What is knowledge?

a reply to: InTheLight
oh btw, I changed the word "imagination" to "fantasies and myth" before I read your response and Einstein's quotation because you have..., quoting myself from earlier:

a way of thinking that follows a pattern very recognizable to me.

With that also comes predictability and I expected a certain response as soon as I was deciding whether to use the word "imagination" or "imaginations" in that sentence, which at first I thought I could just let slip (and go with the broader term "human imagination" even though a person could focus on one aspect of that human imagination and ignore fantasies and myths/false stories) and hope you wouldn't go there. Now it should be clear what type of imaginations I was referring to and what I wasn't referring to, or wasn't doing (throwing out the baby with the bathwater).

Of course the word "fantasies" is just a synonym for the word "imaginations" but perhaps it's slightly more specific, since words have often broader or multiple meanings and with the word "imaginations" it is easier for someone to capitalize on the ambiguity of language, a common technique used by philosophers and practiced publicists (part of that pattern or way of thinking I spoke about, because the trick is performed on your mind numerous times, you begin to think like it and copy the behaviour, which makes it predictable).

It's all part of the bigger game of promotion of myths/false stories, erronuous unreasonable wild speculative imaginations and fantasies. Make them more then they are by conflating them with reasonable imagination(s) and logical thought(s).

a reply to: whereislogic

So you could include theories and hypothesis within that explanation too.

Regarding the initial question about knowledge, why not keep it simple?

Knowledge is intersubjectively shareable justified true belief.

Intersubjectively shareable - knowledge can be shared, conveyed, expressed or transferred between subjects.

Belief - to know something, one must at least believe it.

True - if one's belief is false, then one does not know. Knowledge is correct, accurate, true.

Justified - one can give reasons in response to the question "why do you believe?" Guessing correctly is not knowing.

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).

1+1=2 is a quantification waiting to happen not reality as 1 and 1 and 2 are all varibles as a,b,c etc all equal this 1 business meaning they can be anything but the anything of a variable being slapped in for that 1 or x y z or whatever must be agreed on to function as well something functional as a system or metric or matrix or the very box of conception itself... leaving that crap at zero is the absolute or undefined. An empty space or spot to fill with some data or quantification thats really just abitrary to whatever system or box they want to hide pandora in while they book a flight to another country... oh dont worry theres a cat in there and quantum physics says theres not only one cat or pandora but super and sub positional cats that all of the cats and pandoras possible coexist to keep each other company as that magician Scrodinger fled from after trying to open it and saw his pair dead... of course someone moving into this abandoned place possible a squatter and maybe his name is Jack since squat is something he is known for is exactly what he found opening the box squat zip zlitch nothing and Scrodingers very concept and guilt of its creation double slit experimented throats and he waved bye bye... while scampering like a rat hoping no one finds it... now imagine if the squatting Jack had seen Pandora and her lovely cat making him aware of their existence and that variable ceased Scrodinger being a magician as when he opened the box pandora and the cat vanished in appeared to Jack as being dead as he sqautted there in shock and horror times infinity... of course minus that 1 which was Scrodingers reality or reason for fleeing cause they vanished without explainantion into his magic box... and the removal of that one latch popped that infinity minus 1 into the entire reality that theres a hole in a hole in a hole at the bottom of the box you see but contains dimensions inside outside upside and down side based on a perspective of something empty to be filled with well could be anything... and that zero or absolute wins again trying to be contained.

This is not a paradox about a box and no mad cat ladies here just a glitch of an itch ocaam scratches hoping to carve out infinity in a niche or yet another box to pack or pile another slice of nothing into and file with yet another slice of nothing into ad infinitum to ad nuasem.

Dont mind me my mind is sealed, and only certain topics cut that box open.

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 ...?

So as you can tell from my other reply, I really like this comment, I talk about this behaviour a lot (hence the many references to other comments I made, but there are way more, it is the dominant behaviour in human society and thus also on ATS, and not just about the word "knowledge").

It's an overload of information that won't help with understanding, insight and wisdom; hence my additional information about that and how to distinguish what the bible refers to as "accurate knowledge of truth" from what it refers to as "falsely called knowledge" (/scientia in Latin).

There is a singular source for all this overload of what is "falsely called knowledge" (regardless if people are calling it enlightened knowledge, don't mention the word knowledge at all but just express their ideas and views, or if they're calling it science).

