BrianW

What is it to be Enlightened?
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes. — Carl Jung
Pattern Recognition as the Essence of Philosophy
Because to recognise a pattern is to simplify, and it is the thing that science and philosophy and literature and music all lean towards...

It is the very substance of the faculty of understanding,... It is surely what big brains are evolved to do. — unenlightened

I love the wisdom in this message. Purely Divine!
(And I will definitely quote you.)

The message resonates deeply with my understanding of what our lives are striving towards. For me, it is the basis of the ultimate goal (heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, perfection, etc, etc). We (and all components of life/existence) are notes (tones) arranged in space and time (akin to musical notes) and we can only achieve harmony if we understand our nature/character and position ourselves accordingly for the sake of the overall 'music'. Because, outside of the 'music', what significance is there? And, without proper positioning (discipline), what sense do we make (even to ourselves)?
Mind & Physicalism
My brain neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, my thought about Aphrodite isn't matter! — TheMadFool

The brain (I don't know about mind) ABSOLUTELY gains in mass and volume just as with any other organ. Stuff (blood, chemicals, nutrients, etc, etc,) go in and out of the brain constantly. The only dispute is how appreciable/measurable the changes are. The brain consumes energy (chemical/biological) in its functionality. Therefore, at different times it has different energy levels.

Thought can be anything from an actual identity to a symbolic identity. We know thoughts have expressions at the level of brain functionality (fMRI tests and such). Therefore, it is also probable that thoughts may fall in the category of matter and energy even if not readily appreciable/measurable by specific machines/systems of mass/volume measurement.

On the other hand, thought (and by extension, mind) could be a symbolic thing like beauty which exists as an aspect of expression/perspective/perception and not necessarily an energy/mass identity by itself.

At the moment, in the brain-mind discussion, there are no definitives.
Why the Many Worlds Interpretation only applies to a mathematical universe.
There's a big difference between 'conceptual' and 'actual'. Multiple worlds, parallel universes, time travel, teleportation, etc, etc, are still just conceptual renderings. Also, a big part of our understanding of quantum phenomena (mechanics) is conceptual. Whatever the actual phenomena/activities are and however they take place, there's bound to be a big difference.

How do we compare our technology today with whatever ideas (concepts - if any) of them that existed 200, 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?

A 'purely' mathematical dimension/perspective mostly refers to the conceptual. Actual phenomena can be worked out even without adequate mathematical knowledge provided there's adequate experiential knowledge.
Philosophy and Metaphysics
↪Mww

Imagine that. Having the same idea, and yet... discussion. Now we have philosophy!
Philosophy and Metaphysics
↪Mww

I believe the root of metaphysical investigations is the human capacity to punch above their weight.

For example, we investigate the weather, something beyond our control. We learn, then we design predictions, and if we're good enough, we develop ways to participate in various weather conditions (including those that are potentially harmful) according to our reasons and needs e.g. surfers who chase after tsunamis in the hopes of riding the biggest waves, scientists at the south pole, desert dwellers, etc, etc.
It even works with superstition — people determine that a great occurrence like lightning must be caused by a great being(s) - god(s). They decide to worship the great being(s) in the hopes that it might keep them protected (thanks to the power being wielded). Sometime later, they decide perhaps the being(s) might want something more tangible from the humans - maybe sacrifice, offerings, etc. Much later, there's an idea that to get to the great being(s) or to attract further personal attention/interaction certain activities have to be undertaken. And so on and on.
Eventually, there develops a whole system or dimension of activities, expressions, interactions, principles, etc, all directed towards object(s) and/or subject(s) beyond humans.

