How can improving critical thinking improve my understanding of the world?

[coberst]

I’ll show you my model if you will show me yours.

Humans are intellectual model builders. At birth I begin to create an understanding of the world I perceive. I suggest that understanding is an act of creation. Understanding is the product that reason creates, it is the model of my world, as I perceive it.

The model starts out as simplistic and chaotic. The rest of my life is an attempt, for reasons of self-interest, to make my model more suitable; in tune with, true to, the world I perceive. Reason is the intellectual faculty that ‘guides’ this endeavor.

The better my reason works the better will be my model. The science of reason is Critical Thinking. The more expert I am at Critical Thinking the better my model. The more I recognize this fact the better my chances of building a sophisticated model.

The lumber and nails I use for my model is the knowledge I have learned. The greater my knowledge of history the better is my understanding of human nature. The greater my knowledge of philosophy the better my reason functions. The greater my knowledge of science the better my understanding of nature. Mathematics is the science of pattern, what better agent for model building?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I’ll show you my model if you will show me yours.

Humans are intellectual model builders. At birth I begin to create an understanding of the world I perceive. I suggest that understanding is an act of creation. Understanding is the product that reason creates, it is the model of my world, as I perceive it.

The model starts out as simplistic and chaotic. The rest of my life is an attempt, for reasons of self-interest, to make my model more suitable; in tune with, true to, the world I perceive. Reason is the intellectual faculty that ‘guides’ this endeavor.

The better my reason works the better will be my model. The science of reason is Critical Thinking. The more expert I am at Critical Thinking the better my model. The more I recognize this fact the better my chances of building a sophisticated model.

The lumber and nails I use for my model is the knowledge I have learned. The greater my knowledge of history the better is my understanding of human nature. The greater my knowledge of philosophy the better my reason functions. The greater my knowledge of science the better my understanding of nature. Mathematics is the science of pattern, what better agent for model building?

I agree that all the practices and abilities you list contribute to accurate model building, and that accurate model builiding is crucial to critical thinking; but to your list I would add practices and abilities which, for me anyway, are even more crucial because they make one's model building more empirical and human.

The first and most important, in my opinion, is a commitment to discovering truth no matter what it is. That seems to take a bit of courage and determination. Second, our most powerful source of information is our own sensitive nature. A person who goes around always thinking, but never giving adequte weight to personal experience and to feeling one's self, becomes little more that a walking bunch of theories. Third, to constantly work at being absolutely and utterly unbiased. Most people's mentality becomes predisposed early on so that built into one's models are filters which prevent certain information from being considered objectively or to be ignored altogether. The fourth is tied to the third, and that is to keep all models flexible so they can be adjusted as new information is obtained; they should even disposable if facts warrent that. Finally, if model building only takes place in the head, how do we know how accurate the models are? So, I believe a person should, as much as possible, live their models and let oneself be a testing ground.

In these ways model building can become something which is both practical and which deepens our humanity. It can help us avoid the pitfall some intellectuals fall into of sacrificing the development of one's full human potential for the chance to become a living computer.

 

[wuliheron]

Because we are ignorant we may learn.

That is my model. However, if that is just too simplistic for you, I will post a new thread entitled, "The Gift of a Question".

 

[coberst]

I consider the model constructed by understanding includes knowledge, prejudices, biases, myths, assumptions, emotions, i.e. everything that makes up the mental sculpture that is me. Or perhaps it is my mental soul. From this 'mental soul' my understanding creates small models that is my understanding of some particular matter under consideration.

 

[wuliheron]

Of course, what you are describing falls under the category of the cognitive sciences. Exactly which it might be cannot be assertained from your brief description.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I consider the model constructed by understanding includes knowledge, prejudices, biases, myths, assumptions, emotions, i.e. everything that makes up the mental sculpture that is me. Or perhaps it is my mental soul. From this 'mental soul' my understanding creates small models that is my understanding of some particular matter under consideration.

If one accepts, "prejudices, biases, myths . . . emotions," as part of one's modeling discipline, then colorful models might be created, but I don't see how critical thinking will be achieved relying on such models.

 

[olde drunk]

what if we reverse the concept and say that 'the model begins as a reflection of your sub-c.' It is neither simplistic nor chaotic, rather the model obeys your desires.

as you learn and experience the model becomes more complex as we understand more and want more.

what do you see when you realize that the more you know, the more you understand that you don't know much?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Les Sleeth]

Of course, what you are describing falls under the category of the cognitive sciences. Exactly which it might be cannot be assertained from your brief description.

I personally can't see a problem understanding his point. From birth we build mental constructs to represent reality, and then we use those models to think about things the models represent. So both the information we use to build models and our reasoning skills are important.

I tried to add that in addition to those practices, the best models are generated by those who overall give top priority to being experiential before, during, and after using mentality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

what if we reverse the concept and say that 'the model begins as a reflection of your sub-c.' It is neither simplistic nor chaotic, rather the model obeys your desires.

Well, I assumed from Coberst's statement "The better my reason works the better will be my model. The science of reason is Critical Thinking. The more expert I am at Critical Thinking the better my model," that he wanted to use his modeling to understand the nature of things. If so, then what's the point of a model that merely reflects one desires? Of course there's nothing wrong with desire models in themselves . . . I only mean in regard to being a tool for critical thinking. For that, isn't the point to build models that represent reality as precisely as possible? And, to reiterate my point, hasn't the need to experience what we represent with models been demonstrated as the best way to confirm the accuracy of our models?

 

[wuliheron]

I personally can't see a problem understanding his point. From birth we build mental constructs to represent reality, and then we use those models to think about things the models represent. So both the information we use to build models and our reasoning skills are important.

I tried to add that in addition to those practices, the best models are generated by those who overall give top priority to being experiential before, during, and after using mentality.

Note that what you are describing is merely another description, an abstraction about another abstraction. Exactly what constitutes the "real" world is debatable and, hence, the confusion with his model.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Note that what you are describing is merely another description, an abstraction about another abstraction. Exactly what constitutes the "real" world is debatable and, hence, the confusion with his model.

How else does one communicate? We use the abstractions of words and concepts to exchange ideas about the aspects of reality we perceive. Before we do that, we build intellectual models to represent reality in order to think about it, just as coberst said. So I still don't see any confusion in his statement.

As far as what constitutes the real world being debatable, true. But since we all know that, the time the issue most often arises is when we decide to cooperate on some project where we need to agree about how reality works. For that, experience has proven most useful in providing that common ground. For me at least, I don't have any problem understanding that my mental models are not the reality they are meant to represent in my thinking processes . . . one is thought about, the other is experienced, respectively.

 

[coberst]

Les Sleeth

I consider knowledge, prejudice, biases etc to be the building material of the model not the “the modeling discipline”. I would think that one would consider reason to be the discipline for both acquisition of knowledge and for construction of understanding. Critical Thinking the discipline of reason does not depend on understanding. I would think that one could have Critical Thinking skills and attitude without one having an understanding of Critical Thinking. This example is far out but one can say have memorized the encyclopedia without understanding anything about the matter.

