Do we possess intrinsic knowledge?

  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
If the universe acts and evolves according to hidden structure such as the theories of modern physics and mathematics, then if this cosmic structure manifest also as microstructures such as that of the human mind, then by this could we intrinsically recognize alleged truths such as the existence of God, the possibility of other realities, and the many things thought by many to be only imagined; or at best theoretical. I mean this within a similar context to Descartes proof of God, but with the modern application of concepts such as fractals, holograms, and the assumed possibility of a grand unified theory of physics.

Perhaps we appreciate a flower because the beauty is really a familiar mathematical structure recognized only at a most primitive level? Mother Nature follows mathematical patterns as do planetary orbits. Could this recognition of pattern yield insights to truth?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
It may be possible that our distant ancestors who seemed prewired to sharpen stones into a point passed on a very basic concept, to make things into a point or sharpening things was good, it may be that the pyramid is a pyramid because a square wasn't very useful but this is far fetched I admit. We likely have basic understandings of things that reflect the evolution of the human brain to see nature as it truly is.
 
  • #3
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Yes, we do seem to have the capacity to acknowledge things. If it's not inherent or, intrinsic with who we are, then how else do you explain it? Indeed the mind does seem to posses the key to unlock the mysteries of the universe, but even if such a thing as God could be ascertained -- by "one mind" -- how could it be verified by others, in the "scientific sense?"

Perhaps if we all learned how to pracitce the Vulcan mind meld or something?
 
  • #4
kyle_soule
240
1
Perhaps we appreciate a flower because the beauty is really a familiar mathematical structure recognized only at a most primitive level? Mother Nature follows mathematical patterns as do planetary orbits. Could this recognition of pattern yield insights to truth?

Hm, patterns everywhere, that kind of thinking will cause you to drill a whole in your head:smile: he he he [pi]

I think many things have a pattern and with this and symmetry we perceive things as beautiful, such as a flower. Although, we do tend to marvel over living things, i.e. some people think their pets talk. Perhaps instead of having, or lack of [or perhaps even because of, in some cases], intimate relationships with flowers, we simply look at them as beautiful.

If the universe acts and evolves according to hidden structure such as the theories of modern physics and mathematics, then if this cosmic structure manifest also as microstructures such as that of the human mind, then by this could we intrinsically recognize alleged truths such as the existence of God, the possibility of other realities, and the many things thought by many to be only imagined; or at best theoretical. I mean this within a similar context to Descartes proof of God, but with the modern application of concepts such as fractals, holograms, and the assumed possibility of a grand unified theory of physics.

These structures and theories appear hidden because they require more than the naked eye to observe, they aren't hidden, we have simply used our intrinsic need for understanding to probe the inner-mechanics of the universe. This alone is the reason for all understanding, the need for knowledge, you cannot credit the discovery of advances in physics to the observation [alone] of patterns and innate knowledge of the universe. God is illogical, and apparently contradicts natural laws and such, we couldn't come about the discovery of it with intrinsic knowledge or patterns.
 
  • #5
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Hm, patterns everywhere, that kind of thinking will cause you to drill a whole in your head:smile:
And I say "pattern recognition" points the way to EVERY new theory and discovery.

As to "intrinsic knowledge" ...I have often wondered why our species, in so many cultures throughout time, give rise to the "worship" of something "supreme". Would this be "intrinsic knowledge" of some Entity "greater" than ourselves of which we are a part?
 
  • #6
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And I say "pattern recognition" points the way to EVERY new theory and discovery.

Patterns point the way to hypothesis', observation and testing point the way to theories.

Example: If I observe dead animals in my yard, for one year at the rate of two dead animals a day; I have a hypothesis that two dead animals will be dead everyday in my yard. All I have done is observed the pattern of animals dying in my yard each day, but I have not found out the means. It could be a neighbor that kills them and puts them in my yard each day or I could have something in my yard that kills the animals. The theory comes about when you find proof to support your hypothesis with a) facts b) other theories not just hunches on patterns.

As to "intrinsic knowledge" ...I have often wondered why our species, in so many cultures throughout time, give rise to the "worship" of something "supreme". Would this be "intrinsic knowledge" of some Entity "greater" than ourselves of which we are a part?

We have the greatest means with which to think, it should be no surprise we find outselves doing things other species don't. I think we manifest this greater entity because many humans have the crazy idea that we have a SPECIAL purpose in life.

