My own thinking on knowledge is that it is different from information in the sense of it being about a connection with the information and ideas in some kind of meaningful way. I believe that it is connected with understanding, because it involves being able to make use of what one has learned. Understanding may be something which we think we have, but I am not sure that it is that simple because it is about whether we are able to make use of what we consider to be our knowledge, and apply to the experiences which test our capabilities. In a way, my own view of understanding is related to the concept of insight. I think that it is a kind of deeper level of knowledge based on being able to reflect on the ideas which we have and take them on board to live in a greater conscious and responsible way. I am not sure that I am fully able to live with insightful awareness, but I am seeking to be able to do so. — Jack Cummins

Knowledge, sticking to the justified true belief definition, is about entailment between given propositions and others; understanding, though includes knowledge, also requires us to see the broader issues at stake. Information is simply propositional and is neither inferential nor general in the sense we take pains to tease out the fundamental ideas at play.

1. Understanding denotes conceptual reflection (i.e. metacognition) by which knowing is distinct from, and contextualized by, not knowing. — 180 Proof

To me, understanding means to become aware of the key elements/components of a(n) subject/issue/problem. As an example, take the debate on abortion. Understanding it, in my opinion, involve a number of related ideas - personhood, religion, feminism, secular ethics, medicine, politics, to name a few - on which the controversy is centered. Recognizing these as key to the question of whether or not to allow termination of pregnancy amounts to understanding in my humble opinion.

I reckon it takes both talent and practice to master this skill and despite a decade as a member of this forum, I still fail to put this into practice - most of the time, I haven't the foggiest idea what's going on.

2. Knowledge denotes (A) proven proficiency, (B) accurate description, (C) well-tested explanation or (D) a combination of two or three of kinds of knowing. And information is merely the contents (i.e. disambiguated / aggregated data) of which descriptions consist. In other words, oversimply put, knowledge is form and information is (descriptive) content. — 180 Proof

I concur. Knowledge is about form which I take to be pattern; the particulars, information, flow out of it as naturally as water from a working faucet.

(My "picked brain's" usages, Fool, which might not be dictionary standard.) — 180 Proof

Your versions are better than the dictionary ones. :up:

Sincerity and Authenticity — TheVeryIdea

You could be sincere in your attempt to be a philosopher but then that doesn't translate into becoming an authentic philosopher; nevertheless, the former does increase your chances of becoming the latter.

Basically, self-referential paradoxes require two ingredients.

1. Affirmation (usually implicit) of something that's essential, existentially. e.g. existence is implicit in I.

2. Negation (invariably explicit) of that which has been affirmed in 1 e.g. I don't exist.

The classic example is the liar paradox: This sentence is false.

3. Implicit affirmation: The sentence is true.

4. Explicit negation: The sentence is false.

How about you take some of your own advice, and also read some background on the history of his Theory of Communication, as it was initially published.

↪TheMadFool Or simply tells us what information is according to Shannon, and how this is relevant to philosophy. — Pop

Ok. Here's what I think. Claude Shannon's theory of information is based on how many steps it takes for uncertainty to become certainty.

For example, if the possibility space includes A and B, the message A collapses the uncertaintly A or B (2) to the certainty A (1). Only one step was required; ergo A contains 1 bit of information.

This mirrors epistemology (skepticism & dogmatism): we're uncertain (is it A or B?) which is basically skepticism; then once we know A, we're certain which is dogmatism.

Please read the relevant Wikipedia pages.

Please enlighten me as to how Shannon's theory does this? — Pop

Shannon's definition centers around uncertainty (skepticism).

It was a guess. Its not really relevant for my purposes. — Pop

To me, it's very relevant. How would your definition of information aid or expand our understanding of information? Shannon's definition is both philosophical and practical.

And interestingly, when he came it didn’t work. — From an Interview with Anton Zellinger

Good luck/Bad luck? Knowledge/Illusory Knowledge?

The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think. — Pop

Nope, I don't think that's correct.

Shannon's theory tells you how to quantify the amount of information traveling over a wire. — Pop

How would we measure something that hasn't been defined?

Like all things, the novelty wore off. Oddly, Neo (new?) dies in the end or that's what they made us think happens. Neo dies twice, why not a third, or a fourth, an nth time?

Money, it seems, can bring people back to life. :lol:

Shannon did not define information. He quantified it. There is a very important difference. — Pop

I can't seem to tell the difference. Kindly edify me.