 

[wuliheron]

How else does one communicate? We use the abstractions of words and concepts to exchange ideas about the aspects of reality we perceive. Before we do that, we build intellectual models to represent reality in order to think about it, just as coberst said. So I still don't see any confusion in his statement.

As far as what constitutes the real world being debatable, true. But since we all know that, the time the issue most often arises is when we decide to cooperate on some project where we need to agree about how reality works. For that, experience has proven most useful in providing that common ground. For me at least, I don't have any problem understanding that my mental models are not the reality they are meant to represent in my thinking processes . . . one is thought about, the other is experienced, respectively.

Communication is not simply talking over each other's heads. It is the art of listening as well, which requires an open and accepting attitude. Without the attitudes and affect we bring to our communications, they are just so many bits of meaningless data. No different really than the programs on my computer spouting data (ie-without meaning or understanding and, quite often, without any purpose.)

This is what communication is about, the heart. Without a clear reference to the heart and specific contexts, communication is impossible.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I consider knowledge, prejudice, biases etc to be the building material of the model not the “the modeling discipline”.

I can't understand why bias or prejudice would be linked with knowledge in a model unless you are talking about constructing a model of something like the causes of racial prejudice. But I meant one's own prejudices, and then I don't see how that can be knowingly allowed in a model that's to be used in critical thinking.

I would think that one would consider reason to be the discipline for both acquisition of knowledge and for construction of understanding.

Wow, do we disagree there. How does reason "acquire" knowledge? I am someone who believes knowledge comes from experience, not reason. You can experience and know, but you can't reason and know anything except more concepts (maybe that's what Wuli was criticizing). It is when a person experiences that which he reasons to be possible that knowing happens. But then yes, reason can serve to bring understanding, especially when one reasons with information confirmed by personal experience.

Critical Thinking the discipline of reason does not depend on understanding. I would think that one could have Critical Thinking skills and attitude without one having an understanding of Critical Thinking. This example is far out but one can say have memorized the encyclopedia without understanding anything about the matter.

I must remind you of what you said in your original post, "At birth I begin to create an understanding of the world I perceive. I suggest that understanding is an act of creation. Understanding is the product that reason creates, it is the model of my world, as I perceive it. . . . The better my reason works the better will be my model. The science of reason is Critical Thinking. The more expert I am at Critical Thinking the better my model."

I am answering you in the context of how you used critical thinking. You did not use it in the context of rote memory, but rather as a path to understanding. And actually, critical thinking is not considered the "science" of thinking because it many times depends on informal logic. To think critically is another way of saying to evaluate, and those best at that skill are often found relying on inference, which lies outside the formalism of science.

I love the idea of model building, I do it all the time. But then, as you say, so does everyone. What distinquishes quality models from inferior ones? Well, when a model can be tested somehow, so that we can observe how well it predicts and explains, then that sets it apart from other models. The model that women were too weak-minded to vote or run a business . . . how accurate was that? What proved it inaccurate? Certainly not a bunch of people sitting around debating it, trying to reason their way to the truth. It was when some women proved it wrong through actions. Once the ideas of a model are transferred from hypothesis to actuality, that is when we learn the most about the accuracy of our models.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Communication is not simply talking over each other's heads. It is the art of listening as well, which requires an open and accepting attitude. Without the attitudes and affect we bring to our communications, they are just so many bits of meaningless data. No different really than the programs on my computer spouting data (ie-without meaning or understanding and, quite often, without any purpose.)

This is what communication is about, the heart. Without a clear reference to the heart and specific contexts, communication is impossible.

Very true, and I think you know I agree with that totally. In fact, I'd put the the open heart (and mind) first on the list of what brings about successful communication (actually, in my first post here, my "additions" to his list of skills for model building could be categorized as "heart" stuff).

But I have been answering in the context of coberst's theme, which was intellectual model building. I don't see a conflict between that and heart. If the heart is good, then we can focus on what makes a good intellectual model, and for that I still say that model which is constantly tested by personal experience, and whose construction is most free from bias, is the best model.

 

[wuliheron]

Very true, and I think you know I agree with that totally. In fact, I'd put the the open heart (and mind) first on the list of what brings about successful communication (actually, in my first post here, my "additions" to his list of skills for model building could be categorized as "heart" stuff).

But I have been answering in the context of coberst's theme, which was intellectual model building. I don't see a conflict between that and heart. If the heart is good, then we can focus on what makes a good intellectual model, and for that I still say that model which is constantly tested by personal experience, and whose construction is most free from bias, is the best model.

Personal experience that is free from bias, is a contradiction in terms. So is the idea that we can more or less biased than we are. Again, without a specific context such sweeping statements are meaningless. Each of us as individuals might read into them whatever meaning we wish, but the statements themselves possesses no clear rational or linguistic accept to imply that intellect and emotion can be separated and, thus, pose a contradiction.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Personal experience that is free from bias, is a contradiction in terms.

It might be a contradiction in terms for you. It's true, there is only one kind of experience, and that is personal, but experience is one thing, evaluation is another. I can see, smell and feel a rose without bias can't I? If I say, "I don't like the smell of a rose," then I've added my evaluation to it. It could be that my body chemistry reacts badly to the rose, in which case again it isn't bias, but a natural response. But if I dislike roses because they remind me of someone I hate who used to raise roses, then that is an evalution which is influenced by my conditioning, and therefore isn't objective. Even so, I might be able to set aside my emotions about the rose in a rose perfume contest, and smell each perfume trying to decide which most smelled like a real rose, in which case I've been able to experience without bias.

So is the idea that we can more or less biased than we are. Again, without a specific context such sweeping statements are meaningless.

Again, maybe that's true for you. I know lots of people so stuck in their ways and so egocentric, that regaining objectivity doesn't hold the slightest interest to them. Others of us actively work to get there, and stay there. Certainly you aren't judging what's possible by what you value or are interested in are you?

As for me, I am quite certain objectivity is not impossible, if not to perfect, at least to improve upon. For example, when I play racquetball doubles, and someone makes shot so low and fast it is difficult to tell if it was good, more often than not the team that made the shot calls it good, and the team that is going to lose the point/serve calls it bad. There are those who try to be honest and call it the way they see it no matter who's going to benefit or lose, but have a harder time doing that if the point is going to decide the game. And there are others of us who realize that sense perception is distorted by movement, and that once there are opposing reports about what was observed, the only logical solution is to replay the point.

Now, I myself went through that evolution as part of my efforts to attain objectivity. I remember this time where I was in an important game, there was a dispute, and I knew the other side's shot was good (my partner hadn't seen it, but thought it "sounded funny"). I stood on the border, my selfishness wanting to replay that point, but tugged at by the desire to be "clean" of bias. When I finally shook off my bias and reported what I'd witnessed, it felt so good I've been practicing that ever since (in racquetball).

My point is, one can become more selfless, less egocentric, less opinionated, more interested in the truth than being "right," and therefore also work to eliminate personal bias from one's critical thinking.

