Having INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of something -- and this is the source of wondering. Okay, it's kinda obvious, but we need to put things into perspective. Why do we have incomplete knowledge about things?

Do continue!

Wow! You people are nice here.


As far as the question, "why do we have imcomplete knowledge?", I'd answer:

"Because of inate imperfection." Simple answer, I know, but nonetheless true.

So where does this leave us?

I understand that we have to force ourselves (against our will) to sit still for log periods of time but it really doesn't waste energy compared to activity.

Yes but its not a physical tiredness believe it or not. Its a mental tiredness which sometimes feels physical.

I also believe that must be true

We are actually built to save energy overall because in the olden days energy was quite hard to come by. But I know what ur saying!

So did I! When I said lying down I meant lying still. We are very good at staying still for periods of time because it is an energy saver but I Do believe that longer periods might be harder. This is only because our thirst for knowledge pushes our curiocity to make us move. If we could continually fall asleep whenever we wanted to it would be easy!

BMW Guy,

(May I call you "Beamer"? It's odd to think of Bayerische Motorwerke everytime I see your name ...)

I'm not sure this is going somewhere, but this innate imperfection is due to the fact that all (?) organisms are limited -- in their ablities, resources and time. It is a determinant of existence to be imperfect. Is it therefore also a determinant of existence to wonder? If you exist, then you also wonder?
("I am, therefore I doubt?")
(It was established before that asking questions is due to mental wondering (that can be done in words or not), and mental wondering is due to limited knowledge, and limited knowledge is due to innate imperfection.)



John,

If it feels like physical tiredness, it has the same effect as physical tiredness. I am as tired if I have to read 200 pages of a boring book, as I am tired if I showel cole or chop wood all afternoon.
Also, not to forget psychosomatics!

Hah, thirst of knowledge! That's good.

Now that you've mentioned curiosity: I once read an add for a newspaper, it said: "Neugier setzt Wissen voraus." Knowledge is the prerequisite of curiosity. In order to be curious, one already needs some knowledge.

What do you think?

[quote=RosaMagika]BMW Guy,

(May I call you "Beamer"? It's odd to think of Bayerische Motorwerke everytime I see your name ...)


I'm not sure this is going somewhere, but this innate imperfection is due to the fact that all (?) organisms are limited -- in their ablities, resources and time. It is a determinant of existence to be imperfect. Is it therefore also a determinant of existence to wonder? If you exist, then you also wonder?
("I am, therefore I doubt?")
(It was established before that asking questions is due to mental wondering (that can be done in words or not), and mental wondering is due to limited knowledge, and limited knowledge is due to innate imperfection.)........../QUOTE]

Very true.........and yes, you may call me, "Beamer".

Its definitely not the same as physical tiredness. U will find that if u go out and have some fresh air for about 5 minutes that u will be able to play a full 90 minute football match!!!

Absolutely. In order to be curious a question must be formed in your head. In order to formulate a question, one must have some pre-existing knowledge of the environment.

The first question was asked by a Cyclomedusa 550 million years ago. The question had something to do with food.

Are you serious?

Where does that pre-existing knowledge of the environment come from?
Instinct?
Or is it that we are already born with a certain curiosity, through which then the first knowledge is achieved, and then this knowledge serves as a basis for further curiosity?

I won't speak for Mr. Connellan, but I think curiousity comes from either:

1) Instinct

OR

2) From a knowledge placed within every human when they are born by God (this view, of course, may pre-suppose Christian teachings)

Haha, I knew u were going to ask that next!!!

I suppose there is some inbuilt knowledge that we have encoded in our genes which is with us before we are born (instincts) but after we are born, I believe we take in information without questioning it. As babies we are continually assesing our environment and we begin to formulate rules which can be used again and again. Now this happens without us having to ask questions and can be thought of as a type of instinctual learning behaviour which has been built into our genes because of its immense advantage (evolutionarily speaking).

John,

Your explanation fits with the fact that many animals, esp. mammals and humans first have to go through a phase of maturation; ie. a phase in which they have limited abilities to move, see, and can only digest mother's milk. Many esp. predator mammals are blind and helpless when born, they need time for the bones and muscles to grow.
Some other, like horses, cows, deer can run almost right after birth.

BTW,
Do you know whether there is a proved connection between the length of the maturation phasis and the kind of animal regarding its way of living (predator/prey)?

Yes, I believe that many top carnivores such as leopards and lions are quite helpless at birth (hence their vulnerability to hyaenas) but as u say most ungulates are quite capable at birth. obviously this was all selected for by NS too because a gazelle fawn which cannot run at 80% the speed of its mother within a few days runs the risk of being an easy target for even a precocious cheetah cub!

I'm pleased with the way things are going. Good. We figured out some thigns about the origin of quesitons.

The second part of the topic question was about questions in general. Incomplete preexisting knowledge and curiosity as the basis for it.

In order to get an answer to your question -- what are the requirements there?

Comparable world models, ie. both parties having comparable ideas of what the world is like seems to be a plausible answer.

If there is a question -- is it necessary that there is or will always be an answer too?

How do we recognize a "wrong question"?
Namely, sometimes some questions are asked and it later turns out that the person asking didn't really want an answer, they only wanted to make their own point.

Okay, I'm still working on this, so forgive me if I sound vague.

Yes this is quite interesting. Glad to be of help

The requirements are a brain, sense organs and information I would imagine!!!

The brain asks a question (by breaking it down into possible true or false statements), the senses detect information and pass it on, and finally the brain decides whether the questions are true or false based on that.

i don't really understand this

That is the same as saying are there questions which cannot be answered with true or false? I'll leave that up to u to decide until tommorow!

It is easy to tell the difference between a question and a statement but deciphering what peoples intentions are is another story!

John,

Wrong questions:
My starting point for this thought was a question an American girl once asked me when we had a conversation about 9/11. She asked: "What did those people in the Towers do that they had to be killed?"
Now, if she can ask a question like that, then I could ask her "What did those civilians in Iraq, and so many other places do that they had to be killed by the US?"

It's crooked ethics, that's what's behind such wrong questions.


Comparable world models
This is a term from the system theory. It suggests that if two people want to communicate and each of them has the feeling that he is understood by the other, the prerequisite for that are comparable world models (models of anything in the world, in general and in specific).
If I would try to talk to a, say, professional musician about music, that wouldn't do much, because what I understand by "dynamics", "flow", "the air being full of a certain hum", "the ideal interpretation", "the romantics in Schubert" is most likely *not* what he understands by those terms. We don't have comparable world models, or, in this case, comparable music models.
So if I would ask that professional musician, e.g. "What do you think is the connection between Schubert's music and Chopen's music?" he would probably give me a lot of fancy theories and facts, half of them I certainly wouldn't have a clue of, and the other half would be terms that I don't understand in the "professional way" -- misunderstandings and a quite futile "communication" are inavoidable.

That's why only people who have comparable world models can have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise, a basic level of understanding has to be established -- but who would want to do that for each and every conversation?!

I see what u mean now by 'wrong question'. Another example would be "why is the sea usually red?"

I wouldn't want to use the word "world model" here. Its too strong. What u really mean is that they have a different language code than others when it comes to their speciality. This phenomenon is very common with people in specialized areas. Even though it isn't necessary, we seem to have an instinctual behaviour to create a kind of code language , I suppose as a way of excluding others from their group. It is a 'group behaviour' phenomenon definitely.

Oh god, I misspelled Chopin and wrote ChopEn! Shoot!

I didn't notice

John,

>>"I wouldn't want to use the word "world model" here. Its too strong. What u really mean is that they have a different language code than others when it comes to their speciality. This phenomenon is very common with people in specialized areas. Even though it isn't necessary, we seem to have an instinctual behaviour to create a kind of code language , I suppose as a way of excluding others from their group. It is a 'group behaviour' phenomenon definitely."

That's a way of looking at it, I understand it. I still stick to 'world model'. As soon as you start talking about 'social groups' and their 'codes', you're on slippery ground, as these terms can easily be misconstrued (and they are! just look at politics). 'World model' is a more neutral term, at least for now.