@schopenhauer1

Did you know,

1. Malnourished women stop having periods? Nature's way of telling us not to have children if we can't afford them i.e. we're unable to fulfill their basic necessities, food being one. Suffering!

2. Lactational amenorrhea occurs when women are nursing infants? Another of nature's ingenious tricks to stop us from giving birth to more children than we have the time/energy for. Suffering!

3. The age at which young girls undergo menarche (getting their first period) has been steadily reducing over time? Menarche simply announces to all male parties that a girl is ready to bear offspring.

Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children.

I don't think this is true. Information is a very difficult thing to define, because everything is information. Other definitions do not recognize this, so it is very difficult to understand how information works to enact us in the world. How information is something that is incorporated into the person that we become. How there is nothing outside of information.

Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this. All that is missing is a definition of this information, and I think this one fills the bill — Pop

My approach is scientific to the extent I'm capable of that. Your idea of what information differs from the standard set down by Claude Shannon. I reckon that Shannon too must've wondered about how information could be defined - there are so many ways, yours included - but he settled for one that could be quantified (measured) and also had just enough philosophy (uncertainty) to silence his critics.

That's only information, not knowledge; even less a measure of (anyone's) understanding. — 180 Proof

Mind if I pick your brain on,

1. What is understanding?

2. What's the difference between information and knowledge?

Global Data Storage Calculated At 295 Exabytes

295 Exabytes = 295 billion gigabytes = 295,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes = $2.95 \times 10^{20} bytes$

Mankind's capacity to store the colossal amount of information in the world has been measured by scientists.

The study, published in the journal Science, calculates the amount of data stored in the world by 2007 as 295 exabytes.

That is the equivalent of 1.2 billion average hard drives.

The researchers calculated the figure by estimating the amount of data held on 60 technologies from PCs and and DVDs to paper adverts and books.

"If we were to take all that information and store it in books, we could cover the entire area of the US or China in 13 layers of books," Dr Martin Hilbert of the University of Southern California told the BBC's Science in Action. — BBC

Yup. I think he truly thinks it is organically growing. — Caldwell

A shoal of fish is not a fish. :grin:

the evolutionary interaction of form — Pop

One thing's for sure, we can define information any which way we want. The definition, whether the one you advocate here or some other, will have to

1) Either be true to what information really is or approximate it to the extent possible.

OR/AND

2) Be useful in one way or another.

Can you tell us how the definition of information as "the evolutionary interaction of form" meets the two conditions I mentioned above?

Wittgenstein doesn't make use of essences; that's part of the point of rejecting meaning as stuff in people's heads, together with showing how what is a simple depends on what you are doing - essence as a simple. — Banno

It looks like I wasn't clear enough. My bad, the ability to articulate my thoughts wasn't ever my strong suit. I'll give it another shot.

First off, we have to acknowledge the fact that even when words are being thought of as possessing an essence they are being used, used to represent the idea/object that the word stands for. For example, if I define "water" as "that clear liquid we drink, and use for cooking, bathing, and washing", I am, for certain, using the word "water" to stand for "that clear liquid we drink, and use for cooking, bathing, and washing." Note kindly that in this case the word "water" is used but then it has an essence as stated in "that clear liquid we drink, and use for cooking, bathing, and washing."

My question is, how does the use of the word "water" in the above paragraph differ from Wittgenstein's use when he claims that meaning is use. There's got to be a difference, right? After all, a word is used in both cases but in one, there is an essence to the word but not, according to Wittgenstein, in the other. :chin:

Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism? Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right? Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.

The first article on the 'eightfold path' is samma ditthi, generally translated as 'right view'. I think the proper translation of ‘orthodoxa’ is ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’. — Wayfarer

Copy that! Thanks!

Does This definition help? — Wheatley

Yes!

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma

For a given proposition P,

1. P (P True).....No! [no affirmation]

2. Not P (P False).....No! [no negation]

[1 and 2 suggests that there's a third alternative for P, one of them being a contradiction]

3. P and Not P (P True and P False).....No! [the third alternative is not a contradiction]

4. Neither P nor not P (Neither P True nor P False).....No! [no third alternative for P]

The point of Nagarjuna's tetralemma is, for any proposition P, it's truth value is indeterminate but not that the fault lies in us i.e. there's a lacuna in our epistemology but in a Werner Heisenberg kinda way.

