What is knowledge?

a reply to: namelesss

So, then through self-deceit do we create our own reality and societal reality, unless we step out of the box and question accepted beliefs...question ourselves.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Five paragraphs in without a mention of "knowledge," the supposed topic of the thread. There is a reason why we are taught to organize our writing with a topic sentence. You may have some very profound thoughts, but i lack the patience to follow tour line of reasoning. What do astrocytes have to do with knowledge? Shouldn't we define knowledge as a concept before we start to speculate about the biological processes involved?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Would knowledge not just be memories but then where are memories retrieved from?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: namelesss

So, then through self-deceit do we create our own reality and societal reality, unless we step out of the box and question accepted beliefs...question ourselves.

(T)Here exists One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality that we all 'know', uniquely, every moment of Universal existence!
'Creation', manifesting something where there was no'thing', is impossible.
That Which Is is not 'created', it is 'perceived', uniquely.
There is an inverse proportional relationship between the 'strength' of a 'belief' (an infection if the imagination, the ego), and the ability to critically examine it!
The stronger the belief, the less available for examination.

But this is all irrelevant as Knowledge is that which we perceive, and we perceive 'thoughts' and 'beliefs' and dreams and rocks...
Every moment is unique Knowledge of Self!

Even what is called 'self-deception' is, ultimately, Knowledge!

a reply to: johnb

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

Source: Knowledge: Insight, Volume 2

Synonyms for fact:

truth
certainty
reality

Antonyms (with the opposite meaning):

theory
fabrication (synonyms with a variety of adjectives: myth, fiction, deceit, fantasy, imagination, idea; synonym for "idea": philosophy)
lie

Sources: Thesaurus: Fact
Thesaurus: Fabrication
Thesaurus: Farbication page 2
Thesaurus: Idea page 4
Misinformation alert! for the last link. I'm not going to say what it is cause I don't want to draw too much attention to it for those who are not going to lookup what I said anyway, but it's something meant to promote the word "philosophy" by philosophers, make it more than it is (and thus promoting their own unverified unproven ideas/philosophies that are sometimes quite illogical and deceitful, with Plato at the head of the pack).

The logical process with which to discover and establish facts is called inductive reasoning and every human baby is born with that ability. It allows one to learn facts/truths/realities/certainties about your surroundings. For a more detailed explanation how inductive reasoning works and how it's used in the sciences (the various fields of science/knowledge, "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge"), try this presentation:

Oh, and johnb, if you want to know more about the topic "memories" I suggest my comment on one of the science subforums about it.

Memory has this thing called persistance, even when unattached it can name all the various forms that had them before cognizant of them in whatever life one happens to experience as differening or separate based on relativity... which like all relatives are subject to change. The immovable is the constant nature beyond such attachments...

So its now again... memory itself in a moment asserting itself based on memory... so experience or well placed grasping of a rote nature. Not chastizing nor admonishing just performing a memory review of shared experience and hopefully you will not be taken a back in a reset mode as cognitive dissonance kinda likes to do that to people so attached to the trope or rotting tripe that hangs as a fleshy remander like an albatross one cannot seem to smell as a rotting attachment like a hungry ghost...

So my friend what is knowledge? The conceptual ladder. Have you climbed it to such paleful heights that you find yourself there once again? claim to have faith but refuse to leap off?.. that if no one catches you knowledge of the way the vibrational states of the auras will not catch you as the all pervading space of consciousness? «POP» if there was a bubble one was floating in...

Now for a trip down memory lane... YES, the harlequin is about to segway or change scenes in a gyroscopic orientation so lets see if you recall this dream the last time you died, and I was there to rebuke you playing Christ on a cross and hunting the creators love from fear you were yet again on the wrong path... the mind attached to the tropes hanging off various frameworks of self identifying with others as well others and their frameworks of attachment as separate decorating the world of duality in multicolored orbs hanging off the tree of life like berries or the fake one of knowledge that leads to elves on shelves and tinsel town all the live long day call the present, but you either gotta fall for those or rise and become the angel and grasp that gold ring of a halo to marry a god on earth yet where is heaven? Certinally not in any of those attachments... when there is a house of an ego to hide from ones stench... under so many words decorating a frame taken as mortal, well duality says hey 'member me hot stuff? and the carrocel dance of dizziness begins yet again.