It doesn't matter where we start, it's never enough unless there's more.
Philosophy and Metaphysics
Fair story, except there are occasions we didn’t make happen, but are rather foisted upon us. The weather, flat tires, your mother-in-law’s special dinner that tastes like the inside of an old shoe..... — Mww

We determine our part in those interactions e.g. building storm shelters, moving to california, spare tires, divorcing your mother-in-law's daughter/son, etc, etc.
Philosophy and Metaphysics
[STORY TIME]
Symbolically, suppose there's people's lives which are a phenomena whereby there is a point, let's call it a point of origin, such that no matter how fast or far a person can physically (by foot) travel from it, they have to return (to that point of origin) in their state of rest and before they can travel any further. In this scenario, many people set off with the hope of going somewhere else, perhaps to see the world, perhaps to investigate more of their reality, perhaps just to have something other than their usual experiences, etc, etc. The reasons don't matter that much.
No doubt there will be those who travel a greater distance than others. However, since they all go back to the origin, there will arise a certain distance beyond which nobody can surpass, the simplest explanation being that its the limit of the human body.

Now suppose that, as these [imaginary but relevant] people attempt to delineate the world they exist in, they must find explanations that appease the numerous ideas being thrown about. The most favourable idea being that, the greatest distance which a human has been known to travel marks the radius of life, beyond which human life cannot exist in its usual full vigour. Those who oppose it claim that when that distance was achieved, it was noted by those who observed that there was a beyond that could still be traversed by such as were or would be capable. And the arguments go on and on and on.

That's the end of my story. Poor as it may be, the point is this:- those two arguments (or ideas) about that weird life symbolically represent our version of the 'reasonable' (science, philosophy) versus the 'unreasonable' (metaphysics, mysticism/magic/esotericism, faith).

The 'reasonable' claim only the experience we can validate through sense perception is significant (perhaps due to its utility in our lives, perhaps due to its dependability through the capacity to reproduce it, etc, etc) and therefore knowledge and understanding of life/reality must be based solely upon such methodologies as conform and are based upon such experiences.

The 'unreasonable' claim that there is more to the term experience than that which is limited to being obtained solely through sense perception. For example, a hallucination can be an experience. Also, a dream can be an experience. [Perhaps because the objects and subjects of such experiences have some relevance to those minds in which they are enacted.] Therefore, knowledge and understanding of life/reality must include dimensions beyond sense perception.

Humans have accomplished much through such endeavours as conform to the scientific method.
Humans have accomplished much through endeavours based on faith, gut-feeling, intuition, self-belief, etc.

It's not a contest. Philosophy, science, metaphysics, mysticism, etc, etc, are just attempts to delineate life/reality. However, all is reality. We are a part of reality. Therefore, it is impossible to have information about anything that is not a part of reality.

Over two thousand years ago some guy claimed that there are these minute things (atomos) which everything is composed of. Now, it is impossible to be a scientist without knowledge of atoms and the role they play.
Very old literature and lore tell of substances like prana, chi, aether, etc. They claim these substances pervade everything. Now some scientists are trying to tell us that dark matter (and dark energy) does the same.

I mean, does knowledge/understanding have a point other than what we can make happen in our lives?
Believing versus wanting to believe
And the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 did not want to believe in the existence of atoms. — Tom Storm

Regardless of belief and/or faith, our experiences have very close approximations. — BrianW

Also,

The working hypotheses about atoms give close approximations for the reality in our closest (hence relevant) environment/proximity — BrianW

The information we have about atoms only provides working hypotheses not absolute truth (if it exists).
Believing versus wanting to believe
Belief has no value without practice. That is borrowed from the "faith without action is dead" quote.
The existence of atoms is a belief. The fact is, there still doesn't exist a method for observing atoms or their constituents. Therefore, it's more like scientists want to believe in the existence of atoms. The value of such a belief is in how close it approximates to our interactive reality. The working hypotheses about atoms give close approximations for the reality in our closest (hence relevant) environment/proximity — it also hints at why quantum mechanics seems to make things appear to be 'outta wack'.

Another example is how Newton's calculations on gravity are great for applications here on earth but become insufficient when applied to quantum mechanics.