Oh, I so want to argue against what you said just for the fun of it and I love your ending statement that clarifies we are playing with all these ideas is just fun. :love:

What if we could bring Islam and Christianity together? I know that is an insane idea considering neither religion can avoid division and fighting against each other, so there is not one Christianity or one Islam. And some of us are strongly opposed to both religions, but how can we be philosophical about all this and work on reasoning for peace? Instead of attempting to have peace through power? Ah, is this thread about Afghanistan or patriarchy versus matriarchy, and do we want to bring an end to rape culture, as in raping the earth as we rape each other? :lol:

I think my comment about communism was the bait switch. The threatening enemy was communism until the USSR fell, so we had to have a new enemy to do exactly what the US stood against from its very beginning, that is maintain its WWII military might and fight for global control. The new enemy became terrorists but that is very hard to defend and use to justify our military presence around the world. Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. You know those people who do not know God and follow his commandments and who are jealous of the US because God blesses the US and not them. Right there, that is proof of who God favors and it is the will of God that we control the resources of the world. But everyone can have religious freedom so we should not attack people for how they understand and worship God. Obviously, religious freedom makes us superior to Muslims and their notion of Shia law is threatening to us. cockco, cuckoo Can we call that reasoning? What is really happening? Is there are a philosophy that explains this insanity? — Athena

I don't wish to make the issue a game to be played without care or concern; if anyone insists its a game, so be it, but the consequences won't be a laughing matter. That's that.

There are two ways we can manage this. Either attempt some sorta unification of religions, politics, ideologies, etc. or just learn to accept our differences and agree to coexist peacefully i.e. stamp out diversity or embrace it. Which path the world chooses will decide the future of humanity.

No, I don't think so. "Killing animals" (i.e. industrial meat processing) is not illegal, though its endemic gratuitous cruelty is immoral. — 180 Proof

Intriguing isn't it that there are immoral acts that aren't illegal but that all illegal acts are immoral?

ll your life you've depended on your senses, never doubted them
— TheMadFool
Of course. What else could I do? These were and are my senses. What's the use or purpose doubting them? What could I gain from such a thing? In fact, if I did such a thing, on a constant basis, I wouldn't be able to write these lines, or any lines, for that matter. I would be living in an asylum! :smile:

normal mental state
— Alkis Piskas
How do we know that we are normal?
— TheMadFool
What's there not to undestand?
Normal = "Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected" (Oxford LEXICO)
And I talked about our normal state, not normal state in general. Our personality, the basic characteristics of our behaviour and all that depend on and are dictated by our mental state. Which, i a sane person, is stable in general and under normal conditions. Not only ourselves but also others can recognize it. (I warn you: Don't ask me what do I mean by "normal conditions" because I won't answer it! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Two points:

1. Skepticism (Are you sure?)

2. Plato's allegory of the cave (Who is normal?)

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
— TheMadFool

We've been over this. — baker

Right! I haven't been able to get my hands on a good explanation of Nagarjuna's tetralemma on the www. Do you know of any online resources I can bite into?

Indeed, there have been Buddhist missionaries. But on the whole, they seem to function as a defense of Buddhism against the expansion of other religions; or they focus on spreading Buddhism for lay people (and monasticism only as an adjacent or auxiliary option); ie. the aims for such missionary work are worldly. (And some Buddhist missionary organizations seem to be intent primarily on making money ...)

As to your first question, the concepts of rebirth/reincarnation and karma play a central role in Dharmic religions. With them, among many other things, also the person's religious/spiritual status is explained, and their religious/spiritual prospects. With an outlook like that, there's not much that an outsider could see themselves do for another person.

The other factor is that in Dharmic religions, there is no threat of eternal damnation, there is no urgency of "get it right this time around or suffer forever, no second chances", so there is no metaphysical impetus to get people to convert, unlike in Abrahamic religions. — baker

Indeed! It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation.

What came first: use or definition?) — baker

One issue I have with Wittgenstein's claim that meaning is use is that even definitions viewed in terms of essences is, after all, use of a word to stand for a certain idea or object. I don't recall anyone attempting to clarify how Wittgenstein's theory differs in a significant way from essence-based definitions which are, bottom line, also use.

You got me wrong. I, through the comment you refer to, were making explicit the fact that views like yours, which agree with a position - in this case, of mine - that go against the erroneous "common sense" of the masses.

"I was applauding you" — Gus Lamarch

Oh! I misunderstood. Sorry. By the way, how are your views different from Plato's? I ask because your notion of ideals matches Platonic forms and, while you extol the arts, Plato thought differently, accusing, as it were, artists of adding to the confusion by imitating (art) imitations (real) of Platonic forms (ideal).