scene change those harelquins are quite the jokers arent they? a match made in pulp fiction, now whos eating a bloody as hell burger and acting like a big kahuna? Then we get that 4th grade stereotype of my blah blah yawn... um yeah gets tiresome doesnt it? How many people do you think are asleep to this sort of nonsense that those wanting people to stay asleep to this nonsense do you think there are? Lots of ahem money to be made to struggle and get ahead and run run run on that treadmill called materiality, but once in the system of energy itself.... jumping wires hanging out on leaves as drops of dew reflecting the whole world around us, while ferns blossom in the distance, old dinosaurs try to reboot land of the lost called the past, which has no capacity for change so lets infect everyone with this virus of "never ceasing" ignorance call impermanent things lasting... dance the dance of teacups you know spinning but a bit less disney and a bit more intoxicated, but watch that worm on that mushroom Alice as children are a virus like herpes and smoke and mirrors rinse repeat and scene.

See how this nonsense goes and plays out? How many disco infernos do you think have a scratch on turntables playing the same track over and over? Looking at the world with the ear... there is a this loud booming sound called continuious gun fire somewhere in the world a gun is going off either man made or artificial as one continuious sound and theres no peace in the night, the same could be said about sirens sounds or songs and thats the real behemoth in life.

The big hurdle the big win we tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree, one finger salute cause we lost the other four and the middle way cleans out its ears for clarity moment by moment by moment so others can? «silently whispers in a non-rapey way from the void» "wake up".

Ok, more details now and not just about "knowledge" but also...

Wisdom: Insight, Volume 2

The Biblical sense of wisdom lays emphasis on sound judgment, based on knowledge and understanding; the ability to use knowledge and understanding successfully to solve problems, avoid or avert dangers, attain certain goals, or counsel others in doing so. It is the opposite of foolishness, stupidity, and madness, with which it is often contrasted.—De 32:6; Pr 11:29; Ec 6:8.

The basic terms signifying wisdom are the Hebrew chokh·mahʹ (verb, cha·khamʹ) and the Greek so·phiʹa, with their related forms. Also, there are the Hebrew tu·shi·yahʹ, which may be rendered “effectual working” or “practical wisdom,” and the Greek phroʹni·mos and phroʹne·sis (from phren, the “mind”), relating to “sensibleness,” “discretion,” or “practical wisdom.”

Wisdom implies a breadth of knowledge and a depth of understanding, these giving the soundness and clarity of judgment characteristic of wisdom. The wise man ‘treasures up knowledge,’ has a fund of it to draw upon. (Pr 10:14) While “wisdom is the prime thing,” the counsel is that “with all that you acquire, acquire understanding.” (Pr 4:5-7) Understanding (a broad term that frequently embraces discernment) adds strength to wisdom, contributing greatly to discretion and foresight, also notable characteristics of wisdom. Discretion implies prudence and may be expressed in caution, self-control, moderation, or restraint. The “discreet [form of phroʹni·mos] man” builds his house on a rock-mass, foreseeing the possibility of storm; the foolish man builds his on sand and suffers disaster.—Mt 7:24-27.

Understanding fortifies wisdom in other ways. For example, a person may obey a certain command of God because he recognizes the rightness of such obedience, and this is wisdom on his part. But if he gets real understanding of the reason for that command, the good purpose it serves, and the benefits accruing from it, his heart determination to continue in that wise course is greatly strengthened. (Pr 14:33) Proverbs 21:11 says that “by one’s giving insight to a wise person he gets knowledge.” The wise person is happy to get any information that will grant him a clearer view into the underlying circumstances, conditions, and causes of problems. Thereby he “gets knowledge” as to what to do regarding the matter and knows what conclusions to draw, what is needed to solve the existing problem.—Compare Pr 9:9; Ec 7:25; 8:1; Eze 28:3; see INSIGHT.

Essentially, insight is the ability to see into a situation. To act with insight is to act with prudence, discretion. According to Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, the Hebrew verb sa·khalʹ means “to look at; to be prudent, circumspect; to act prudently, to be intelligent.” (1978, p. 461) Thus, sa·khalʹ is rendered ‘have insight’ (Ps 14:2), ‘act with discretion’ (Pr 10:19), “act prudently” (1Sa 18:5), ‘have success’ (Pr 17:8), ‘cause to show insight’ (Pr 16:23). The noun seʹkhel is translated “insight” (Ps 111:10) and “discretion.”—1Sa 25:3.