Inductive reasoning and having access to the right type of specific knowledge (honest and accurate, facts or factual/correct, without error; about the subjects that matter the most, including things like how you can be deceived by "profitless talkers" and "deceivers of the mind" and how to protect yourself against that influence, recognizing baseless or illogical speculation comes into play again) is a key in distinguishing between the 2.

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).

You can add 'most likely-so stories' as I've recently experienced on the "Origins and Creationism" subforum.

a reply to: whereislogic

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

1+1=2 is not a belief, it is a definition. Once this definition is accepted, it becomes possible to make further definitions and create a consistent, logical system. This type of reasoning is absolutely true, though not necessarily complete.

One can define 1=1=2, 1+2=10, then 2+2 will equal 11. There are an infinite number of other possibilities. Computers use binary, in which 1+1=10.

One can have a comprehensive knowledge of such systems because the definitions and rules that create them are simple and consistent. Knowledge is an emergent phenomenon. Science consists in attempting to deduce the rules that generate the natural phenomena we perceive.

a reply to: DJW001
Great, to me that sounds like more Baldrick-style logic with a hint of Pontius Pilate's way of thinking about what is true.

Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

From the sister-threads to this one:
The Greatest unanswered Question of all time, What is Truth?
Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

Btw, you did not address my question. You changed the subject to what you wanted to talk about, whether or not 1+1=2 is a belief. I wasn't setting up a debate about the word "belief" that has been heavily warped and twisted by practiced propagandists and philosophers, I was appealing to people's understanding of the rational logical use of language.

If you don't believe that 1+1=2, please do spell it out for all to see and explain why you think it is irrational to believe that 1+1=2. Then you can do your spiel on the word "belief" and the verb "believe", I probably won't respond anymore once you've spelled it out like that. You've got 2 choices here, you either believe 1+1=2 or you don't believe 1+1=2 (and rephrased you can also add "that it is rational to believe that 1+1=2", which also adresses the subject of "understanding" that I spoke about earlier).

Here's another related question:

Has anyone figured out yet whether or not 1+1=2 is a fact?

Rephrased with a slight shift of emphasis or focus:

Has anyone figured out yet whether or not it is rational to believe that 1+1=2 is a fact? Has anyone figured out yet whether or not it is rational to believe that 1+1=2 is factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/true/correct, without error?

Perhaps I should just move on from "advanced mathematics" and on to elementary dressmaking as well (i.e. give up):

Is the statement "1+1=2" true/factual/certain/conclusive/absolute/correct, without error?
Or is it false/incorrect?

If you feel like it or while you're at it, you can also try to explain or share your views/opinions/beliefs as to why IQ-tests with multiple choice questions have only 1 correct/true answer and the rest of the answers are counted as false/incorrect. Again, I'm using / where I'm using synonyms as reminders for those who have forgotten the agreed upon meaning of language and rules of rational honest conversation (not the warping human philosophy and propaganda of this system of things indoctrinated by the ruler of this world to keep people running around in circles never gaining an "accurate knowledge of truth" through wisdom and understanding; see previous quotations and comments in this thread).

a reply to: whereislogic

Is the statement "1+1=2" true/factual/certain/conclusive/absolute/correct, without error?
Or is it false/incorrect?

What part of "it is a definition" did you not understand?

a reply to: DJW001
Red herrings usually don't work on me. Please address any of my questions if you want to feel like you're replying. They are very simple questions with a rational and reasonable use of language. They do not require you to bring up something else we could possibly debate about (much like Baldrick when he's asked a simple math question and answers with something that may be true, but it's still used as a dodge away from a more relevant answer, at least Baldrick was still directly answering the question that was put to him; others would like to bring up their own chosen subject, you're not the first and you won't be the last).

If you don't believe that 1+1=2, please do spell it out...

If you do believe 1+1=2, if you feel like it, you may admit that a person like yourself can have many beliefs/views/opinions about various facts. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, which is why I took a very simple fact to do this with.

In your opinion/belief/view 1+1=2 is a definition, I don't care about discussing that subject, it's not what I asked about. My questions are 'yes- and no'-type of questions (or true or false; not saying one can't elaborate on their answer, but you haven't given one directly to what was asked when you're quoting one). Simple questions with only simple answers as possible rational answers. No need to bring up what you believe is another fact about the statement 1+1=2. There are no doubt many things you could bring up in relation to that statement, some of which may be correct/factual/true, some of which may be a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of what is the case regarding that statement, or even just a distraction or dodge from what I would like to discuss about that statement.

