprehend this laptop on the words you wrote? So I would not say it is "undeniable" at all, far from it!

If you comprehend this sentence then that is my proof

Generally the more variable the experiences we have the more chance we have to stumble across something we can compare X with in some way that allows us to comprehend it in a "better light" (so to speak). This is what happens with babies. Their neurons rapidly die because they serve no practical function. It seems to make sense to manage what data we deal with practically rather than pay attention to every small detail. We end up with a balance. It is quite possible that most of us (I would be surprised if it wasn't more than merely "possible") don't optimize ourselves enough. It seems in society today we are distracted by seemingly meaningless pursuits rather than refining our abilities to produce works of art, educate ourselves about new subjects, meet and converse with different peoples and cultures, learn new languages, walk across fields, play a guitar, dance into night, cook a delicious meal or numerous other activities we could be participating in rather than sitting in front of a TV being inundated with utter trash that has little distinction in content, artistic quality or expansion of our general worldly experience.

Of course we have been 'trained' by these institutions to make excuses to watch TV. It is more than simply irony and more about a sinister depreciation of 'self' and 'worth' in an ever TV induced distorted of said faculties.

Don't watch TV, have a conversation or read a book That thing you've always wanted to do ... stop making excuses and break the cycle of the purposeful 'fear' played on by the greater machinations of society. Everything you think is scary is in fact MUCH les scary than passively following the 'rules' and 'laws'.

Sorry, no idea where that came from!! XD hahaha! I guess political attitudes have been annoying me lately and I am tired of hearing people say "what can I do?". Pretty much anything you want, that is what you can do! ANYTHING you want. Just be worthy of yourself because you are worthy.

[Eaglerising]

Burning ghost – The point I am trying to make is most people are unaware of the limitations of knowledge, what alone understand them.
the limitations of knowledge is why understanding and wisdom are more prized than knowledge. Likewise, they are unable to see that knowledge and thought are opposite sides of the same coin. And comprehension is the middle of the coin.

Knowledge, thought, and comprehension are in the same field of existence and have in indestructible relationship with each other. Understanding is in a higher and different field than knowledge, thought, and comprehension.

[Burning ghost]

Eaglerising -

You just seem to say "blah blah blah" and expect us to understand you. Quaint analogies don't cut it for me, sorry.

[Eaglerising]

Burning ghost, that's life. I don't expect people to agree with me.

[Burning ghost]

Yes, but you probably try harder to help people understand what your point is. Finding agreement is not why most people partake in philosophical discussions.

I apologise because I realise my words are much harsher than I intended them to be!

When you say things like "understanding and wisdom are more prized than knowledge" you have do explain what this means and back it up with some kind of evidence otherwise you are not really saying anything much at all to the reader. I am sure you mean a lot more than you are showing (or I at least hope/expect you are).

By saying this I am not saying it is all about semantics, but greater precision of terms and explication help me to resist interpreting your words as I please rather than as you actually intend them to be read.

The "knowledge" and "thought" analogy does little here too. What is the point of the analogy? What am I meant to take from this as to what you think about the relationship between "thought" and "knowledge" and what you mean by "thought" and "knowledge". Epistemic questions abound here! The same goes for the difference/relationship between "understanding", "wisdom" and "knowledge".

I remember someone I was chatting to on a different forum said something along the lines of looking "knowledge" as being on the "edge" of "knowing". Our ability to know is possible only by its limitation. To know all is the same as knowing nothing. I am talking in the "absolute" sense here. Then the problem becomes more precise in reflecting on what we really mean by "absolute" and definitive "truths".

I truly know something if I understand the rules of the system. eg. I know 1+1=2. The rules of mathematics set very rigid limits that allow me to know for certain this as a mathematical truth, much like I know the rules for chess and what moves are false moves and what laws are true moves. To break the rules is to stop partaking in mathematics/chess.

[Eaglerising]

Burning ghost

Yes, but you probably try harder to help people understand what your point is. Finding agreement is not why most people partake in philosophical discussions.

My posts are intended to CHALLENGE the reader and hopefully the reader will examine their view, perception, or belief freshly.

I apologize because I realize my words are much harsher than I intended them to be!

Thank you for the apology, but I understand your frustration and anxiety.