Throughout history we have also observed many, many people that did not worship something 'supreme'. There is both ends of the spectrum, you can either not worship or worship, humans have done both, as we do in most every case [heterosexual/homosexual], and people draw conclusions from this when there is nothing to be drawn, except for the ignorance of people:smile:
 
  • #7
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Patterns point the way to hypothesis', observation and testing point the way to theories.

Example: If I observe dead animals in my yard, for one year at the rate of two dead animals a day; I have a hypothesis that two dead animals will be dead everyday in my yard. All I have done is observed the pattern of animals dying in my yard each day, but I have not found out the means. It could be a neighbor that kills them and puts them in my yard each day or I could have something in my yard that kills the animals. The theory comes about when you find proof to support your hypothesis with a) facts b) other theories not just hunches on patterns.

I regret that I was not comprehensive in my list of steps that take one from observation to theory to proof.

My point is, if one never even notices that two dead animals per day are showing up on one's property, one would not even begin to ask "What could this mean?" nor even "Where might these carcasses be coming from?"

Pattern recognition is a way of getting our ATTENTION!

We have the greatest means with which to think, it should be no surprise we find outselves doing things other species don't. I think we manifest this greater entity because many humans have the crazy idea that we have a SPECIAL purpose in life.

Throughout history we have also observed many, many people that did not worship something 'supreme'. There is both ends of the spectrum, you can either not worship or worship, humans have done both, as we do in most every case [heterosexual/homosexual], and people draw conclusions from this when there is nothing to be drawn, except for the ignorance of people:smile:
Well, you certainly make the case for you last point. :wink:
 
  • #8
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I regret that I was not comprehensive in my list of steps that take one from observation to theory to proof.

My point is, if one never even notices that two dead animals per day are showing up on one's property, one would not even begin to ask "What could this mean?" nor even "Where might these carcasses be coming from?"

Pattern recognition is a way of getting our ATTENTION!

Well, you certainly make the case for you last point. :wink:

The difference between my post you reference and what I meant was that I have not come across any truths, that is simply my opinion, an opinion that is supported by what I have learned, certainly not patterns I have observed; after all, how could I observe the past? I don't doubt that patterns lead to hypothesis which lead to studies which lead to theories. It is concievable, though, we could skip the observation of patterns and go straight to hypothesis and then study and then theory.

EDIT: We could create theories on patterns we have not observed, such as the dead animals, I could formulate a theory based on hypothetical situations. This has also happened much in science, we hypothesize something and then create ways of probing the validity of the hypothesis.
 
  • #9
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by kyle_soule
The difference between my post you reference and what I meant was that I have not come across any truths, that is simply my opinion, an opinion that is supported by what I have learned, certainly not patterns I have observed; after all, how could I observe the past?

1. If you observed two dead dogs in your yard yesterday, you've observed the past.

2. If you are not interested in observing patterns, you might
miss a few life lessons along the way.

3. I see a pattern developing already that will have us -- you and I -- chasing each other's tails into eternity.

I don't recall saying that I have hit on any "truths." My offerings are purely speculations ...and when I seem to be speaking with certainty, it is just that I'm "taking the case" that such and such are so.
 
  • #10
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
1. If you observed two dead dogs in your yard yesterday, you've observed the past.

Hm, how can observations today be the past when I observe them, only the memory of the observation is the past.
 
  • #11
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Hm, how can observations today be the past when I observe them, only the memory of the observation is the past.
Then technically, ALL observations are a "thing of the past" the moment you turn to ponder what they may mean ...and they're ANCIENT HISTORY by the time you make it to your theory.

And note: our pattern continues. :wink:
 
  • #12
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Then technically, ALL observations are a "thing of the past" the moment you turn to ponder what they may mean ...and they're ANCIENT HISTORY by the time you make it to your theory.

And note: our pattern continues. :wink:

Their is no aging of the 'real past', therefore, no timeline, so no they are not, in fact, ANCIENT HISTORY when they are made into theories, they are the past. The observation was made in the past, but you haven't observed the past, that would mean that when you observed it you were observing the future.

Yes, all observations are the past, not observed as the past though; they are not the past because you have no longer observed them, they are the past because the present is continuing forward. Observing the dead animals at point x in time will never allow you to again observe at time x, it will always be x+x[sub t] time from the point of observation.

Response to note: this is a forum, perhaps we could sit and stare at the blank screens for communication?
 