Insight is closely related to understanding, but there is a fine distinction between the two terms. Says the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: “While bin [understanding] indicates ‘distinguishing between,’ [sa·khalʹ] relates to an intelligent knowledge of the reason. There is the process of thinking through a complex arrangement of thoughts resulting in a wise dealing and use of good practical common sense. Another end result is the emphasis upon being successful.”—Edited by R. L. Harris, 1980, Vol. 2, p. 877; see UNDERSTANDING.
...
One who has insight accepts correction. (Ps 2:10) According to Proverbs 21:11, when a wise person obtains insight—that is, when he carefully considers available information and as a result acquires a clearer picture of a matter—he “gets knowledge,” that is, he knows what to do regarding the matter, what conclusions to draw, what counsel to give.

The original-language words rendered “understanding” can refer to comprehension of a rather simple kind or can describe a full and profound realization of the inner nature, underlying reasons, and significance of complex matters. Insight, discernment, and perception are all closely connected to understanding.
...
Relationship to Knowledge and Wisdom. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge.
...
The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) ... see KNOWLEDGE.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures there are two words commonly translated “knowledge,” gnoʹsis and e·piʹgno·sis. Both are related to the verb gi·noʹsko, which means “know; understand; perceive.”
...
Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)
...
E·piʹgno·sis, a strengthened form of gnoʹsis ...can often be seen from the context to mean “exact, accurate, or full knowledge.” Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [“a real knowledge,” TC; “a personal knowledge,” Ro; “clear, full knowledge,” Da ftn] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: [see my sig]
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?
Put information to the test:

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

a reply to: namelesss

We all are open to deceptions via our senses, egos, etc and can err in reasoning, therefore we have a subjective contents of the mind perhaps mixed with a lack of desire to step out of the box and apply reasoning and logic in a neutral manner.

Foundationalism is an attempt to respond to the regress problem of justification in epistemology. According to this argument, every proposition requires justification to support it, but any justification also needs to be justified itself. If this goes on ad infinitum, it is not clear how anything in the chain could be justified. Foundationalism holds that there are 'basic beliefs' which serve as foundations to anchor the rest of our beliefs. Strong versions of the theory assert that an indirectly justified belief is completely justified by basic beliefs; more moderate theories hold that indirectly justified beliefs require basic beliefs to be justified, but can be further justified by other factors.

In order to verify particular means, or particular statements belonging to certain means (e.g. the propositions of the natural sciences), a person would have to 'step outside' the means and critique them neutrally, in order to provide a foundation for adopting them. However, this is impossible. The only way in which one can know the world is through the means by which they know the world; a method cannot justify itself. This argument can be seen as directly related to Wittgenstein's theory of language, drawing a parallel between postmodernism and late logical positivism that is united in critique of foundationalism. See also[edit]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: namelesss
We all are open to deceptions via our senses, egos, etc and can err in reasoning,

I'm not sure that I agree with you.

I think that you are laboring under the misapprehension that we have 'choices' and 'free-will'.
And also in the long obsolete theory of materialism/physicalism that Consciousness and 'thought' are 'manufactured' in that wet lump of meat rattling about in our skulls.
All that exists, whether 'rocks' or imaginary unicorns are 'perceived'.
Not anything, ever, is 'created'.
What is, is perceived.
Perception/experience = Knowledge!
We all perceive the same Reality, each and every Perspective, every moment, is UNIQUE!
A unique moment of Knowledge of the One Reality!
Deceptions?
When we perceive a 'thought' that says that this imaginary unicorn is blue, that is a feature of Universe that is Perceived!
To say that is what I perceive is not 'deceiving' or delusional.
We just see what exists.
When we see what someone calls 'deception/delusion', is because we (consensus) don't see the same thing.
Yet we all DO see the Same Thing!
One sees the Tails, and another sees the Heads of the same One Coin, from equal and opposite Perspectives can egoically and ignorantly cast about terms like 'delusion' and 'deceived' and that we are describing different coins...

The only 'error' in 'thought/reason/duality... is to 'believe' any of it!

therefore we have a subjective contents of the mind perhaps mixed with a lack of desire to step out of the box and apply reasoning and logic in a neutral manner.