Just as a reminder that often when one is using the verb "is", one is making a statement of a fact (something "is" something). The mathematical symbol for "is" is =. Which is a statement of another fact that I believe to be true, based on rational logical reasons and the language and rules human beings have agreed upon for centuries in order to have rational reasonable and understandable conversations. Not dancing with words, dancing around the issue (or questions, I gave so many possible questions to answer, you didn't touch any of them, you quoted 2 though).

Btw, not that I really want to discuss it, but I'm looking through the synonym list for "definition" and I see words such as "description" and "rendering", if that is how you meant to use the word, may I remind you that all words and numbers were introduced in human society to describe things, including realities/facts? Does that in any way affect whether or not something actually is a fact/reality/certainty/truth or not? Or whether or not it is rational to believe whether or not something actually is a fact or factual/true/absolute/correct, without error?

Some more considerations to think about:

The Allure of Numbers

IMAGINE a world without numbers. There would be no money. Trade would be restricted to face-to-face barter. And what about sports? Without numbers, not only would we be unable to keep score but we could not even define how many players should be on each team!

Besides their practical application, however, numbers carry an aura of mystery. This is because they are abstract. You cannot see, touch, or feel numbers. To illustrate: An apple has a distinct color, texture, size, shape, smell, and taste. You can check each of these properties to see whether a certain object is indeed an apple, a lemon, a ball, or something else. A number, however, is not like that. One collection of seven items may not share anything in common with another collection of seven items—other than their “sevenness.” Hence, to comprehend the meaning of numbers—for example, to discern the difference between six and seven—is to grasp something very abstract indeed. And this is where number mystics come into the picture.

Or philosophers promoting or trying to hang on to Pontius Pilate's version of the agnostic philosophy of vagueness, long story which I might have mentioned something about earlier in this thread.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth...is not absolute but relative and ever changing.

Which is very convenient for selling their philosophies/views/ideas/beliefs/opinions even when it's clear that they're wrong, that is, to people using all of the thinking abilities that I discussed in my comment about "wisdom", obviously it's not clear to many others.

More reminders as to what a person is doing when they are saying that something is something, such as in the phrase, 1 plus 1 is 2:

is
third person singular present of be.

be
verb

1.
exist.

ex·ist
verb

1.
have objective reality or being.

Sources: google dictionary
“What Is Truth?”
Numbers and You - Awake!—2002

a reply to: Astrocyte

That was both very interesting and somewhat hard to follow, not being a brain surgeon or neurogeek. (S&F)

In terms of real knowledge, I have read and think that the only real knowledge is the knowledge of experience and that as you seem to allude to, you cannot separate the unique "qualia" of feeling of it from conscious knowledge, like some sort of computational algorithm or like grooves in a recording medium. To know something is to have an experience of it in consciousness. Another paradox is that as we move up the knowledge hierarchy, the knowledge becomes the knowing of not knowing, or a state of uncertainty (that we can be certain of), and comfortable with, but then it goes up one more level I think into a state of humor or mirthfulness or what I've heard on more than one occasion described as the humor of understanding in the knowledge of experience, even in the experience of knowing that we don't know.

"He who knows, knows not, but he who knows that he knows not, knows (and laughs)." (parentheses added)
~Confucius

So often I see materialists try to talk about human knowledge as if they can stand apart from themselves and point to "the thing", as if denying that the qualia or unique experience of one's own consciousness as absolutely intrinsic to any real knowing.

If I've understood your OP, you're referring to the problem of thinking of consciousness and thus knowledge as the knowledge of personal experience as some sort of bottom-up epiphenomenon of material processes in the brain when the very act of being conscious of being conscious can impinge upon that neuronal substrate.

I like listening to this guy talk about it

Some of what he's saying bring to mind some Descartes of the famous line "I think therefore I am" that I read as a teenager (it was a bit over my head, but I liked studying it), where he made the first major attempt at tackling this issue and seemed to somehow arrive by so-called deductive and inductive reasoning, at the same conclusion, that what we perceive in our consciousness must also reside in a consciousness or that the "idea" and perception of a thing must reside in back of the thing itself for it to be made manifest, which cannot be separated from the subjective observer, while recognizing at the same time that the subjective viewpoint is but a dim perception of an objective reality as filtered through the five senses.