  • #13
wuliheron
2,135
0
Because we are ignorant we may learn, this is intrinsic knowledge we need only accept in the moment in order to grow. No matter what happened in the past or how rigorously someone argues something, in the end we must accept our own ignorance before we can know anything. This is something even a newborn babe can do before it has learned so much as how to smile. :0)
 
  • #14
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
Because we are ignorant we may learn, this is intrinsic knowledge we need only accept in the moment in order to grow. No matter what happened in the past or how rigorously someone argues something, in the end we must accept our own ignorance before we can know anything. This is something even a newborn babe can do before it has learned so much as how to smile. :0)
So maybe knowledge isn't so intrinsic, as our ability to accept the knowledge which is intrinsic? Even so, it doesn't rule out the possibility that intrinsic knowledge exists, in fact it probably goes a long ways to help substantiate the idea. :wink:

And what about animals? ... lest we once again find the need to separate ourselves from them. What's the difference between intrinsic knowledge and animal instincts?
 
  • #15
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Their is no aging of the 'real past'
...tho certain topics get old fast. [zz)]

No reflection on you, kyle_soule ...we/I just need another topic.

Response to note: this is a forum, perhaps we could sit and stare at the blank screens for communication?
Tried it. Doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what about animals? ... lest we once again find the need to separate ourselves from them. What's the difference between intrinsic knowledge and animal instincts?

Now, here's a topic!

Some animal behaviors that are deemed "instinctive" seem pretty sophisticated to me. Example: bees that can COMMUNICATE the exact direction and distance of a patch of flowers.

What's YOUR response to your own question?
 
  • #17
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
So maybe knowledge isn't so intrinsic, as our ability to accept the knowledge which is intrinsic? Even so, it doesn't rule out the possibility that intrinsic knowledge exists, in fact it probably goes a long ways to help substantiate the idea. :wink:

And what about animals? ... lest we once again find the need to separate ourselves from them. What's the difference between intrinsic knowledge and animal instincts?

To say that our ignorance is instinctual is absurd. Likewise, to say that our ability to accept or reject our ignorance is not innate is absurd. If we could not accept or reject anything we would not be having this discussion, and even a newborn can obviously accept and reject such simple things as nursing. As for animal instinct, humans are born with a fear of heights and the "rooting instinct" of shaking their heads back and forth with their mouth open looking for mamma's nipples to suckle. Whether or not such things constitute knowledge is debatable.

What is not debatable is that we learn from day one and even previous to day one. We learn while inside the womb, for example, how to suck on our thumbs and therefore practice nursing before the first opportunity arrives. The question then is how do we learn? Is learning purely instinctual or does it require innate knowledge? What it requires is emotional context, that is what distinguishes us from my computer. Without emotional context everything is meaningless and learning is an oxymoron. Does water "learn" when it freezes? I think not.

My son was born in my living with the help of a midwife. His mother danced all over the furniture and at one point I sat on the couch under her, and supported her buttocks while she shook her arms in pain. At that very moment our son's head seemed to pop out of her butt and stare at me from less than a foot away. A more serene and accepting expression I have never witnessed. Despite my face being right in front of his, his eyes seemed to look right through me and take in everything rather than just focusing on me.

The ability to accept is intrinsic, but this implies then that knowledge is also intrinsic. You cannot accept something unless you have something to accept and possibility of rejection. Some babies enter this world kicking and screaming, while others make a more graceful entrance. From the moment they become capable of accepting and rejecting anything, from the moment we first consider them human beings rather than just an interesting collection of chemical reactions, knowledge is present.
 
  • #18
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
To say that our ignorance is instinctual is absurd. Likewise, to say that our ability to accept or reject our ignorance is not innate is absurd.
I don't even see how this fits in with what I was trying to say? Unless I missed something about the issue between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge, because they pretty much seem to be one and the same or, allude to something similar.


The ability to accept is intrinsic, but this implies then that knowledge is also intrinsic.
Yes, this is basically what I was trying to say here. And in bringing up the part about animal instinct I was trying to reiterate this, Okay?
 
  • #19
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Now, here's a topic!

Some animal behaviors that are deemed "instinctive" seem pretty sophisticated to me. Example: bees that can COMMUNICATE the exact direction and distance of a patch of flowers.
That is pretty amazing! And yet, there would seem to be a direct line of communication going on.


What's YOUR response to your own question?
Since people don't seem to be quite so instinctual as the rest of the animal kingdom, because we have a larger brain and have more to "learn" about our environment, which varies due to our ability to adapt, I'm just wondering if intrinsic knowledge is not just a higher level of "animal instinct?"
 