'Thought/imagination/ego' IS the box!
Reason, 'conditional duality' IS the box!
I noticed a treatise on 'belief'.
That is insanity.
When all of our perceived Reality is actually 'make-believe', to 'believe' is insanity!
Nor do we have any 'choice' in what 'beliefs' we might catch!

No matter what is being perceived from our unique momentary Perspectives, is Knowledge, Universal Knowledge!

Truth is unfalsifiable and Knowledge does not require 'justification'!
That is an egoic error of ignorance!

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by One Universal Consciousness.

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

Has anyone here figured out whether or not it's rational to believe that 1+1=2 yet?

Or are we still stuck on promoting or expressing Pontius Pilatus' way of thinking and/or (selective*) agnosticism?

* = selective as in whenever it's convenient to deny something that is factual/certain/true/conclusive/absolute (adjective: correct, without error), what the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to as "established facts", usually in favor of a belief or philosophy that is denied as being a belief or philosophy/idea about reality. See the Michael Behe video for details in particular the phrase "wishful speculations" and "just-so stories" (and take note Michael Behe forgets to mention 'maybe-so stories', which would be a more accurate description what's going on in a lot of discussions regarding the subject that he's discussing).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Has anyone here figured out whether or not it's rational to believe that 1+1=2 yet?

Or are we still stuck on promoting or expressing Pontius Pilatus' way of thinking and/or (selective*) agnosticism?

* = selective as in whenever it's convenient to deny something that is factual/certain/true/conclusive/absolute (adjective: correct, without error), what the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to as "established facts", usually in favor of a belief or philosophy that is denied as being a belief or philosophy/idea about reality. See the Michael Behe video for details in particular the phrase "wishful speculations" and "just-so stories" (and take note Michael Behe forgets to mention 'maybe-so stories', which would be a more accurate description what's going on in a lot of discussions regarding the subject that he's discussing).

I haven't yet figured it out yet, have you?

a reply to: InTheLight
About 33 years ago. Give or take a few years, seeing that it's so long ago I was in kindergarten and probably even longer ago that I learned to count and adding (well since we're talking english, I'd probably have to count the years where I learned most of my english between 6-12 years old as well).

But enough details about me.
I love this scene, I love this show, I love season 2 (it's also the season where he says something really funny about talking to oneself):


1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NWT):
So, brothers, I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to infants in Christ. 2 I fed you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet strong enough. In fact, neither are you strong enough now, 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Astrocyte

Five paragraphs in without a mention of "knowledge," the supposed topic of the thread. ... What do astrocytes have to do with knowledge? Shouldn't we define knowledge as a concept before we start to speculate ...?

The article in my sig and the page before it may give you some clues why people like to philosophize and speculate so much and share those philosophies and speculations that don't really clear up anything (or are not particularly educational) but may sound very pleasing to the ears (as if it's very enlightened sophisticated knowledge and if a person values these ideas and views highly for discussion and sharing them with others, conducive to thinking of themselves as a very enlightened, well-educated or openminded individual for being aware of and discussing these philosophies/ideas).

Also this thread has more details or clues:
One myth leads to another

Or this comment, this comment, this comment and this comment.

a reply to: whereislogic

Although my adding skills are excellent and while I can acknowledge the result as fact, those into denial will not acknowledge known facts to be real. Additionally, with mindfulness living, 1 + 1 does not always equal 2, so can one live in a mindful state and a mindless state simultaneously?

One and 1 make 2 in the base-10 number system, not in all number systems," Langer notes. She also points out that we must ask, one of what? "Bring it from the level of the abstract to the level of the concrete; see what happens," Langer advises. For instance, 1 cup plus 1 cup does not always equal 2 cups. Mix a cup of vinegar with a cup of a baking soda solution. The result will be less than 2 cups of liquid, as some molecules are transformed into carbon dioxide and released into the air as gas.

news.harvard.edu...

www.mayoclinic.org...

a reply to: InTheLight
Yeah, I know, it's sad people getting their books promoted by Harvard can get away with playing games like that and confuse people about simple matters pretending to sound clever as if they've actually got something (to justify their research grants or position, career, salary, the way people view them and the interest they take in their books).