Each of us as individuals might read into them whatever meaning we wish, but the statements themselves possesses no clear rational or linguistic accept to imply that intellect and emotion can be separated and, thus, pose a contradiction.

Well, I wish you'd make up your mind. Are we talking heart or formal logic? Do you think "heart" is emotion? If so, you and I have been discussing two completely different things. I don't know about you, but I keep my emotions as far away from my consciousness as possible (true, I'm not always successful at that). Now, if we are talking sensitivity, then that is a different story. I think we have an underlying feeling/sensitive nature, that is even more basic to us than rationality. That feeling nature can be accentuated in ways by both hormones and conditioning, and thus one experiences emotion. Stay away from hormones and conditioning, and one gets to experience one's pure sensitivity. Well, at least, I do. I don't know what inner skills you are capable of.

 

[dschouten]

Now, I myself went through that evolution as part of my efforts to attain objectivity. I remember this time where I was in an important game, there was a dispute, and I knew the other side's shot was good (my partner hadn't seen it, but thought it "sounded funny"). I stood on the border, my selfishness wanting to replay that point, but tugged at by the desire to be "clean" of bias. When I finally shook off my bias and reported what I'd witnessed, it felt so good I've been practicing that ever since (in racquetball).

My point is, one can become more selfless, less egocentric, less opinionated, more interested in the truth than being "right," and therefore also work to eliminate personal bias from one's critical thinking.

This is called honesty. Its a relatively simple character trait, not a philosophy or mode of critical analysis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is called honesty. Its a relatively simple character trait, not a philosophy or mode of critical analysis.

Okay, let's call it honesty. But while in the old mode of calling shots disproportionately in favor of my team, I remember feeling like I was "right" and they were wrong. If you'd said I was being dishonest, I would have been deeply insulted. My action may have been inaccurate, but I believe rather than dishonesty, what jaded my judgement was due to my devotion to my teammate and our team effort, along with feeling in opposition to our opponents. This happens all the time. Look at family members who refuse to look objectively at their child's behavior, or when people are socially part of some group and go along with the group's values rather than independently questioning the morality of some situation. Emotions, fear, the need to belong, etc. can determine how one decides-evaluates things. That ability to step back from a situation, and look at it in relation to how it is apart from what it personally means to us, is a real talent, and takes work to achieve.

The value of that to critical analysis is tremendous if you ask me. I continue to work on it everyday because I see how much better my decisions are when my "self" (i.e., conditioned, egocentric, emotional, opinionated, etc. self) isn't part of it.

 

[dschouten]

Okay, let's call it honesty. But while in the old mode of calling shots disproportionately in favor of my team, I remember feeling like I was "right" and they were wrong. If you'd said I was being dishonest, I would have been deeply insulted. My action may have been inaccurate, but I believe rather than dishonesty, what jaded my judgement was due to my devotion to my teammate and our team effort, along with feeling in opposition to our opponents. This happens all the time. Look at family members who refuse to look objectively at their child's behavior, or when people are socially part of some group and go along with the group's values rather than independently questioning the morality of some situation. Emotions, fear, the need to belong, etc. can determine how one decides-evaluates things. That ability to step back from a situation, and look at it in relation to how it is apart from what it personally means to us, is a real talent, and takes work to achieve.

The value of that to critical analysis is tremendous if you ask me. I continue to work on it everyday because I see how much better my decisions are when my "self" (i.e., conditioned, egocentric, emotional, opinionated, etc. self) isn't part of it.

Nonsense. When you argued 'disproportionately in favor of your team', you knew you were lying. Your eyes didn't change - photons still traveled from the floor to your eye and were interpreted by your optical nerves as neatly as they were when you were in any other non-competitive state of mind.

What changed was your level of honesty, not the raw materials with which you judged. After making a (knowingly) false judgement, you accepted it as fact. This is common among all liars (and I am one too). After lying, you believe the very lies you perpetuate. It happens all the time.

Regarding the examples you cited, I can state with conviction that everybody lies all the time. More often than they tell the truth, in fact. It becomes such a natural thing to do, that we don't even realize it when we do it.

 

[wuliheron]

It might be a contradiction in terms for you. It's true, there is only one kind of experience, and that is personal, but experience is one thing, evaluation is another. I can see, smell and feel a rose without bias can't I? If I say, "I don't like the smell of a rose," then I've added my evaluation to it.

It could be that my body chemistry reacts badly to the rose, in which case again it isn't bias, but a natural response. But if I dislike roses because they remind me of someone I hate who used to raise roses, then that is an evalution which is influenced by my conditioning, and therefore isn't objective. Even so, I might be able to set aside my emotions about the rose in a rose perfume contest, and smell each perfume trying to decide which most smelled like a real rose, in which case I've been able to experience without bias.

Again, maybe that's true for you. I know lots of people so stuck in their ways and so egocentric, that regaining objectivity doesn't hold the slightest interest to them. Others of us actively work to get there, and stay there. Certainly you aren't judging what's possible by what you value or are interested in are you?

To biased is to have an opinion, a point of view.

Being human is axiomatically to be biased, to have if nothing else a human point of view. I do not hear the cloths hangers in my closet creaking, because human ears cannot hear such sounds. However, I can hear jet engines and the noise bothers me because it damages my ears. Hence I was born biased against jet noises but not creaking hangers.

Much the same can be said about the human heart. Babies who are not picked up and have no one pay attention to them experience what is called a "failure to thrive" and often die within the first year. We need love, we need attention, we need the company of others in order to thrive. Our very physiology demands it.

We are also the belief makers, we make more beliefs and play with them more than any other species on the planet. Again, this is not simply a choice, this is what we do naturally. Some of us have maybe more biases against other's beliefs and experiences than the average, but that does not necessarilly mean any of us are at any time unbiased or less biased overall than anyone else. It simply means we have different biases.

Hence, not only logically but also observationally an unbiased person is an oxymoron unless you provide a specific context. To say someone is unbiased about creaking cloths hangers is a true statement because they have never heard creaking cloths hangers and perhaps never knew the phenomenon existed at all. Logically, to say someone does not have a personal bias is to assert that a person is not a person.

Well, I wish you'd make up your mind. Are we talking heart or formal logic? Do you think "heart" is emotion? If so, you and I have been discussing two completely different things. I don't know about you, but I keep my emotions as far away from my consciousness as possible (true, I'm not always successful at that). Now, if we are talking sensitivity, then that is a different story. I think we have an underlying feeling/sensitive nature, that is even more basic to us than rationality. That feeling nature can be accentuated in ways by both hormones and conditioning, and thus one experiences emotion. Stay away from hormones and conditioning, and one gets to experience one's pure sensitivity. Well, at least, I do. I don't know what inner skills you are capable of.

For me, there is no such thing as though without an emotion and vice versa. Sure some thoughts are more abstract than others, but it is emotion that breaths life into our thoughts in the first place, that gives them meaning.