  • #20
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That is pretty amazing! And yet, there would seem to be a direct line of communication going on.


Since people don't seem to be quite so instinctual as the rest of the animal kingdom, because we have a larger brain and have more to "learn" about our environment, which varies due to our ability to adapt, I'm just wondering if intrinsic knowledge is not just a higher level of "animal instinct?"

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Universe isn't ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME.

Maybe It's all INFORMATION all the time -- or the exchange thereof -- via three interconnected networks: physicality, consciousness and spirit.

The conduit -- in the physical -- must be gravity (and its kin)which serves to interconnect baryonic matter. I speculate there must be similar attractive forces within conscious and spiritual systems.

The Universe is the Primary System ...and we are each sub-systems ...but I digress.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Royce
1,514
0
I wish someone would or could explain to me why we, Mankind, are so driven to learn and know as much as possible about everything. This is not simple curiosity nor can I think of an obvious way that this can be an evolutionary survival trait.
I don't know if we have any actual intrinsic knowledge when we are born or even before. We have reflexes but no instincts in the true biological sense, or so I'm told. What we do have is a brain/mind that comes hard wired to learn and know and think in logical and mathematical reasoning patterns. We are also prewired to learn and use language. We seem to be prewired or emotionally driven to learn about and know the universe as well as the world and all that is about us.
Is this just evolutionary development and comes with reaching a certain level of intelligence or is it that we are designed with that in mind? Is this the purpose and intent of evolution - intelligence that can and will know the universe and itself? Or, is all of this a simple result of some random chemical reactions?
I, of course, think that this is the result of purpose and intent; but, I can not prove it. It does seem to be a pattern though, doesn't it?
 
  • #22
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Royce
I wish someone would or could explain to me why we, Mankind, are so driven to learn and know as much as possible about everything.
I suspect the Universe gives rise -- in every of Its incarnations -- to sub-systems (us and others) with broader awarenesses (say, than parsley) so that It can make INQUIRIES of Itself.

Its part of the natural processes of the System.
 
  • #23
Zantra
781
3
Originally posted by Royce
I wish someone would or could explain to me why we, Mankind, are so driven to learn and know as much as possible about everything. This is not simple curiosity nor can I think of an obvious way that this can be an evolutionary survival trait.
I don't know if we have any actual intrinsic knowledge when we are born or even before. We have reflexes but no instincts in the true biological sense, or so I'm told. What we do have is a brain/mind that comes hard wired to learn and know and think in logical and mathematical reasoning patterns. We are also prewired to learn and use language. We seem to be prewired or emotionally driven to learn about and know the universe as well as the world and all that is about us.
Is this just evolutionary development and comes with reaching a certain level of intelligence or is it that we are designed with that in mind? Is this the purpose and intent of evolution - intelligence that can and will know the universe and itself? Or, is all of this a simple result of some random chemical reactions?
I, of course, think that this is the result of purpose and intent; but, I can not prove it. It does seem to be a pattern though, doesn't it?

To question why we question everything- well is a redundancy. But it's also to question why we are human. It could be that this is the natural progression of evolution. It could be that any specicies evolved to our level of reasoning would question the world around them. Evolution and survival are entertwined. We must evolve to survive, and so we come to the natural progression of that evolution. Who knows what we'll be like in several millenia.
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule


Hm, patterns everywhere, that kind of thinking will cause you to drill a whole in your head:smile: he he he [pi]


[?]. What kind of thinking? That we implicitly recognize patterns?

I think many things have a pattern and with this and symmetry we perceive things as beautiful, such as a flower. Although, we do tend to marvel over living things, i.e. some people think their pets talk. Perhaps instead of having, or lack of [or perhaps even because of, in some cases], intimate relationships with flowers, we simply look at them as beautiful.

I wasn't assigning a mystical quality to anything. I am talking about the mechanism of perception.


These structures and theories appear hidden because they require more than the naked eye to observe, they aren't hidden, we have simply used our intrinsic need for understanding to probe the inner-mechanics of the universe. This alone is the reason for all understanding, the need for knowledge, you cannot credit the discovery of advances in physics to the observation [alone] of patterns and innate knowledge of the universe. God is illogical, and apparently contradicts natural laws and such, we couldn't come about the discovery of it with intrinsic knowledge or patterns.

I never said anything about learning physics by feeling the vibes. This was your concept. I am talking about pattern recognition...one of the things our brain does best.