1+1=2 no matter what fanciful sophisticated elaborate writings a person named Langer can produce (and get people to get excited about). Pretending that well known* chemical reactions somehow can change the rules of mathematics and logic, it's so tiresome for people like me to try to respond to it other than by pointing back at the answers that Baldrick gave in the video, which may be as true as what Langer says about the chemical reactions of baking soda and vinegar, but is just a way to avoid giving the correct honest answer to a mathematical question (he brings up "some beans" instead of answering with "4", it's a distraction or dodge, that's all. It may be true, but it's irrelevant regarding the topic, which in that video was adding 2+2; in that video it was for comedic purposes, it's sad to see Langer do it for more personal financial reasons without making it as obvious for comedic purpose, and that includes those jumping on the same bandwagon that feeds them financially by not objecting since they're dependent on publishing the same trivial and uninformative stuff as well. 'Publish or perish' is what they say. Google that phrase if you're curious what I'm talking about).

* = "well known" as in there's really nothing interesting in that news article (or the book I suspect from experience), some new discovery or anything like it, it's fancy talk which the field of Psychology (for which she has a degree) is perfect for. Who's gonna check if what you say is 1. correct, or 2. relevant, interesting, worthy to consider or publish articles about (nr.2 is most relevant in this case)? So-called "peer review" these days often consists of an editor's stamp of approval or having friends in the right places; reading news articles similar to the one you pointed to, it appears the content of your article doesn't matter much (I've seen worse articles where that was even more obvious, and not just news articles either, published articles as you can find them on NCBI for example).

The most interesting and honest line in the news article:

Langer says, sounding a bit more like a Zen master than a psychologist.

As usual, did I already mention in this thread as well that people like to use "concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs"? Quoting from the article and my thread about it called "One myth leads to another". People also love to philosophize and pass it off as (sell it under the marketing-label) "science". Also referred to as "falsely called knowledge/science" (Latin:scientia) in the bible at 1 Timothy 6:20 (and the behaviour is also described as "professing to be wise" at Romans 1:22). I also made a comment here about philosophy. Responding to someone else philosophizing away into La La Land, something that happens a lot.

Eastern philosophy in particular is very popular in mainstream publications (either media, government education, books in the science section, websites such as ATS, teachings from Freemasonry, all the major organized religions and new age philosophy, teachings from David Icke, Alan Watts, well, I can keep going, the entire "system of things" as the bible refers to what others here may refer to as "the Matrix" is saturated with it). I'm aware you like them as well (those philosophies/ideas about reality) which I consider to be poison to your mind and am trying to warn you of. But that's enough detail cause I know what I quoted initially from Paul in my comment with the Baldrick and Blackadder video. Perhaps that's the best I can do, hope someone notices the foolishness that is described at Romans 1:22 for example. Romans 1:22 says:

Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish

But it's hard for you to see (the philosophies you've filled your mind with have had too much time to fester, and have been drilled into it too repetitively for too long now, the healing process cannot be done with a snap of the fingers). I guess I'm already saying too much cause nobody wants to hear someone say such things to them (that resistance to something that would be beneficial to the healing process is also conditioned behaviour, conditioned by the system of things or spirit of the world that forms your way of thinking about things). Ok, enough now, a bit more about philosophy (the link is in the comment I referred to earlier):

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

a reply to: whereislogic

Then we have chaos or deterministic mathematics, which leads us further down the rabbit hole.

mathworld.wolfram.com...

a reply to: InTheLight
Blackadder's reaction to the Green Gold sums up how I feel about Langer's book and that news article and what I've heard refer to as "Chaos theory" and at least some discussions about that topic (not that everyone talks the same way about it), a term that is oddly or interestingly not used in the article you linked about "chaos". But then again, I'm not that interested after all (because of the experiences I've had with some people talking about that subject that isn't particularly interesting to me even when people aren't mixing it with their philosophies).

Oh in case you were wondering how I knew you were into Eastern Philosophy, I can see the whole 3rd eye thing going on in your picture. And I've learned that people talking about spreading light or being in the light or things like that are usually referring to Eastern Philosophy and Mythology, sometimes wrapped up in a New Age philosophy jacket (or marketing-label), which they then view as an enlightened view of things (sometimes also as "openminded", see my sig. It has also been my experience that those who view themselves as being very openminded often are not so openminded to accurate knowledge, things that are correct, without error; see all my previous comments contrasting different types of knowledge one can have or search for, acquire, discover). And possibly the definition for "knowledge" I gave earlier.

