Thread: What is knowledge?

Originally Posted by The Enterer

You're getting it.

It doesn't invalidate my previous point. You're the one who's getting it. I've gotten it way before.

Nah man, don't revert to troll mode. What you said was "Words are used to refer to states of the world" in the same way that maps refer to places in the world. See? The map is a big help, but it is not the same thing as actually being on the street itself.

You kids are all so depressing. Get off your computers and play frisbee or something!

"judge not lest ye be judged..."

THE FOOL

BEGINNING
SPONTANEITY
FAITH
APPARENT FOLLY

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Thank you I have done my own personal study independent of any system telling me how to think but that is a long story.



This got me thinking for a few minutes. It seemed difficult to distinguish between information and knowledge. Well done taltho.

The difference between information and knowledge is this though. Information is the result of energy systems existing from spin or motion which is created from a vastly infinitely concentrated interaction of the original cause. Within this interaction you have data coming in and then data going out. For instance you eat and get more energy, respond to the outside world. And the world gives you more feedback again. Knowledge is the aspect of this original cause with which you send your data out. Information is the aspect where you take the data in.

So yes although they are part of the same system there is a very clear distinction about what information is doing and what knowledge is doing within this system of nature.

Oh wow, um ah, hum, it seems as though your complex phraseology is much too copious for my inadequate comprehension, could you please elucidate? Just joking!


I do agree with what you've said all tho it is a very hard concept to conceive I think you did a good job in a short frame.


heres another example.

Epistemologically speaking, if I perchance believe in God because I think that I’ll be saved and, get to eat grapes out the hands of lovely virgin maid’s in heaven then I just die and turn into a frog, or whatever. Even though I believed in the maid theory the truth is that I’m now a frog. Even though I believed, it still didn’t happen because it’s not true. So what I thought I knew AKA knowledge is nothing more than a self illusion, because now I’m just a frog eating bugs in the night and living in the mud. So what we think of knowledge and information/learning/experience/belief etc could be nothing more than illusions.

Everyone is debating their belief in words, when those words are meant to convey ideas of cognitive thought from one to another. Words are archaic and hinder the minds greater ability to conceptualize when argued in such a fashion. Just thought I'd add that.

Originally Posted by Grey Owl

I like what you say here in fact it reminds me of something wittgenstein argued. I can't remember it exactly but loosely paraphrased, 'there need be no element common to all instances of a property other than they are instances'.

However I do feel much can be gained in exploring knowledge and that one need not define it in a single instance.

Knowledge is information, but you cannot use knowledge to judge any particular instance before you have fully understood it as its own instance, rather than just a combination of past experiences you have brought up. Everything must be viewed with respect and awe because everything is another unique part of existence and though you can use knowledge to make better use out of every instance, it still contains infinite possibility.

Interesting question, I would define knowledge as following. Knowledge is the sum of all your experiences. The more experience you have in a certain field, the more knowledge you will have in that field. You can share your knowledge through language and books, but true knowledge can only be obtained through personal experience imo. Before you can understand the words and the concepts in the books you already need to have experienced them. Without experience, no knowledge.

This topic seems to have a lost a little of it's momentum, which is a shame has some really cool things have been said.

So far the majority of people have linked knowledge to experience. So
in a blatant attempt to get more thoughts I thought I'd ask an additional question.

Is it possible to attain new knowledge without experience?

Now I don't mean that a person doesn't have any experience at all, rather that through reason alone they come to know something entirely new.

Or is it the case that any reasoned understanding is analytic, that is the new concept is already contained in a previous experience.

Finally if anyone else has anything new they want to post please do .

[quickreply]
knowledge is power. // Power is complicated.

Depending on the conditions you learn something and the situations you recognize IT as, following how you would react(actions, etc), in the viewers subjective perspective, I would say this is knowledge. I'm not trying to objectify knowledge as a thing, but as a term of understanding different concepts, which is relative to how we perceive wisdom.

Believe it or not, wiki explains its "to objectify meaning" well(in my view), but even its meaning is subjectively gained from "knowledge".

"Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate."