Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Aug 14, 2016.
because without movement material objects can not manifest .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
But we cannot know every movement . An individual's knowledge is finite ,surely?
(btw in in radioactive decay it seems a physical change takes place without movement -does that change your thinking?)
both yes and no .
advanced beings would disagree.
think about the essence of the decay .
How do you know? Perhaps they would agree. Perhaps they would say it is of no consequence. Who are these "advanced beings"?
Where is the movement? Where is this essence? What does the "essence of the decay" mean?
ancient beings in our history .
transformation ; from one form of matter to another
If you look at the knowledge, which humans had 1000 years ago, much of this knowledge would be considered misinformation or even nonsense today. Yet in its own day, this what was considered state of the art knowledge, that any knowledgeable person should know. For example, it was common knowledge at that time, that the earth was flat. If you did not know that, back then, you were considered uneducated and a buffoon.
Knowledge is very often dependent on a time in history, with not all knowledge transferring to the future. Knowing everything, at any given time, does not necessarily mean you will know anything, in the future. Knowledge is a subjective state of mind that each generation likes to believe is objective. Knowledge will end when people finally become fully objective. It is hard to be objective to history in the making even if we have the facts.
Knowledge is a subjective state of mind, that substitutes for applied and creative thought. Most people can memorize knowledge, while only a small group will derive and define it. When most humans are able to creative, invent and apply knowledge, then we will have no need to memorize knowledge. Knowledge will become obsolete and something new will appear.
A skilled craftsman like a carpenter, can start a new job, with a unique situation, not yet in the book of knowledge. There is no chapter in the book of knowledge for that unique place called Mrs Jones's house. He may add a chapter in the book of knowledge, after he is done. His apprentice might want to memorize this. The movement toward the end of knowledge is based on a condensation of knowledge, minimal set, from which each of us starts to write our own book of knowledge.
Computers and internet create a paradox. These allow the generation and storage of more and more information; knowledge pre-cursors. Yet, at the same time, computers and internet are causing people to have to remember less knowledge, since they can always look up anything they need to know on the net. The working knowledge base is condensing.
Fifty years ago most students in the US could list all the presidents of the US. Today, half can't list the last two. However, they all know how to find this information or knowledge on the net. There more use of ingenuity and less use of memorizing. This is not much different from the master carpenter, in the sense of a condensed working set of knowledge and ingenuity, allowing a popcorn affect.
The internet is not always reliable for information, showing the subjectivity of timely information. If you look at the current election campaigns, knowledge can be all over the place for the same event; propaganda. The current state of affairs, has all the symptoms that we may be in the end stages of knowledge, where more and more people are generating their own knowledge.
Knowledge is making itself obsolete, so sometime deeper can appear. When there is too much information and knowledge and you can't keep up with memory and you can't always tell what is true, people begin to break away to find what they need.
One of the few things that is helping knowledge remain, is greed. When we search the web, the top search responses that appear are bought and sold in advance. Companies buy keywords, which tends to make the same information come up with similar searches. If you look up presidents, someone owns or leases that word. This tends to homogenize individual research, but along commercial lines. If the internet search was not fixed by money, knowledge would be generated in a more diverse way, speeding up the transition.
Then it wasn't knowledge, it was belief.
This is false. We've known that the Earth isn't flat for over 2,000 years.
And how should we regard people that are ignorant enough to make statements like you've just done?
What makes you think people (as a whole) will ever become "fully objective"?
How does "becoming fully objective" automatically give you access to all the facts?
Why do you think that that this will occur?
Have you just invented that last "fact"?
Your own posts being a prime example...
This doesn't make any sense.
A situation roughly analogous to (or covering broader epistemological territory than) that depicted in Hempel's dilemma.
Rather than being excessively fixated with true / false status or having an idealized take on that dichotomy, we might be better served by rating the practical effectiveness or functionality of a specific " _Y_understanding of _X" in different contexts. Simply treating bricks as solid, macroscopic objects with a construction purpose -- the way people did a thousand years ago -- is going to be more useful and quicker in everyday life than regarding a nomenclature-heavy chemical and microphysical description of a brick as what's "true" or "more real". Whereas the latter, OTOH, is going to have greater useful value in research and development; along with the complex aims / purpose of building materials in terms of engineering and architectural accounts.