It sounds like a modern version of the Haman's gallows story from the Bible. One of my favorites — Mark Nyquist

I can't remember the film's name. Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be. I'll check out Haman's gallows.

Christians are very proud of how much charity they give. At one time the US government paired up with preachers to get people to accept low wages and lusting for wealth was frowned upon. I have old grade school textbooks that stress cooperation and say things like friendship is better than money. In general, most people did not expect to earn enough to pay income taxes before the second world war, and speaking of war, the US demobilized after every war until Eisenhower and the Korean war. The US military ability was ranked 17th, with very small countries ranking better prepared for war. Iran liked the US very much because we seemed to chase the British out of Iran, but then we attempted to become an occupying force and Eisenhower approved of the CIA instigating a coup. I think our troubles with Muslim nations are of our own making. The only thing most citizens know if they know anything at all, is we were saving the world from communism. — Athena

Christianity has been a force in the world of charity for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, christian charity has been marred by much controversy - I believe the donations were a cover for a more insidious objective, proselytizing. I'm sure that there are huge benefits in being/becoming christian but I was under the impression they were of the spiritual and moral nature, not monetary.

The USA's military capabilities are there for all to see. Which country has been/is ever ready to project power? Anytime, the USA doesn't get what it wants, it engages in gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling - read the headlines of news media for the past 60 years, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Nevertheless, the USA is the world's only hope for peace and stability but...it's not the best option, it's the least worst.

As for communism, it's become some kind of bogey man, capitalist countries use to scare people into submitting to their demands and creed. Communism is dead! We don't need to dig up the rotting corpse of an old enemy to bring people in line. What we need to do is, in the absence of the red menace, overhaul the system that we've tolerated to counter Marxism. You know, like a soldier, who after a battle, tends to the demons inside him.

I don't know why I said what I said. Suffice it to say that these are not my own views but that of others which I offer as ponderables.

and I know this is hard
— TheMadFool
No, you really don't! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Nothing counterintuitive in it then? All your life you've depended on your senses, never doubted them in any way and now, when someone like me tells you to think twice about how truly reliable your senses are, it doesn't even register. I'm most amused. I'm like you - nothing seems to surprise me anymore. Good/bad that, no idea.

normal mental state — Alkis Piskas

How do we know that we are normal? I remember watching an old horror short film where the patients in an asylum have escaped and confined the resident psychiatrists and nurses in the same cells the patients were confined in and in a twist of fate, the patients are treating the doctors. I dunno!

Beats me!

But I still trust my senses — Alkis Piskas

I don't mean to burst your bubble and I know this is hard but, take a look at the following:

Can you really rely on your senses when,

A. Your mind can auto-generate all-modality sensory perceptions like in

1. Hallucination

B. Your mind can alter the perceptions themselves and make you come to false conclusions like in

2. Mirage

3. Optical Illusion

4. Tactile Illusion

5. Formication

6. Auditory Illusion

?

The modern world, post the sexual revolution of the 70's, is no place for marriage - the days of wedlock as a social institution are numbered. Once upon a time, tying the knot was a serious affair, now there are occasions when two people wake up together in bed in a hotel somewhere with no memory of marrying the preceding night. The writing on the wall: in this present day and age, marriage is an empty concept and soon, it'll become as meaningless as phlogiston.

To repeat: consumption, possession or distribution of child pornography necessarily requires producing it via criminal sexual assault / abuse of minors. — 180 Proof

Eating meat is the same as killing animals. Good point!

Oswald Spengler. — Caldwell

Spengler seems to draw an analogy between biological organisms and civilizations (cultures), treating the latter as a superorganism and, he reasons, just like biological organisms e.g. a human goes through multiple stages of development ultimately terminating in death, cultures/civilizations too undergo a similar multi-stage evolution.

Interesting viewpoint to say the least but to my reckoning the analogy breaks down at just the point where he had to add "super" to organism for cultures. How do we know a superorganism will reenact an individual organism's life-cycle?

Also, couldn't there be some kind of a threshold which if a culture crosses, it attains immortality like, say, cancer cells but without all the downsides?

seems a speciality of yours. — Wayfarer

:rofl: I'm not the brightest bulb on the chandelier but, if you take notice, a lot of the action in philosophy centers on the resolution, only attempts at it, of paradoxes. It seems as though at the heart of any philosophical position there lies an antinomy that threatens to destroy it from the inside.

Incomprehensibilis!

Interested in both topics but utterly failing to see the connection between them. — Wayfarer

Incomprehensibilis.