I'm not entirely sure why he felt he proved that the actual object, as it actually is must be held in a mind whereby consciousness and not matter is primary or fundamental, but it's very interesting that from a philosophical deduction he came up with something that was so very similar to this new paradigm that consciousness and not matter is primary, and that mind and experience cannot be an epiphenomenon of matter on matter because of the ability to make a conscious choice which itself alters the neurons as you've pointed out.

I've also heard it said by Goswami and other physicists, like David Bohm that, prior to choice or "judgement", consciousness MUST be a non-local phenomenon.

So in other words, it's not even entirely accurate in light of the new, emerging paradigm of what Goswami refers to as a "Monistic Idealism" (Consciousness, not matter is primary) as opposed to a "Materialist Monism" (matter alone is primary and consciousness an epiphenomenon of matter as a bottom up process that eventually produces consciousness as an emergent phenomenon) to think of knowledge as just a set of neurons firing in the brain, even after all the complexities are considered. The qualia of consciousness cannot be ignored, nor the subjected observer, set apart.

This makes the true location of the knowing self, particularly one who's reached a point of unknowing and thus no longer needs to make hard judgements and distinction, also an unknown.

I'd like to think that most english speaking children in Elementary / Primary School or Kindergarten or even earlier are able to tell me whether or not they believe that 1+1=2 (is a fact, factual/correct, without error). I'm not sure what answer I would get if I ask them about the topic of whether or not it's rational or reasonable to believe that (I think I'd go with the word "reasonable" then, they might be more familiar with that word). It helps when you've not been that much affected yet by what the bible refers to as "this system of things" and "profitless talkers and deceivers of the mind". I'd like to think I would also be able to get a straight answer if I leave out the verb "believe" (and that topic).

Such as in the question:

Is the statement "1+1=2" true/correct?

Not sure at what age they get so much affected that they can't give an honest and accurate answer to the question:

Is it a fact that 1+1=2?

a reply to: whereislogic

Is it a fact that 1+1=2?

No; it is a definition. And that is a "fact."

a reply to: birdxofxprey

knowledge is not just intersubjectively shareable, but intersubjectively defined.

Eye gaze, fcial expressions, body language and vocal tone all affect HOW you know something. Knowledge cannot be extricated from the intersubjective matrix!

originally posted by: whereislogic
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 nuances in meaning: myth, fiction, deceit, fantasy, imagination, idea; synonym for "idea": philosophy)
lie

Sources: Thesaurus: Fact
Thesaurus: Fabrication
Thesaurus: Farbication page 2
Thesaurus: Idea page 4

Too Much Knowledge for Us?

A missionary couple sitting on a beach in West Africa were watching the silvery moon above. “How much does man know about the moon, and how much is there to know?” reflected the husband.

His wife responded: “Imagine that we could observe the earth drifting by like this—how much knowledge is there already on earth, and how much more is there to learn? And just think! Not only is the earth rotating around the sun but our whole solar system is in motion. This means that we will probably never again be here at this exact point in the universe. In fact, we know our present location only in relation to familiar heavenly bodies. We possess so much knowledge about some things, but in a sense, we don’t even know where we are!”

THOSE thoughts touch on some basic truths. There seems to be so much to learn. Of course, each of us learns new things every day. Regardless of how much we do learn, however, we do not seem to be able to keep up with what we would like to know.

Granted, in addition to the ability to take in new information, the capacity to store knowledge has increased greatly. The collective memory of mankind has taken on immense proportions by means of technology. Computer hard disks now have such large capacities that new mathematical terms had to be coined to describe them. A simple CD-ROM can store a wealth of information; its capacity is described as 680 megabytes or more. A standard DVD can hold almost seven times that much, and some with even greater capacity are becoming available.

Modern man’s means to communicate information are almost beyond our comprehension. Rotary presses run at incredible speeds, turning out newspapers, magazines, and books. For someone using the Internet, endless amounts of information are just a click away. In these and many other ways, dissemination of information is increasing faster than anyone can assimilate it. This quantity of information has sometimes been likened to a sea, being of such proportions that we must learn to swim in it, as it were, but try not to drink it all in. The sheer quantity of it forces us to be selective.