If people are going to continue this centuries / millennia long trend of shifting "real" from the perceived / experienced world to a conceptual version of it (a metaphysics; an abstract, inferred, reasoned-out manner of existence), then the former empirical world is accordingly demoted to a representation of that rationalist archetype (everything occurring within it is representational, IOW). Representations are imperfect -- they don't even have to resemble what they are recruited to signify. Such as comparing the word "eagle" to the image of an eagle, or comparing the qualitative / cognitive meaningfulness of what's outputted from a TV screen and speaker to the magnetic patterns on a videotape that were their source prior to electronic manipulation.
Ergo, with all this metaphysical realism and disparagement of the exhibited, immediate world continuing its domination among the educated population, it's rather ludicrous to regard declarations of these representations (whether they're technical descriptions or perceptions / sensations) being "true" in any dogmatic, idealized, absolute fashion. The authority of a system or profession may grant a "_Y_ understanding of _X_" a status like that in respect to it being consistent with its work codes, standards, axioms, or qualifying for membership via passing its tests. But outside the regulated domain of a system / craft / enterprise, that particular understanding may be incommensurable with other standards, or be temporarily flopping about orphaned and bereft of any formal context that lends justification to it at that strong, non-casual degree of "being proclaimed true".
Knowledge accepted as valid by the public or some authoritative group would be inter-subjective; since it's psychologically supported by more than one empirical and intellectual evidence producer. (One might even contend that "knowledge" always concerns artificial information that outruns the single individual, that there's no private condition or state that should receive the label "knowledge"). Knowledge would be maintained in external records, too, but the understanding of them as such would still depend upon agents with psychological tendencies. A disinterested world does not globally manifest and apprehend itself by its mere existence, at least in the most popular metaphysical perspectives of today (even in the materialist half of dualism, much less a matter monism). It needs very rare and local empirical and intellectual evidence producers to do that.
Probably. But then you reach the point where what is possible and what is not possible. But then, the abstract can be very compelling. Often times the simplest things need to be pointed out, and one can go their whole life without knowing something so simple...well, you may know it but fail to grasp the profundity.
Fluctuation is permanent. Does knowledge not care if he sheds the blood of infinity? IMHO, no, it would have to be punitive. If you truly only have love, there is not a single rock that should be forgotten, even if its naught. :/
You bring up an excellent point, Sylvester. Now is a good time for me to clarify as to what I meant by my OP. lol Where I was heading with it, was could there ever be an end to what we could possibly know? Could there be an end to knowledge meaning an end to knowledge worth knowing? Knowledge that would make a difference to our existence. Not knowing the many variations of solving a Rubix cube, for example.
Not even sure if I've articulated that well, either. Does anyone know what I'm intending, here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Knowledge, with clarity, is called wisdom. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes you should have said that earlier. It is completely different. The answer though is still the same. No. (just imagine it was "yes" and imagine the absurdities)
I mean my answer ,of course.
At least a minority of new technology and the education required to maintain and employ it will continue to be "useful", in addition to at least a minority of any invented skills and practices which don't exclusively fall into the prior slot. As civilization and people gradually develop into "who knows what", the traditional boundaries of what constitutes "functional, practical, applicable, utilitarian" may even alter or have to be adjusted.
This is true, perhaps in that as humans evolve, knowledge itself will evolve, and perhaps what the future generations deem as important knowledge, will evolve. So, maybe there is no end to knowledge, if the parameters are always changing and stretching.
Knowledge tends to make some people closed minded, since many assume all you need to do is memorize and repeat. Beyond knowledge is wisdom. This is where knowledge become the beginning, and not an end to itself This is where you don't pretend to understand by repeating knowledge. Rather you understand the basis for knowledge, and apply that basis, create new knowledge for new situations. This is far more useful to culture.
I doubt many people would subscribe to the view that knowledge is an end in itself . Don't most people see knowledge as a means to an end and the avoidance of ignorance as another aspect of this?
Is that all there is to "wisdom" -the correct application of knowledge and experience?
Is it important that this application of knowledge occurs in areas of life that are considered"weighty" for the description of "wisdom" to be applied?
For a quiet existence we may become something like bacteria...no pain, no worries, why the need of knowledge then?
That way, we still keep the process 0f mutating DNA to come-up with the best 'bacterium' for the environment. (I think).
This is very true, but how do we decipher someone who is merely knowledgeable on a topic and one who possesses wisdom? Can you tell the difference when you run across both types?
Separate names with a comma.