Yes, you can come closer to pure sensation, but not by ridding oneself of emotion in my opinion. It is the act of surrender, of acceptance, that leads us to calm center of the storm where we can then allow ourselves to acknowledge all that comes to us. Again, it like the art of listening. If we have expectations or preconceptions, even about our own internal state, then we are that much less available to listen.

A final note, by acceptance I do not mean "Oh, I accept that if I have to". I mean, for example, if someone is trying to stab you with a knife you can accept the situation with neither fear, anger, joy, or any other extreme emotion. Just accept it for it is and do what you need to in order to survive.

This is not called emotionless, but calm and maybe even serene under pressure.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Nonsense.

I hope you are not going to be another know-it-all who drifts through PF regularly, putting forward their views with the assumption they are "right" from the start, writing condescendingly, and shooting barbs every chance they get. If so, let's stop talking right now and save all the time we'll waste sparring because I know for certain at some point I'll drop out anyway. But I'll give polite, respectful exchange one more shot.

Your eyes didn't change - photons still traveled from the floor to your eye and were interpreted by your optical nerves as neatly as they were when you were in any other non-competitive state of mind.

First of all, I did say "Okay, let's call it honesty." To me, it's one perspective on a wide-spread problem. If you want to think about integrity rather than bias, go ahead, but I've been trying to talk about the ability to get bias out of one's consciousness no matter what put it there.

However, I say I did not "know" I was lying; and although I might have been lying in behavior, I had it effectively rationalized away. Contributing to that rationalization were emotional factors, such as those involved in team expectations and loyalty.

Your eyes didn't change - photons still traveled from the floor to your eye and were interpreted by your optical nerves as neatly as they were when you were in any other non-competitive state of mind.

Well, that's not quite correct. Though it's not exactly relevant to this discussion, studies have been on done on the effects on perception by one's movements, and it turns out movement by the body when viewing a moving object distorts the brain's interpretation. Our disputes used to be a lot more heated before somebody found that out and made it part of the general knowledge of our group.

What changed was your level of honesty, not the raw materials with which you judged. After making a (knowingly) false judgement, you accepted it as fact. This is common among all liars (and I am one too). After lying, you believe the very lies you perpetuate. It happens all the time.

Personally I don't see the practical value of looking at the issue moralistically. I am more interested in the forces that cause people to prevaricate, and the practical value of what I prefer to call "objectivity." Once you label someone a "liar," the discussion is framed in "right and wrong," which in Western countries anyway, we've had far too much of in my opinion. More on the practical approach below.

Regarding the examples you cited, I can state with conviction that everybody lies all the time. More often than they tell the truth, in fact. It becomes such a natural thing to do, that we don't even realize it when we do it.

I agree totally, except I prefer to say everyone "spins" all the time. This is nothing new; I'd venture it's been going on since people began interacting, and that it get's particularly more prevalent when competition for resources, space, status, etc. increases in group settings. Why do people, once communicating, start to spin?

I would suggest that one of the strongest forces is egocentrism. You know -- ME, MINE, I WANT, ME BEFORE YOU, MY NEEDS OVER YOURS, etc. Most people walk around in that state of mind, to one degree or another, all the time (or drive around . . . god I hate the freeway ). In my experience, the less self-centered a person is, the less they prevaricate, and I know for a fact that is precisely what has led to my own change of attitude over the years.

Because of that racquetball club (which is very social), I have a lot of friends. Most of them are still into spinning, especially when things get competitive. We regularly debate politics, religion, science, social issues, etc. (just last night it was the objectivity of Fahrenheit 911), and it never fails that someone twists facts to try to win the debate. It's funny because when I catch them, they try to justify it as part of what competition is! If I call them a bunch of liars, I've pretty much ruined any chance of participating.

Instead, my approach is to show the practical value of unbiased, objective evaluation. Get the truth first, and then decide what to do or think about it. With practicality as the main theme, the egocentric part of them is kept sufficiently soothed so that in the course of the conversation I might be able to single out little twists in their honesty they've made to reach their self-serving conclusions.

If you were to read my posts here at PF, you'd probably find a main theme of mine is letting go of the selfish self in order to experince a deeper Self I say lies waiting within each human being. My communication about bias is exactly the same idea.

 

[dschouten]

Next time I am caught with my hand in the cookie jar I shall decry the emotional biases that overtly removed all rational understanding of the 3-dimensional position of my hand.

"I wasn't stealing, I just forgot where my hand was!", I shall cry. Hopefully, I shall be believed.

 

[dschouten]

Regarding my apparent 'know-it-all'-ness, I can claim only that I am but an egotistical little man. Sorry, that's the best I have to offer.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Regarding my apparent 'know-it-all'-ness, I can claim only that I am but an egotistical little man. Sorry, that's the best I have to offer.

I don't buy that that's all you have to offer. You could apply your apparently keen intellect in ways that help others understand rather than for taking pot shots.

Next time I am caught with my hand in the cookie jar I shall decry the emotional biases that overtly removed all rational understanding of the 3-dimensional position of my hand.

"I wasn't stealing, I just forgot where my hand was!", I shall cry. Hopefully, I shall be believed.

The one thing I don't like about forums is that it allows unhappy, bitter people to dump their self-loathing on others or to try to boost their sagging egos by acting superior. So I sure hope you take that crap somewhere else. The last thing anyone needs is another self-righteous moralizer who, if we could observe them in their everyday life, usually turns out to be all the things they want to lecture everybody else about.

 

[dschouten]

I don't buy that that's all you have to offer. You could apply your apparently keen intellect in ways that help others understand rather than for taking pot shots.

The one thing I don't like about forums is that it allows unhappy, bitter people to dump their self-loathing on others or to try to boost their sagging egos by acting superior. So I sure hope you take that crap somewhere else.

I certainly managed to tick you off. The truth is, my superiority act stems from the absolute loathing I have acquired for all the crack pot theories that get bounced around by the thousands of self-proclaimed intellectual revolutionaries. It hurts to read all the nonsense and then see people try and apply it in vast social engineering experiments.

The last thing anyone needs is another self-righteous moralizer who, if we could observe them in their everyday life, usually turns out to be all the things they want to lecture everybody else about.

This is true in every way. I shall try not to be one of 'them'.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I certainly managed to tick you off.

True.

The truth is, my superiority act stems from the absolute loathing I have acquired for all the crack pot theories that get bounced around by the thousands of self-proclaimed intellectual revolutionaries. It hurts to read all the nonsense and then see people try and apply it in vast social engineering experiments.

Well, I have a couple of pet peeves myself, and I've been known to go off on others when I see (or think I see) someone commit the sin I'm passionate about. But how do we know you aren't a crackpot theorist? Don't you think you should demonstrate your intellectual superiority before acting like it's a done deal? If you only knew how many people come here and start right off with comments like "nonsense," or "that's ridiculous," or __________ (fill in the blank with your favorite patronizing invective or attitude).

Yet even if you are now the top genius at this site, I don't see the point of lecturing and condescending. No one learns from it, so in the end all one does is reinforce trangressors' resistance, and frustrate oneself. Why not educate? Besides, maybe you could learn something yourself.