Also, mathematics and the laws of physics are hidden. That's why we must discover them.

We rely on our innate sense of order and expectation every time we do math. Mathematics is based on our ideas of common sense. So fundamentally, math and physics really come from nowhere; or the great cosmic consciousness.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Royce
I wish someone would or could explain to me why we, Mankind, are so driven to learn and know as much as possible about everything. This is not simple curiosity nor can I think of an obvious way that this can be an evolutionary survival trait.

The more intelligent the preditor, the more they play. Their play is simply practice for learning how to hunt and mate, and people are the ultimate preditors. Our insatiable curiosity usually focuses on these issues, but can extend into more abstract realms with a small percentage of the population.
 
  • #26
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
The more intelligent the preditor, the more they play. Their play is simply practice for learning how to hunt and mate, and people are the ultimate preditors. Our insatiable curiosity usually focuses on these issues, but can extend into more abstract realms with a small percentage of the population.

So, are you saying that this insatiable curiosity is just an extention of preditory evolution carried to the extreme in some humans? That we are compelled to explore from sub-atomic particles to every nook and crany of the world, space and the solar systems to finally the entire cosmos because we are really looking for something to eat or breed with?

You may be right. I don't know but that seems too pat an answer, too simplistic. I find it hard to accept that that is all there is to it. Maybe we are over evolved and too much of a generalistic species. Our intelligence and hense curiosity has gone beyound survival and reproduction too the point of diminishing returns.

Do you think this is inevitable for any sufficently developed and thus intelligent species?

Cats and dogs as well as other preditors when well fed spend their time sleeping and playing. We humans explore our minds as well as the universe once our basic needs are met. There are of course cats and dogs amoung our species too but so many of us devote so much time and effort into exploration that it has to be counterproductive.
Is this evolution?

Yes, I know asking why we ask is redundant. Why ask why? But this, I think, is the thing that really sets us off from animals and makes us human. The fundamental question is why. Why would evolution alone lead to intelligence and curiosity that becomes counterproductive as far as survival and reproduction is concerned to the point that it may be and is life threatening not only to our species but all life on earth?
 
  • #27
wuliheron
2,135
0
Some people I've met are hardly what I would call insatiably curious. Of course humanity has the capacity for complex language and highly abstract thought, but it also has the capacity to produce dullards. As civilization and knowledge evolve, the more complex and curious we can become, however the origins of this capacity are still demonstrably within our natural heritage.

As occurs with all complex preditors, a human child deprived of the basics of language and abstract thought, of the teaching and wisdom of its peers and parents, will not fulfill its potential. Quite the opposite, it will be lucky to survive to puberty and display very primitive animal behaviors. You can love such a child all you want, but deprived of the basic teachings we require they will never mature.

Hellen Keller comes to mind, her family loved her but treated her as if she could not be taught anything.
 
  • #28
rocket art
37
0
I think man's drive to knowledge,such as philosophy(love of knowledge) does not necessarily stem up from a literal need for survival alone, although the latter is a basic trait. Rather it is man finding his place in this universe. Most likely a human being contemplates what is beyond him when his basic need, such as feeding himself, is already answered( that is if he let's his mind soar to more views rather than stagnate on illusionary pedestals that may eventually stagnate). Great cultures are achieved because of this.

However if man is manipulated in a scenario wherein his views are forced to be limited to a belly culture and his musings of being creative are suppressed or stifled due to i.e. selfish manipulations, rather than for fairness' sake, then therein lies the danger for it could create oppression and injustice, and ironically man may cease to 'survive' in the name of survival.

The concept of evolution may be a wholistic perspective of the totality ( though I consider man came both from creation and evolution). Perhaps this may be the difference to what had been referred to as Evolution of Consciousness.
 
  • #29
Emotions may be considered a form of intrinsic knowledge given we all generally have similar emotional responses to a specific stimulus, those emotions being designed to help take the better response to follow the nature of evolution or survival. Further on emotions may sprout into complex feelings as a child develops that are fast and reflexive ways of responding to complex stimulus, unlike logical reasoning which is deliberate and cumbersome but that feelings may be a primal kind of logic that is nonverbal and so difficult to communicate but also not bound in the labours of the speech center of the brain, yet formal logic is bound in speech and speech gives clarity to thought.
 

Suggested for: Do we possess intrinsic knowledge?

Replies
12
Views
714
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
391
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
325
Replies
13
Views
306
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
559
Top