a reply to: whereislogic

To me you seem to have enclosed yourself in a box with names on the sides, such as reason, it does not compute, etc.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ― Albert Einstein

a reply to: InTheLight
I can understand how it may appear that way to someone who is actually in a box they don't want to acknowledge, a way of thinking that follows a pattern very recognizable to me. See my addition to my last comment about openmindedness. You're not as openminded to a certain type of information (or encouragement for a particular way of thinking and reasoning) but very openminded to mental poison (human erronuous philosophies or misleading vague ways of thinking that make things less clear and blurry, someone is involved in doing this to you, someone who loves keeping humanity in figurative darkness or a foggy state of mind chasing their own tails in the La La Land of human fantasies and myth, keeping them from looking at the reality of his involvement in this and how he influences your thinking patterns), pardon the language if the term mental poison offends, just trying to be accurate and honest about it.

Are You Using Your Imagination Wisely?

...Consider just one of our brain’s many faculties—imagination.

What is imagination? One dictionary defines it as “the ability that you have to form pictures or ideas in your mind of things that are new and exciting, or things that you have not experienced.” With that definition in mind, would you not agree that you use your imagination quite regularly? For example, have you ever read or heard about a place that you have not visited? Did that prevent you from picturing it in your mind? Really, whenever we think of something that we cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, our imagination is at work.

The Bible helps us to appreciate that humans were designed and created in God’s image. (Gen. 1:26, 27) Does that not imply that, in a sense, Jehovah himself possesses an imagination? Since he has seen fit to create us with this capacity, he reasonably expects us to use it in grasping his will. (Eccl. 3:11) How can we use our imagination wisely to do that, and what foolish uses of imagination should we avoid?

FOOLISH USES OF IMAGINATION

(1) Daydreaming at the wrong time or about the wrong things.

Daydreaming in itself is not wrong. In fact, there is evidence that daydreaming can be beneficial. However, Ecclesiastes 3:1 helps us to appreciate that since there is “a time for every activity,” it is possible to engage in some activities at the wrong time. ... Some of the things that we could allow ourselves to imagine would be deeply displeasing to Jehovah.
...

(2) Assuming that material riches can provide lasting security.

Material things are necessary and useful. However, we will surely be disappointed if we begin to imagine that real security and happiness result from them. The wise man Solomon wrote: “The wealth of the rich is his fortified city; it is like a protective wall in his imagination.” (Prov. 18:11) ... It may be easy to imagine that material things offer true protection and security. The reality is that they do not.*
...
WISE USES OF IMAGINATION

(1) Foreseeing dangerous situations and avoiding them.
...
(2) Rehearsing mentally how to handle difficult problems.
...
(4) Cultivating and displaying empathy.
...

For some people using their imagination does not mean to speculate wildly using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

* = that also counts for certain lifeless powerless objects of worship, talismans, healing stones (or energy balancing stuff), etc. which are so popular in Eastern philosophy, Habakkuk 2:18,19:

Of what benefit is a carved image

When its maker has carved it?

Of what benefit is a metal statue* and a teacher of lies, (* = Or “molten statue.”)

Even though its maker trusts in it,

Making worthless gods that are speechless?

19 Woe to the one who says to a piece of wood, “Awake!”

Or to a speechless stone, “Wake up! Instruct us!”

Look! It is overlaid in gold and silver,

And there is no breath at all within it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: InTheLight
I can understand how it may appear that way to someone who is actually in a box they don't want to acknowledge, a way of thinking that follows a pattern very recognizable to me. See my addition to my last comment about openmindedness. You're not as openminded to certain type of information (or encouragement for a particular way of thinking and reasoning) but very openminded to mental poison (human erronuous philosophies or misleading vague ways of thinking that make things less clear and blurry, someone is involved in doing this to you, someone who loves keeping humanity in figurative darkness or a foggy state of mind chasing their own tails in the La La Land of human imagination, keeping them from looking at the reality of his involvement in this and how he influences your thinking patterns), pardon the language if the term mental poison offends, just trying to be accurate and honest about it.

I disagree, because while I accept science has a basis in fact (objective knowledge - that which is seen and heard), or rather how it is utilized to explain physical laws seems legitimate for our collective physical experience. It fails or confounds those that look beyond those constraints while still utilizing the same tools and static reasoning.

We all choose our philosophies that coincide with our realities and values, whereas metaphysics (abstract subjective knowledge or reasoning) can materialize without any intervention from others (invention, epiphany, etc.).