For example, I don't agree at all with your assessment of what I was talking about earlier, and I definitely don't agree with your approach to discussing it (as dishonesty/morality). Are you so sure your perspective is better than my more pragmatic view? I don't see how you can know since you didn't take time to really understand what I'm talking about. Instead you assumed you knew, and responded accordingly. As of now, you seem like so many others I've seen who think anyone who disagrees with them needs to be educated in their point of view.

For your information, I don't care much about being one of the " intellectual revolutionaries" or in applying anything "in vast social engineering experiments." My main interest is in personal growth, and for fun I like to question people's thinking, though not to demean or insult, but with the purpose of clarification.

This is true in every way. I shall try not to be one of 'them'.

I hope that is true. This forum is a lot more fun when everybody is open to being wrong, and as open to listening to and understanding another's point of view as they are to preaching their favorite cause.

 

[dschouten]

Some easy ways to identify a crack-pot theory:

1. Superfluous use of the terms "I", "I believe", "I think that", or "Contrary to what everyone else believes ..."
2. No empirical data presented other than the most general attributes of "everything", "everybody" or "the universe"
3. Any use of the word "revolutionary"
4. Attempts to draw parallels between quantum mechanics and anything else
5. Many big words used but no meaning

 

[BoulderHead]

I liked coberst’s initial post but thought later in post #12 confused the issue of critical thinking by incorporating into it bias, prejudice, etc. I agree with Wu Li that escape from all bias is impossible, so therefore whether we like it or not bias will be incorporated into our ‘model' . I don't think that necessarily spells doom, however. I mostly agree with Les with exception on two points; first in that I believe knowledge may come from a combination of experience and reason. Second, I am not convinced objectivity is possible despite our best efforts (or that I’d be able to recognize it if it struck me in the face). Still, I’m with Les in that I’m all for making every attempt to be objective because the alternative strikes me as defeatist, though Wu Li might consider it merely an act of surrender or acceptance. Certainly we can recognize bias in others, if not ourselves, and so it seems opportunity for improvement is not denied to us.

Finally, just to prove I’m not a crackpot I’d like to say;
Contrary to what everyone else believes, I think that everything about our understanding of the universe has been revolutionized by QM, supercalafragilisticexpialidotious notwithstanding. Muwhaha

 

[Les Sleeth]

Some easy ways to identify a crack-pot theory:

1. Superfluous use of the terms "I", "I believe", "I think that", or "Contrary to what everyone else believes ..."
2. No empirical data presented other than the most general attributes of "everything", "everybody" or "the universe"
3. Any use of the word "revolutionary"
4. Attempts to draw parallels between quantum mechanics and anything else
5. Many big words used but no meaning

Pretty good. Of course, I don't see much danger of anybody who thinks like that getting very far applying it "in vast social engineering experiments." So I'm not sure why you want to battle over that. Those people intelligent and educated enough to intiate, or at least imagine, workable social experiments are probably those one will find most capable of engaging intellectually. My experience has been, those who want to think logically, with the facts, and are open to learning, respond that way when I make sense. And those who only want to believe what they want to believe in spite of logic and facts . . . well, not once have I achieved a successful dialogue with such thinkers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I mostly agree with Les with exception on two points; first in that I believe knowledge may come from a combination of experience and reason.

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason. Because we use them together, possibly it seems reason also gives knowledge. For example, say after years of experience building pizza ovens , a customer tells you a new one you just sold her only reaches 400° (when it's supposed to reach 650°). Because you know ovens with a faulty upper heating element only reach 400°, your reason and past experince convince you that's the problem. However, I would argue that you don't actually know a bad heating element is the problem until you get it back to the factory and inspect it.

So although reason helps one understand where to look for the problem, it can't actually give knowledge of that. Also, without reason one could still observe that element and see/feel it doesn't come on, and so "know" it (or something associated with it) doesn't work properly.

Second, I am not convinced objectivity is possible despite our best efforts (or that I’d be able to recognize it if it struck me in the face). Still, I’m with Les in that I’m all for making every attempt to be objective because the alternative strikes me as defeatist, though Wu Li might consider it merely an act of surrender or acceptance. Certainly we can recognize bias in others, if not ourselves, and so it seems opportunity for improvement is not denied to us.

Well, I admit I don't know from personal experience that pure objectivity is possible. I am judging by a trend in my own consciousness that started in one place, and is now a lot more objective. Plus, there are times when I feel so detached from wanting things to be a certain way, and so much more interested in how they actually are, that I've come to believe a very high level of objectivity can be attained. Plus, as you know, there are claims that it is possible. The ideal of "enlightenment" for example, is, as they say in Zen, the polished mirror. That idea represents a consciousness so clean of bias and mentality it reflects reality exactly as it is.

In any case, I am hopeful the pristine condition is possible, but I want it even if it isn't.

 

[BoulderHead]

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason. Because we use them together, possibly it seems reason also gives knowledge.

Well, I do think that wisdom is born of experience, hehe. Notice that I did not say knowledge may come from experience or reason, which is how I perceive you to have understood me. I said I believed it could come from a combination of experience and reason. You had made a statement; “I am someone who believes knowledge comes from experience, not reason.” and I objected because without our ability to reason there are a great many things we would not ‘know’.

I’m not up for turning this into a discourse invoking skepticism, knowledge vs justified belief, etc. Knowledge could be an awareness of an entirely internal state of being, or it could be a familiarity with pizza ovens that required some analytical thought and prior experience, so yes, I can agree that experience is central. The course to knowledge might also follow all four items you mentioned, as in; experience > reasoning > understanding > knowledge. It is because of such a path I raised my objection, as you were cutting reason out of the process with that particular statement you made. Does this make my point clearer to you?

In any case, I am hopeful the pristine condition is possible, but I want it even if it isn't.

This ‘wanting’ could be seen as problematic, true?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The course to knowledge might also follow all four items you mentioned, as in; experience > reasoning > understanding > knowledge. It is because of such a path I raised my objection, as you were cutting reason out of the process with that particular statement you made. Does this make my point clearer to you?

Yes, it is clear. But here's why I dispute it. How would you explain rats learning how to navigate mazes and operate feeding machines? After a certain amount of practice, they "know" their way around without reason ever having been a part of it. As far as I can tell, they came to know through experience alone. If we could inject some reason into their heads, then I'd expect them to learn faster. But to me, that is adding an accelerant to the knowing process, but not creating the knowing itself.

This ‘wanting’ could be seen as problematic, true?

Very funny. Are you trying to confuse me?

 

[jammieg]

I like your posts Les, makes good sense, I agree, it's almost like Tenyears says with the boxes, we all get caught up in boxes of thinking that are predictable to one's emotional disposition, it seems that by acceptance one gains a bit of control and steps away from the box and at least is more able to see it and judge it more objectively for it's worth.
I thought you might be interested in these meditation ideas, instead of trying to think of nothing I've been trying to accept whatever is going to come, that is whatever thoughts or images or sounds are to come, the odd thing is that the more accepting and relaxed I am of whatever comes the more intense the thoughts or self-stimulation grows, like an itch that burns to be scratched, and afterward I don't get caught up as easily in boxes of thinking, I mean I notice when I'm thinking in boxes more...it could be one way of learning to control one's thoughts by not giving into the emotions as easily that also burn to be scratched, anyway the experience of it creates an understanding, in my opinion, that trying to control things all the time is another form of bias that clouds certain ways of thinking, most likely the dreamer being that deep meditation nears the rem sleep pattern and is more of a letting go experience with very little or no control. Another odd thing to try that actors are probably good at is imagine something to get you angry and then let the anger go when it gets easy, the more I repeat this the more intense it grows, like an addiction and probably with the same biological pattern of neural growth, except it's all in the head and controlled voluntarily I guess...that is whenever the source of stimulant is taken away the neurons branch out and grow as if seeking out to reclaim the stimulant(The nature of addiction-SciAm-March), it could be true for all sorts of things not considered addictive, like the hardest part of going from hedonism to asceticism is the initial plunge after that it gets easy, and asceticism to headonism, the vacillation between the two extremes is the point of greatest change and the hardest and possibly the most understanding is developed which might just be the biological reflection of increased neural growth and complexity...probably repetition of anything is addictive.
On a historical note, the Buddha was supposed to have been enticed by visions but he rejected them and the God(I forget which one) kept creating more captivating illusions, he was deep into mental control techniques but it would have been terrifying I'll bet to not understand that it was all in his head, all of it, no God just a process of biology that doens't care about that stuff, people might have visions all the time on the other hand but only a few of them have egos large enough to claim it is a sign from God rather than a good guess.

 

[Rader]

calf experience

I believe knowledge may come from a combination of experience and reason.

I wonder if you might consider that knowledge comes from experience, and understanding comes from reason.

How would you explain the fact that a calf knows how to stand on its feet, right after birth? Or better said, how does a calf know that it knows that it has to stand on its feet and not lay on its back to walk? "All living things" seems to know, before experience what is needed to know. Notwithstanding the more the experience, the more that is known, that is about walking, or anything for that matter.. A calf will walk into a hole and break its leg right off the start, yet it learns not to do that, only after it knows already how to walk. Now you could say, that it is all in the genes, that dictate what should be knowable through experience. What is being considered here is priori to the experience that occurs. How can anything be known what is necessary to be known unless all knowledge was priori to experience? It seems that there is a language not spoken which communicates information priori to experience, wisdom.

Wisdom is what gives meaning, to the way we should observe things to be like, the way they are. Thats why a calf has never tried to walk with its legs up, instead of on the floor.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is being considered here is priori to the experience that occurs. How can anything be known what is necessary to be known unless all knowledge was priori to experience? It seems that there is a language not spoken which communicates information priori to experience, wisdom.

I think so too, that beings are born with some level of knowing. I use the term "knowing" rather than "knowledge" because it seems more general, while knowledge seem specific. My favorite example in humans is how we are born capable of deep joy. That has always amazed me.

 

[BoulderHead]

Yes, it is clear. But here's why I dispute it. How would you explain rats learning how to navigate mazes and operate feeding machines? After a certain amount of practice, they "know" their way around without reason ever having been a part of it.

I do not claim to know what does or does not go through a rat’s mind or sense experience. I have not studied these animals and therefore am not qualified to comment.

As far as I can tell, they came to know through experience alone. If we could inject some reason into their heads, then I'd expect them to learn faster. But to me, that is adding an accelerant to the knowing process, but not creating the knowing itself.

I do notice that both Radar and you refer to animals to make a point. If it is wished to broaden the conversation beyond what I had intended (human knowing), then what can be seen from your statement I originally disagreed with is that essentially it put a very limited restriction on knowing, whereas my response was to show there are more paths to ‘knowing’ than only through simple experience. So if, for example, you were to accept that calves ‘know’ how to walk prior to having any actual experience than your original statement would be in conflict with such a view.
On the other hand, what I put forward was really only meant to show why ‘knowing’ in so narrow a manor as you described could/should be expanded on. It was not my intent to put forward a thesis on what constitutes all/only ways of knowing, so largely I do not feel compelled to explain some of the things asked here. Now, it does not matter to my position whether or not an example(s) can be shown whereby some knowledge comes solely through experience without the need for any reasoning process to be involved, as this is not something I have disputed. If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false. One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding, or if you prefer, our present state of knowing.

Very funny. Are you trying to confuse me?

No, just giving a subtle hint relating to bias. As we cannot be everywhere at the same time doing everything simultaneously, we are necessarily restricted and forced to give preference to one avenue of pursuit over another. ‘Wanting’ could likely be seen as bias. Additionally, what if ‘wanting’ were to affect us deeply, might it skew the outcome of our investigations?

[edited for clarity]

 

[Rader]

If it is wished to broaden the conversation beyond what I had intended (human knowing), then what can be seen from your statement I originally disagreed with is that essentially it put a very limited restriction on knowing, whereas my response was to show there are more paths to ‘knowing’ than only through simple experience. So if, for example, you were to accept that calves ‘know’ how to walk prior to having any actual experience than your original statement would be in conflict with such a view.

There are more paths to increase human knowledge of knowing but there appears to be that knowing, is priori to experience. Why then is the knowing of emotions for example uniform throughout the animal kingdom? Why do animals react to pain the same we humans do?

On the other hand, what I put forward was really only meant to show why ‘knowing’ in so narrow a manor as you described could/should be expanded on. It was not my intent to put forth a thesis on all/only ways of knowing, so largely I do not feel compelled to explain some of the things asked here. Now, it does not matter to my position whether or not an example(s) can be shown whereby knowledge comes solely through experience, as this is not something I have disputed. If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false.

I would seem that it would only prove your right, that there might be other ways.

One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding

What makes a seed know it has to sprout then, if it is the not knowing of the sun shinning? My viewpoint is not limited to humans, you could imply it to anything. The basic knowing that the sun exists is all that is needed for the seed to sprout. Yes of course if you were a human, you know also the sun exists and can experience more than just its warmth. You can gain more knowledge about its birth death and function through observation, measurement, experiments, math ect. I am not debating that knowledge is gained only by experience but that some knowing which is knowledge, is priori to experience. Thats why I pasted two quotes from both you and Les. The meaning of knowing is what needs to be explained. The only way to put it is that "All living things" seems to know, before experience what is needed to know. There is a innate knowing in all things, that just know, what they know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If, on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that knowing should ever come via reason (even in a single example) then your statement must be false. One attempt to show such falsity is to note if we had never experienced the sun it is unlikely we would have applied observation and reason to understanding something about it. In other words, the experience of the sun all by itself is not what got us to our present understanding, or if you prefer, our present state of knowing.

I hope you are enjoying this exchange as much as I am (I'm not sure if I detect a bit of impatience in your words or not). I am not trying to be argumentative; rather, I actually have a hypothesis about knowing and understanding. So my attempt to engage you is just a way to test out my hypothetical thinking by looking to see how it holds up to others' critiques. If you don't feel comfortable or aren't in the mood for debating this, I totally understand.