Another reason to be selective is that much available information is not particularly useful. Indeed, some of it is even undesirable, not worth knowing. Remember that knowledge refers to information—whether good or bad, positive or negative. To make matters more confusing, some things considered by many to be facts are just not accurate. How often the statements of even esteemed authorities have later proved to be erroneous, or false! Think, for instance, of the city recorder of ancient Ephesus, certainly viewed there as a knowledgeable official. He claimed: “Who really is there of mankind that does not know that the city of the Ephesians is the temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the image that fell from heaven?” (Acts 19:35, 36) Although this seems to have been common knowledge—even indisputable, many would say—it was not true that the image had fallen from heaven. With good reason, the Holy Bible warns Christians to guard against that which is “falsely called ‘knowledge.’”—1 Timothy 6:20.

A compelling reason to be selective about knowledge is that our present life span is so short. Regardless of how old you may be, there are undoubtedly many fields of knowledge that you would like to investigate, but you realize that you will simply not live long enough to do so.

Will this basic problem ever change? Could a field of knowledge be available that will prolong life significantly, even forever? Could such knowledge already exist? If so, will it be made available to all? Will the day come when all knowledge will consist of what we expect—the truth? The missionary couple mentioned above have found satisfying answers to those questions, and you can too. Please read the next article, which will offer you the prospect of taking in knowledge forever.

Taking in Knowledge—Now and Forever

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

“By clever and persevering use of propaganda even heaven can be represented as hell to the people, and conversely the most wretched life as paradise.”—ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF.

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

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: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking.
...
[continued in next comment]

Source for the bottem part: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

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: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) 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 to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. The command given at Exodus 23:2 serves as a good principle: “You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends.”

"What is knowledge?"

A conspiracy between two or more people in an agreement to the existence of something as existant... whether it be real or not deemed fact or fiction? Seems to make little diference as it it's existence as far as the conspiracy of it's existence goes on or continues. Such is the nature of life with a percieving consciousness with a memory attached to it dragging everything along with it moment to moment to moment attached to those memories... allowing such to persist or continue on.

Form does not matter to ideas and concepts; but ideas and concepts matter to form... such a curious anomaly.

Some philosophers like to complicate and obscure simple matters so they can appear sophisticated and wise. And oversimplify complex matters to keep people from gaining anything more than a superficial view of the subject so they can't recognize the sophistry being used by these philosophers on a variety of subjects.

originally posted by: InTheLight
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?

quotation:
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...

Must You Believe It?

THE 12-year-old student was struggling to grasp the basic principles of algebra. His teacher presented the class with a seemingly straightforward algebraic calculation.

“Let x=y and let them both have the value of 1,” he began.

‘So far so good,’ thought the student.

After four lines of what looked like logical calculation, however, the teacher produced a startling result: “Therefore, 2=1!”

“Disprove that,” he challenged his bemused students.

With his very limited knowledge of algebra, the young student could not see how to disprove it. Every step in the calculation looked perfectly valid. Should he, then, believe this strange conclusion? After all, his teacher was much more versed in mathematics than he was. Of course he should not! ‘I do not have to disprove this,’ he thought to himself. ‘Common sense tells me that this is absurd.’ (Proverbs 14:15, 18) He knew that neither his teacher nor any of his classmates were going to exchange two dollars for one!

In time the algebra student did find the flaw in the computation. Meanwhile, the experience taught him a valuable lesson. Even when someone with vastly superior knowledge presents a carefully crafted and seemingly unassailable argument, a listener need not believe a foolish conclusion simply because he cannot disprove it at the time. The student was actually following a very practical Bible principle found at 1 John 4:1—not to believe too quickly everything you hear, even when it appears to come from an authoritative source.

This does not mean that you should stubbornly stick to preconceived ideas. It is a mistake to close your mind to information that could adjust mistaken views. But neither should you be “quickly shaken from your reason” in the face of pressure from someone who claims to have great knowledge or authority. (2 Thessalonians 2:2) The teacher, of course, was merely playing a trick on his students. Sometimes, though, things are not so innocent. People can be extremely “cunning in contriving error.”—Ephesians 4:14; 2 Timothy 2:14, 23, 24.

Are Experts Always Right?

However knowledgeable they may be, experts in any field may have conflicting ideas and shifting opinions. Take, for example, the ongoing debate in medical science on something as basic as causes of illness. “The relative importance of nature versus nurture in illness forms the fabric of heated debate among scientists,” writes a professor of medicine at Harvard University. Those in what has been called the determinist camp believe strongly that our genes play a decisive role in our susceptibility to various diseases. Others, however, contend that the environment and life-style are the major factors in human pathology. Both sides are quick to cite studies and statistics to support their case. Nonetheless, the debate continues.

