The Origin of Knowledge

What is the origin of knowledge? How does knowledge originate in the brain? Is the origin language? Is the origin math? What is the relationship between them?

According to this website, math is not dependent on language.

So, maybe, language and math have a common origin but are not co-dependent?

I would think that both math and language have very abstract and flexible origins. I think the origin is pure "meaning".....

Anyways.... I'm just opening a thread to discuss this....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is the independence of mathematics from language supposed to be a revelation? Numerology has nothing to do with linguistics - we use identifiers to conceptualize the numerical system, but the system itself is necesarilly independent of our perceptions, conceptions, and identifications. Or did anyone honestly believe that the existence of nine (as opposed to eight or ten) planets in our solar system was dependent upon the word "nine" having been defined?

If knowledge is defined as our deduced understanding of the world around us, then it (knowledge) could not have "originated" within the mind. Given that our perceptions are of external phenomenon (occurences independent of ourselves), then the roots of knowledge, too, are obviously external. We perceive of some "thing," and based on that perception we deduce some truth. And again, it has nothing to do with language, nor mathematics (which is itself some independent object of our perceptions, unlike language, which as an object is the dependent product of our imagination). Primitive man lacked complex linguistics, yet he certainly had an elementary grasp (or knowledge) of the physical world around him. Indeed, one must first aquire foundational information before attempting to derive a language or catalogueing system (for example, first one must realize that one can conceptualize, retain, and share data, before one can conclude that there is a need or even the possibility for a communication/catalogue system).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, but knowledge is not just the perception of something that is true- it is the understanding. I can perceive something and "know" that it is true, but in order to "know", I need some sort of concept to identify what is being perceived- which would be language....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not completely true. about 8 months ago (I think) a study was published in which people studied a tribe in some rain forest that did not have a word for any number over 2. it was 1, 2, many, in translation. these people had no concept of a number greater than 3. if asked to do things, like copy a number of lines, or other test, they would fail if the number exceed 3. the researchers said the didn't understand "fourness"

 

This is senseless. Even dogs have been shown able to differentiate between a small and large pile of bones, even if the difference was miniscule (say, a pile of 2 bones and a pile of 3). And chimpanzees have been taught to count. Yet I can assure you my miniature pincher Joey has no concept of the word "three" as we know and use it. And the chimpanzee probably doesn't either.

Last week, I was mountain climbing in Yosemite, when I saw some sort of beaver-like small mammal. I did not know its name. However, I was able to deduce that it was a mammal, that it was small, furrry, not a beaver but similar, with black and white fur. It was unique and new creature in my catalogue; if I were so inclined, I could have titled it, since no name is any more or less correct than a competitor except where differences of definition (and definitive accuracy) exist. Knowledge is not limited our language; language is simply a means by which we organize and more easily share our aquired information. Even if I didnt have access to the descriptors above, if I was without any complex language altogether (beyond grunts and crude gestures, as in apes), I would still implicitly "know" everything listed above (that it was like another creature I had spied and was familiar with, that it had definite visible color and texture, etc).

Why do you need to linguistically identify and catalogue some observed phenomenon in order to accurately understand it? The aquired information (smell, sound, feel, sight) itself should be sufficient to both identify the object (you could recognize it again later, and even point it out to another human being, or give him a rough idea of its physical characteristics via a complex game of charades) and aquire some truthful knowledge about the thing (that it was soft or hard, cold or warm, for example, again without needing access to the descriptors or language... you need simply have experienced these sensations previously).

Language is purely a convenience. It is infinitely simpler and more efficient means of catalogueing and shareing a great deal of information.

 

Could you ,make comparisons between different perceptions without language?

You cannot communicate without a language. You can recall the perception after a period of time, but you cannot connect different perceptions and understand them either.

Well, of course. But without language, there's not much you can understand...


And this is not even about language- it is about meaning....

 

Yes. And language is also able to create perception....

 

yes they can tell the difference, but can they tell what the number is? the people in this tribe, when asked to copy a number of lines, would copy numbers near but not exactly the number unless it was 1, 2, or 3. if you asked them to copy lines on a piece of paper, and say there are 5 lines, they would copy 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, but could not quantify the numbers. all they knew was that there were "many"

 

knowledge probably comes into existence when we lose our omniscience, since when we don't know everything, we must begin to think.

 

Maybe we need to undertake the significant task of coming to an agreement on what "knowledge" means.

 

Uh oh. Here we go again.

Don't worry, Truthseeker, I'll stay out of your way this time. I'll check in every now and again to see how addled the discussion is though. Should be fun if past discussions are any judge.


Onefinity,

Shhhhh.
You should realize that Truthseeker has been in this exact same conversation several times and each time the subject of definitions and nomenclature has been brought and each time it has been blithely ignored. I really don't expect him to alter his behavior this time either.

Good luck.

 

Fromthedarksea,

Well, what I said is that language can create perceptions. For example, when you write a novel you are using language to create perceptions such as the character, setting, etc....

 

invert,

First of all this is the first time I'm discussing knowlegde. Second, I have dealt with definitions in every thread I have made on similar subjects.

 

Yeah, whatever... let's work on this...

What do you think knowledge means?

 

Knowledge is the concepts, material or otherwise, and relationships that are taken for granted to exist. 2nowledge is different from information in that it can be logically compiled to create new knowledge. Knowledge is information that has been interpretted or processed

An interesting point about knowledge...the suffix "ledge" originally meant "to play" or "to dance".

- KitNyx

 

I disagree, information is raw data...knowledge is data that has been perceived, interpreted, cut to fit and placed within our respective schema or worldviews. The information that I perceive proves that the universe exists. Therfore the existance of the world is proof that supports my knowledge that God exists, hence supporting Creationism and the fall of the "Big Bang" theory...or, Therfore the existance of the world is is proof the supports my knowledge that the "Big Bang" happened, hence supporting semi-modern Scientific theory, disproving the necessity for God.

The universe exists as raw data...our interpretation and classification of it is knowledge.

- KitNyx

 

There is a useful model that differentiates between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Worth looking into. Just google "DIKW" or the words together.

 

I define knowledge as the structure of an organism that is alterable through interaction with its environment, whether that interaction involves a flow of information or energy. This definition naturally includes all living things and physical as well as cognitive structures.

When I actually "know" something, it has become a part of my structure, either cognitively or physically or both. It then serves as a tool, filter, or lens to determine how I utilize new information. Of course, this doesn't mean knowledge, once gained, is immutable; it is itself is subject to change. What I "knew" yesterday I may not "know" today.

I am not suggesting that this is the best definition. It is simply one that I have found most pragmatic. It is influenced chiefly by the work of cognitive biologists Maturana and Varela, and by the work of Carl Bereiter on knowledge models.

 

Toally agreed... - KitNyx

 

Is "corrupt" the correct word? Is there such a thing as a "pure" perceptiveness, when ALLl information is in a sense a distortion of an undivided wholeness? I like to think that these various perspectives are not corrupted, but simply partial (but ever-evolving, one hopes).