But assuming you are interested, let me state my hypothesis so there's no question about what we are discussing. I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding.

To start, I agree with your above test using falsity, but I have a problem with your example because it seems you are interchanging understanding and knowing, while I am treating them as two different things. I interpret understanding as a singular insight that has resulted from mental processes. Once we've achieved an understanding, it allows us to use the intellect to work with whatever it is we've understood. In other words, understanding is first a product and then a tool of reason; and even if experience is relied upon in reasoning processes, it is relied on conceptually and so is translated into the mental realm. Knowing, on the other hand, doesn't require understanding or reason, but can be achieved through pure experience, as in the rat-maze example. I myself sometimes practice learning purely experientially by trying to keep my mentality out of something I'm doing (as long as possible) in order to see what that teaches me without the influence of my intellect (later, of course, I will reflect on it mentally too).

You correctly say that if there is one example where knowing can result from reason, my hypothesis is disproven. Well, there is one particular case I am not sure about, and that is the internal mental operations of logic. Because I already know that tautologies are always true, or that 2 + 2 always equals 4, I realize that internal logical functions, done correctly, produce correct answers. Of course, the "knowledge" yielded is strictly in regard to the logic operations, and not about anything else. So, even though I can be sure that the math I use to balance my checkbook is sound, I cannot actually know if my check book is balanced until I leave my pure logic realm and enter the experiential realm of checkbooks, bank accounts, etc. to see if the money is there (or not ). So does that amount to falsification of my hypothesis? I am not sure. But if it does, then I'd adjust my statement to include the math/logic/tautology exception.

No, just giving a subtle hint relating to bias. As we cannot be everywhere at the same time doing everything simultaneously, we are necessarily restricted and forced to give preference to one avenue of pursuit over another. ‘Wanting’ could likely be seen as bias. Additionally, what if ‘wanting’ were to affect us deeply, might it skew the outcome of our investigations?

I know. I was kidding around with you.

 

[BoulderHead]

Hello Les,
I haven't had time to deeply review the last posts from you and Rader but hope to do so by this evening. I just wanted to assure you that I am enjoying the conversation and not being impatient though my attempts to stay on a point might come across in such manner. I am in the process of moving and within the next 48 hours will be out of touch for hopefully not more than a month at worst, so this is partly why I don't want to stray off along too many paths.
-BH
(I will edit this post with a more acceptable reply ASAP)

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am in the process of moving and within the next 48 hours will be out of touch for hopefully not more than a month at worst, so this is partly why I don't want to stray off along too many paths.

Thanks for explaining. Maybe I'll start a new thread on this topic in few weeks. It's off-topic anyway. Good luck with the move.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Rader;
The meaning of knowing is what needs to be explained.

Exactly, as well for understanding…

I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding.

What is called for at this point is a defining of terms. I don’t believe we can get far without our ground rules being agreed upon, and looking at common definitions there seems to be some overlap which clouds my ability to isolate these words as precisely as you are doing. For example; knowing involves having an understanding that may be brought about by experience or study. While I prefer to additionally say it may include both experience and study, you are suggesting only the experienced need apply, haha. Understanding is to perceive and comprehend (both from dic dot com, but I’m open to considering nearly anything). With understanding I see the word ‘comprehend’ as having more the intellectual property, whereas ‘perceive’ could be a simple sensory stimulation. I can’t determine your position with respect to understand, and I’ll bring it up again down below. Still, in these definitions I see the path for; reason > understanding > knowing.

To start, I agree with your above test using falsity, but I have a problem with your example because it seems you are interchanging understanding and knowing, while I am treating them as two different things.

The reason I did that was to make allowance for anyone wishing to dispute the meaning of knowledge. That is; rather than make an absolute claim of knowledge I used understanding (as in; to comprehend the nature of…). That way, if I should turn out to be no more than a brain in a vat I will not have been guilty of proclaiming an illusion as truth.

I interpret understanding as a singular insight that has resulted from mental processes. Once we've achieved an understanding, it allows us to use the intellect to work with whatever it is we've understood.

What are these ‘mental processes’ in the first sentence? You are speaking of a singular insight brought about by a plurality of mental processes, yet these processes do not involve the intellect?
With respect to sentence #2; why couldn’t the door swing the other way, that is; observation > reasoning process > understanding.

Knowing, on the other hand, doesn't require understanding or reason, but can be achieved through pure experience, as in the rat-maze example.

I would offer this for consideration; someone can know they feel a dreadful pain in the abdomen through the pure experience and yet not immediately know why it is happening. It is possible they may not know the reason for the pain until after some reflection and reasoning has been performed. The matter looks to boil down into the definition of ‘knowing’, which I had stated earlier I hoped to avoid.

So, even though I can be sure that the math I use to balance my checkbook is sound, I cannot actually know if my check book is balanced until I leave my pure logic realm and enter the experiential realm of checkbooks, bank accounts, etc. to see if the money is there (or not ).

Is it possible to assume the role of a skeptic and argue even in the experiential realm there is room to be mistaken about what you ‘know’?

What if, entirely in your head, you knew all the figures being worked with were correct, and you knew your math was flawless, yet your checkbook didn’t reflect this? Why couldn’t your knowledge be true and an entry in the checkbook have been wrong?

What is it to ‘know’?

Do you need to actually peer inside the vault at the bank so as to truly ‘know’ the money is there, or is the word of a bank employee enough, and if it were, what if it should turn out the employee had made a mistake? What if the bank were robbed immediately prior to your arriving to make a withdraw? In short; what is required for knowledge? Is it a high rate of reliability, perfect reliability, the word of the bank, or something else?

I think what most of us accept daily as knowledge requires of us both an element of truth and belief. Without an agreed upon working definition of our terms the brain in the vat scenario, which falls within the theory of knowledge, could claim you still do not know the money is really there.

With regard to experiences, I am of mind to consider it such a fundamental building block of our existence that I don’t have a problem recognizing its importance. If we never had any experiences there wouldn’t be much to life, so far as I can tell. I see it as the kick-start that gets everything else into motion, and at least in this context I can say that without experience we would not know.

So does that amount to falsification of my hypothesis? I am not sure. But if it does, then I'd adjust my statement to include the math/logic/tautology exception.

Dunno, my brain is worn out. I’ll think about these matters and look forward to a mutual effort at defining terminology and ironing wrinkles.

 

[coberst]

I make this statement here because I seem to have some philosophy types cornered.

Where is the Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking of Philosophy? Greene wrote “The Elegant Universe” and Hawking wrote a couple of books on time. Physics has attempted to bring the average Sally and Joe into the world of space-time. Have I missed it or has Philosophy not made an equivalent move? It appears to me that Philosophy does not give a **** about the average Sally or Joe.

I am a layman looking for some comprehension of what philosophy has to say to me about my world. How can philosophy be brought into the living rooms of the average family?