When you say things like "understanding and wisdom are more prized than knowledge" you have to explain what this means and back it up with some kind of evidence otherwise you are not really saying anything much at all to the reader. I am sure you mean a lot more than you are showing (or I at least hope/expect you are).

It’s not my intention to do someone's work. If they are curious, they will take it upon themselves to experience the reality of what I said themselves. Then it isn’t a question of believing or disbelieving, but of understanding. I don’t like to rob or cheat anyone out of that experience.

Anything anyone says is really meaningless words until one does the work and transform them into an understanding that will benefit them.

Have you ever attentively observed your thoughts without judging them or acting upon them? That’s important and very insightful because thought cannot observe itself, it takes something different than thought to do that. So what is it that can observe thought and understand it?

I truly know something if I understand the rules of the system. etc. I know 1+1=2. The rules of mathematics set very rigid limits that allow me to know for certain this as a mathematical truth, much like I know the rules for chess and what moves are false moves and what laws are true moves. To break the rules is to stop partaking in mathematics/chess.

Ah, the rules. I had a good laugh at that statement because I used to get so mad at the life, the universe or whatever, and shout out: “Tell me the damn rules and I will follow them!” There were times I would say: “I am not going to play this dumb game if you’re not going to tell me the rules.” Then there were the times I tried to run away, unfortunately I was everywhere I went

Please continue with your posts. I really do enjoy them. I also love your sense of humor.
I am constantly challenging everything I understand. Unfortunately, I cannot think of everything on my own. That’s why I need people like you to challenge me. Few realize I get more out of these posts than anyone can ever get from me.

[Philo_soph]

Eaglerising wrote:

Have you considered the possibility that comprehension is a limitation of knowledge? Can you comprehend knowledge and its limitations without examining its relation to "thought." Is there an alternative to thought and knowledge? If so, what?

“Limitation” is, in fact, a traditional idea. Metaphysics, especially the western version, sees things in binary opposition: day/light; man/woman; good/evil. The idea that what we know can be evaluated by a negative complementary counterpart has long been one of the postulates of skepticism. That is, knowledge always goes on “with” a void. It must rely on itself, consolidating or even destroying itself. This is for the first part.

About the words (knowledge, comprehension, understanding, thought), I believe they are used ambiguously here. If you’re looking for other terms, one could suggest a plenty of them: cognitive processing, neurological activation of the brain, and so on. Why would we even need an alternative to this group of concepts? We could specify them and talk about them with more clarify. For instance, understanding is a key notion in ontological theories of human perception and is different from knowledge per se.

[Eaglerising]

Phil_Soph – I don't have a clue to what you said other than I should use other words. It's probably best if you do it your way and I will do it my way. Thought likes to complicate things, I like to keep them simple.

[Philo_soph]

Eaglerising wrote

Phil_Soph – I don't have a clue to what you said other than I should use other words.

Well, first, you don’t even have a clue to what you yourself try to say.
And second, I said exactly the opposite.

It's probably best if you do it your way and I will do it my way.

Good idea, but you’re not showing any special way.

Thought likes to complicate things, I like to keep them simple.

You’re complicating them even more.

[Eaglerising]

Burning ghost & Philo_soph – I agree with you that terms such as thought, knowledge, comprehension, and understanding are ambiguous. They will remain ambiguous as long as we avoiding using them as opposed to thoroughly examining them. The same applies to understanding the difference between comprehension and understanding. This lack of understanding prevents us from distinguishing a symptom of a problem from a problem.

Thought, being the authority it is, perceives its perception is accurate. It’s unaware that the foundation of its perception is built upon conflicting knowledge, inaccurate information and opinions. That’s because thought is unable to see and examine itself. That requires something different from thought.

All this causes a growing number of problems such as contradiction (saying one thing and doing another), racism, violence, apathy, etc. Common sense is no longer common.

[Mirrormirror]

My first post on this forum. Am a total newbie.

Comprehension and understanding are interchangeable- I would think.

Knowledge in itself is meaningless unless there is understanding (in the human context). Without understanding- application or utilization of the knowledge would be difficult or incorrect.

Eg. If a person was to make a table from the very clear detailed diagram instructions- he may take an hour. If he was to make a second table - why do you think it would take him lesser time? He has the same knowledge both times - his level of understanding has improved.