The most renowned of thinkers have been proved wrong again and again, even though what they taught seemed at the time to be beyond dispute. Philosopher Bertrand Russell described Aristotle as one of “the most influential of all philosophers.” Yet, Russell also pointed out that many of Aristotle’s doctrines were “wholly false.” “Throughout modern times,” he wrote, “practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of opposition from Aristotle’s disciples.”—History of Western Philosophy.

“The Falsely Called ‘Knowledge’”

The early Christians likely met many who were disciples of the noted Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Educated people of the day regarded themselves as intellectually superior to most of the Christians. Not many of Jesus’ disciples were considered “wise in a fleshly way.” (1 Corinthians 1:26) In fact, those schooled in the philosophies of the day thought that what the Christians believed was simply “foolishness” or “sheer nonsense.”—1 Corinthians 1:23; Phillips.

If you were among those early Christians, would you have been impressed by the persuasive arguments of the intellectual elite of the day or overawed by their display of wisdom? (Colossians 2:4) There would have been no reason for that, according to the apostle Paul. He reminded Christians that Jehovah views “the wisdom of the wise men” and the “intelligence of the intellectual men” of the day as foolish. (1 Corinthians 1:19) “What,” he asked, “have the philosopher, the writer and the critic of this world to show for all their wisdom?” (1 Corinthians 1:20, Phillips) Despite all their intellectual brilliance, the philosophers, the writers, and the critics of Paul’s day had produced no real answer to mankind’s problems.

So Christians learned to avoid what the apostle Paul said were “the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1 Timothy 6:20) The reason that Paul called such knowledge ‘false’ is that it lacked one crucial factor—a source or reference from God against which their theories could be tested. (Job 28:12; Proverbs 1:7) Lacking that, and at the same time being blinded by the archdeceiver, Satan, those clinging to such knowledge could never hope to find the truth.—1 Corinthians 2:6-8, 14; 3:18-20; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:14; Revelation 12:9.

The Bible—An Inspired Guide

The early Christians never doubted that God had revealed his will, purpose, and principles in the Scriptures. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) This protected them from being ‘carried off as prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.’ (Colossians 2:8) The situation is the same today. In contrast with the confusing and conflicting opinions of men, God’s inspired Word provides a solid foundation on which we can base our beliefs. (John 17:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21) Without it we are left in the impossible situation of trying to build something solid on the shifting sands of human theories and philosophies.—Matthew 7:24-27.
...

continued in next comment.

‘But wait,’ someone might say. ‘Is it not true that the facts of science have shown the Bible to be in error and therefore no more dependable than the ever-changing philosophies of men?’ Bertrand Russell claimed, for example, that “Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to combat Aristotle as well as the Bible in establishing the view that the earth is not the centre of the universe.” (Italics ours.) And is it not true that today, for example, creationists insist that the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, when all the facts show that the earth itself is billions of years old?

Actually, the Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe. That was a teaching of church leaders who themselves did not adhere to God’s Word. The Genesis account of creation allows for the earth to be billions of years old and does not limit each creative day to 24 hours. (Genesis 1:1, 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:3, 4) An honest appraisal of the Bible shows that while it is not a science textbook, it certainly is not “sheer nonsense.” It is, in fact, in complete harmony with proven science. [For details, see the books The Bible—God’s Word or Man’s? and Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.]

The “Power of Reason”

Although many of Jesus’ disciples were simple men and women, possibly with limited education, they did have another God-given asset at their disposal. Regardless of their background, all were endowed with reasoning power and thinking abilities. The apostle Paul encouraged his fellow Christians to make full use of their “power of reason” to “prove to [themselves] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”—Romans 12:1, 2.

With their God-given “power of reason,” the early Christians saw clearly that any philosophy or teaching that was not in harmony with the revealed Word of God was useless. In some cases the wise men of their day were, in fact, “suppressing the truth” and ignoring the evidence around them that there is a God. “Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish,” wrote the apostle Paul. Because they rejected the truth about God and his purpose, “they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened.”—Romans 1:18-22; Jeremiah 8:8, 9.

Those who assert that they are wise often come up with conclusions like “There is no God” or “The Bible is not to be trusted” or “These are not the ‘last days.’” Such ideas are just as foolish in God’s eyes as concluding that “2=1.” (1 Corinthians 3:19) Whatever authority people may arrogate to themselves, you do not have to accept their conclusions if they contradict God, ignore his Word, and violate common sense. In the final analysis, the wise course is always to “let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.”—Romans 3:4.