The most esoteric aspects of the natural sciences are being brought to the consciousness of the public. What does philosophy do in that regard? Excuse me if I look back at this thread and comment what I perceive to be the problem of philosophy. Philosophy loves to discuss philosophy among the club members but are unaware or do not care that the average person has no idea what understanding or knowledge is really about. The average person knows that they think and that is the end of the story.

I think we, the adult public, need for Philosophy to take an interest in just how ignorant we are as to the fundamentals of thinking. I think we badly need an “Epistemology for Dummies” and an “Elegant Universe of Reason”.

As I understand it our educational system is attempting to introduce Critical Thinking into the curriculums of our schools and colleges. I am not sure if this is true but it is my impression that this effort has received little support by Philosophy. I am not aware of Philosophy taking a leading role in this effort. I do not see Philosophy attempting to bring to the awareness of our adult population the value and nature of Critical Thinking.

What is the position of Philosophy regarding Critical Thinking in the classrooms? What is the position of Philosophy regarding the absolute vacuum that exists in our adult population regarding matters of epistemology? Is Philosophy satisfied that it has upheld its responsibility to the general public regarding matters of reason?

I think Philosophy has a duty to the public. I think Philosophy has shirked that responsibility.

 

[Rader]

Beings are born with some level of knowing. I use the term "knowing" rather than "knowledge" because it seems more general, while knowledge seem specific.

I propose that although knowing and understanding assist each other in their respective realms, they are two completely different consciousness aspects, and that only experience produces knowing, while only reason produces understanding

Les the top quote is you to me and the bottom is you to boulderhead. Boulderhead asks a interesting question. What is it to ‘know’? He might be busy for a while. There is a subtle difference bewtween those two quotes and I would like to define it.

You seem to know or think that you know, that there is some knowing priori to experience but only experience might produce the knowing. For both statements to be held true in the same context, there would have to be a knowing of experience in order for experience to produce the knowing. My question is then, might "Knowing" be then, the continuum of the feel of all emotions? The knowing is the feel of the calf setting its hoofs on the ground, not only in the context of the physcial feel but the feel of the metaphysical, that, that is the way, we should feel things to be like, the way they are.

 

[Rader]

Is Philosophy satisfied that it has upheld its responsibility to the general public regarding matters of reason?

I think Philosophy has a duty to the public. I think Philosophy has shirked that responsibility.

You could ask the same question backwards, should the individual have a responsibility to have a philosophy of life? Where lies the responsibilty to be in your head? Is anything logical? Godel says not.

 

[coberst]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

 

[Rader]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

I think we badly need an “Epistemology for Dummies” and an “Elegant Universe of Reason”.

Even simple people can have a philosophy of life. You seem to have misunderstood me. There is no "ultimate truth" in epistemological philosophy. Who is philosophy if it is not you?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604150349/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ520.HTM

Try this if you like. Ontological philosophy.
http://www.twow.net/MclOtaI.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

Goodness, please don't tell me this is a representation of Philosophy's response.

First let me apologize for diverting the main theme of your thread. You'll probably notice I continued the discussion in a new thread.

In regard to bringing philosophy into the living room of the average family, I think that is being offered somewhat by some of the wonderful programs found on TV like the Discovery or History channels, and public television offers some good stuff too. Yet I am afraid most people aren't interested in philosophy, and that's why there isn't more of it for the average guy. My experience is that people just want to get on with life, and don't want to think much about what has shaped, and still influences, their thinking.

I couldn't help but wonder from your earlier response if you felt we were purposely talking over people's heads in this thread. I don't think anyone intentionally was; it's just that after you get familiar with a topic, one tends to jump into higher levels of discussion. If you (or anyone) wants to learn more about philosophy, forums are good place; that, combined with the investigative power of the internet, allows for much learning. Of course, like anything one first undertakes, getting started can be difficult.

Something I have wanted to see here at PF is a more friendly, open attitude to those who want to learn. I have had a similar thought as you for the physics areas . . . a "physics for dummies" section here would be great. I have so many questions I'd love to ask, but if those who know make you feel stupid for asking, then it's too intimidating to even try.

 

[TENYEARS]

I like your posts Les, makes good sense, I agree, it's almost like Tenyears says with the boxes, we all get caught up in boxes of thinking that are predictable to one's emotional disposition, it seems that by acceptance one gains a bit of control and steps away from the box and at least is more able to see it and judge it more objectively for it's worth.
I thought you might be interested in these meditation ideas, instead of trying to think of nothing I've been trying to accept whatever is going to come, that is whatever thoughts or images or sounds are to come, the odd thing is that the more accepting and relaxed I am of whatever comes the more intense the thoughts or self-stimulation grows, like an itch that burns to be scratched, and afterward I don't get caught up as easily in boxes of thinking, I mean I notice when I'm thinking in boxes more...it could be one way of learning to control one's thoughts by not giving into the emotions as easily that also burn to be scratched, anyway the experience of it creates an understanding, in my opinion, that trying to control things all the time is another form of bias that clouds certain ways of thinking, most likely the dreamer being that deep meditation nears the rem sleep pattern and is more of a letting go experience with very little or no control. Another odd thing to try that actors are probably good at is imagine something to get you angry and then let the anger go when it gets easy, the more I repeat this the more intense it grows, like an addiction and probably with the same biological pattern of neural growth, except it's all in the head and controlled voluntarily I guess...that is whenever the source of stimulant is taken away the neurons branch out and grow as if seeking out to reclaim the stimulant(The nature of addiction-SciAm-March), it could be true for all sorts of things not considered addictive, like the hardest part of going from hedonism to asceticism is the initial plunge after that it gets easy, and asceticism to headonism, the vacillation between the two extremes is the point of greatest change and the hardest and possibly the most understanding is developed which might just be the biological reflection of increased neural growth and complexity...probably repetition of anything is addictive.
On a historical note, the Buddha was supposed to have been enticed by visions but he rejected them and the God(I forget which one) kept creating more captivating illusions, he was deep into mental control techniques but it would have been terrifying I'll bet to not understand that it was all in his head, all of it, no God just a process of biology that doens't care about that stuff, people might have visions all the time on the other hand but only a few of them have egos large enough to claim it is a sign from God rather than a good guess.

jammieg, I do not recall posting my understanding on conditioning of human repsonse and addiction. So if you thought this one out, you are not making a liar of me, more power to you. A human being may be conditioned to any stimulous just like drugs: TV, Work, Exercise, Gambling, Sex, Drugs, Etc... Anything can create the addictive nature of human response which creates the high. The high is not in the drug, it is in the composite sum of the human being. I spout this all the time, I just don't think I ever posted it on this forum. When it rains on the plain, the water takes the path of least ressistance. It will always flow there unless you change it's course by filling up the ditch. It then may run somewhere else or potentially evenly displace itself.

Note: Show me one thing which did not come from god, or show me one thing which is not god? The budda rejected the visions not because of unreality, but because they did not interest him. Why?

 

[coberst]

Les Sleeth

What do you think about adding some form of introduction to Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is a very strong effort to introduce the science of reason to school children in the US. It is also being introduced at the college level. Nothing ,however, is being done to introduce adults to this matter.