I "know" nothing. And neither do you.

reply to post by Geladinhu


Then reread the OP. I make myself quite clear what I mean.

Stupid comment. Forget I typed it please.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Okay, so I reread your post and I still am having trouble in understanding your point. Your point is that whoever claims to know something is delusional?

If thats it, I'll have to tell you that its sounding like you are creating an excuse for your lazy and frightened mind be just the way it is.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You did not answer my question. How do you "know" that you "know"?

I don't "know", I understand. As Einstein once said, any fool can know something, the point is to understand.

Anyone can repeat E=MC2, or 1+1=2, but in reality they don't know anything unless they understand what it means. "knowledge" is not "true", it is simply an expression of understanding. And only by having that understanding can one determine if the expression(knowledge) is true.

Hanging on to 1 bit of "knowledge" as true, is an error because there are many other expressions of that understanding which can also be/are true.

I get the premise of the thread, and in many cases it is true. But not completely. It is all relative, and so forth. I get it.

reply to post by Geladinhu


Seems to me this guy knows a lot about nothing.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

 

If I push on something, it will exert an opposite force.

Now try that with a brick wall.

Every so called rule has a point in which it does not apply.

As for the rest. The only reason 1+1=2 is because we says it does. Can you truly prove that it does without accepting what society tells you it means? No.

What society tells me what it means?

So if I make up my own system of "numbering", such as this.

Jorgalbooger = "1" object.
Koobabooka = "2" objects.

I have koobakooka penies in front of me.

It is just language my friend. All I see in this thread is the denial that language helps explain things.

Are you not so blind to see what it has done so far for human kind? Without a way of communicating, whatever it may be, we would not be where we are now.

We must be on the same page, and work as a team, to learn anything as a whole. If we all "thought" our own ways, such as different species, you actually think the world would be better? No it would not.

You have no argument to your points and answering a question with another question does not help your side at all.

As I said before, this is just a case of semantics, and you are arguing over NOTHING.

Once you can prove the many laws of physics and mathematics wrong, then I will believe you.

Your argument so far reminds me of the little kid who never stops asking WHY.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


No, I am arguing from a position of uncertainity. And you can never be certain of anything while questioning everything. Which is where we run into problems, when we stop questioning and start seeking to reinforce what we believe to be true, aka "know".

reply to post by VitalOverdose


Seems to me like you serve no purpose on this thread except to drag absurdity into a conversation that I can only guess insults you due to it's content.

reply to post by badmedia


So misunderstanding is impossible?

reply to post by Geladinhu


Lazy and freightened now am I? I would be insulted if I didn't find such an obviously spurious insult wasn't soo funny. Not to mention an obvious smoke screen.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by badmedia

 

So misunderstanding is impossible?

No, but understanding is possible.

reply to post by badmedia


Never stated it wasn't. Just arguing that understanding does not cancel out my statement.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Once you start reading and researching, is better to keep going and read until you realize you know nothing again, same as you were before reading anything.
Must not stop and say "Now I know much, I am a learned man, no need to seek more, I know, I stop". Then the "educated ego" will replace you. Must keep searching.

Those who haven't been exposed to the hypocrisies of a "civilized" education react to things naturally, as they happen. It is in the here and now that they are either happy or unhappy, joyful or sad, interested or indifferent. The superiority of pure Indians like these Guajiros was striking. They could outdo us in everything: when they adopted someone, everything they had belonged to him; and when anyone showed them the least attention, they were profoundly moved"

It did not matter anymore if we were in the year 1947 AD or BC. We were living an we were feeling it with intensity.We understood that the lives of humans were full even before the age of technology, without a doubt more full and rich in many ways than the life of the modern man.
Time and evolution somehow did not exist anymore: everything that was real and had meaning was today the same as yesterday, the same as tomorrow.

Thor Heyerdahl - Kon Tiki

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. "


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. "

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. "

Albert Einstein

[edit on 29-7-2009 by pai mei]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

The problem with this logic is that it destroys the game.

To survive, an individual, a group, or a civilization must sometimes act on what is commonly referred to as "knowledge." To take knowledge from us thus takes the game of survival from us.

You can only question this concept of knowledge in the context of a higher level of existence where the game of survival is no longer important. At this level, knowledge becomes whatever a being decides it should be.

But most of us are playing the game of survival and we need a workable concept of knowledge.

In simpler terms, I have only to ask you this question: How do you know that you know nothing? If you know that much, isn't that knowing something?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

That is in the beginning.

That is when it all starts. I had this experience yesterday as I told my friend suddenly that I don't know anything.......... yet.

It is to become fully of the spirit with no strings attached.

The only thing I know, is that there's always relatively more to know.

You are taking responsibilty for yourself.
Thus promoting admiration, action, and duplication from others!
I like it alot.
Good job and WTG! S & F!

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Thank you Watcher This has been something I have spoken about many, many times on these forums - and is the basis of my personal philosophy.

I use different definitions though. I think we can have knowledge, as we define knowledge as;

- having experience with
- making a record or observation of

What I think you are saying is that we cannot 'know' truth. That is entirely the basis of my own mental process - while no truth exists, then belief is unfounded.

For myself, I accept information and I define it as 'knowledge' - meaning it is an observation, neither true nor false, simply something observed or experienced. From knowledge you can develop understanding.

What I think we cannot know is truth, objective truth simply doesn't exist, so belief is constructed on nothing but other beliefs.


Some of you may have seen and remember my linear models for the two distinctly different mental processes, one is founded in left brain thinking (the truth model), the other is produced by right brain thinking (knowledge model).

Left Side:
Data > Truth > Belief > Intolerance > Conflict > War

Right Side:
Data > Knowledge > Understanding > Tolerance > Cooperation > Peace


A clear distinction should be made between the verb to 'know', and the action of accepting 'knowledge'. Collecting knowledge doesn't infer that we 'know' something, but rather that we either 'know of' or more accurately that we begin to understand.

It is also very instructive to consider the differences between knowledge and truth. Knowledge accepts that the data can be true or false, or a combination of both, truth demands that we destroy the infinite nature of the data, and force it into one of only two states - true or false. When we force this change in the data, then we destroy its ability to adapt to changing circumstances (and our own ability to do likewise), we also reduce it to a binary result 1, or 0 - where knowledge is any of the infinite values between 0 and 1.

I have a very developed mental process and philosophy based on this, which I have been applying for many years.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


This is just differently put from "prove that chair is there" it is the nature of knowledge. Empricial evidence can have limitations etc.

The fact that 6 billion people believe 1+1 = 2 means it is TRUE, but it is true for those 6 billion people.

Back to the matrix dilemma.

Thanks

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows




Good post! S&F!

Agree on the subject that I know nothing. But it wouldn't mind searching to know something, would it?