Regardless of belief and/or faith, our experiences have very close approximations. For example, we all live in a world where medicine saves more people than God/Gods with respect to health. Also, God/Gods (as representations of a greater reality) provide greater comfort (through hope) for the majority of people (including the self-proclaimed non-believers) in times of need/desperation than reason.

The question is, is there a difference in the subjective experience of the believer who tends to believe in true beliefs, versus one who tends to believe in false beliefs? — Pantagruel

Depends on the kinds of applications the beliefs afford?
Moral reasoning. The fat man and the impeding doom dilemma.
Ignoring the limited imagination through which the question has been posited, I would say that sacrifice is always a choice. Human consciousness/conscience (collective/societal) has already answered that question in so very many ways (in every way possible).

We always (and I mean ALWAYS) sacrifice the few (or one) for the sake of the many. The modern way is to give the few (or one) a chance to volunteer so they can earn the appreciation. Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. It is part of nature's intelligent design.
On Memory, Insight, Rebirth & Time
If reincarnation is not bound by time i.e. deaths and rebirths are temporally unrestricted (people who die in the future being reborn in the past, the converse scenario being a non-issue) could insights be memories? — TheMadFool

YES.

My take is this:

Reality (existence) is. Knowledge is about perceiving a copy of reality (that which is) within the configuration we refer to as our selves. That copy/imprint is the definition of memory. Insight is just a method of copying (streaming/reorganizing) from one memory structure to another (e.g. from the reality we observe/perceive externally to the reality we identify with as ourselves).

Reincarnation is about consciousness. At that level, past, present and future is relative and according to the hierarchy of energies that are interacting. The hierarchy is determined by the quantity and quality of energies interacting within the consciousness. For example, quantity roughly translates to the extent to which a consciousness is active while quality designates the level/character of intelligence in the configurations expressed by a consciousness. Therefore, within a progression, past refers to lower/lowest (prior), present refers to intermediate/transforming/shifting (proceeding), and future refers to higher/highest (superseding).

Suppose in one lifetime a person expresses to a high degree a particular fundamental element of the perspective of reality, e.g. power. However, that person is unable to translate that advancement into other elements of perspective, e.g. wisdom/understanding, thus becoming unbalanced. It then becomes necessary to reincarnate with the aim of developing the necessary elements to achieve balance. For example, Hitler - great power to influence people and their situations but little understanding of people and their situations.
For such a recalibration, external information is not necessary, and only acts as a guide post. The only true endeavour would be the focus of one's energies along the other elements of perspective in order to become wholesome (e.g. meditation). Because of this, external factors such as technology, education, social dynamics, etc,etc, are not as important (though they may play a big part depending on the encouragement/discouragement developed in the relations). Such a discipline would entail the raising of one's dormant energies to the level of the predominant energies, thus symbolically, going to a future (mastery) one is already familiar with.

[Also what would happen if one's dominant hand was incapacitated and one was forced to train the non-dominant hand. The degree of mastery sought after would already be known and experienced, that is, even in that present, a facet of the future has already been unfolded. The work would just be to re-calibrate other energies that had not been trained to express that level of mastery (that is, energies in a 'kind of' past).]

Another example => marketing and advertising are fields that have developed based on knowledge of psychological interactions. And while psychology is a contemporary field of study, the phrase "Jesus knew their thoughts/hearts... " is millennia old. In that sense, of applying psychology in those ancient days, Jesus could be said to have been futuristic (in terms of the narrative). The same could be said of others, e.g. Buddha - Dharma (Truth, Ethics, Duty), Pythagoras - Music of the spheres (vibrational frequency), etc.

Therefore (long story, not so short), in this sense, what is insight could be memory because one is using one's knowledge to impact one's energies in an already known (unfolded) dynamic.
The paradox of Gabriel's horn.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PARADOX!!!

For example, why compare an imaginary horn with real paint?

If it's a real horn, then there must be a certain limit beyond which the internal space cannot be diminished while still maintaining the coherence of molecular and atomic structure of what constitutes the physicality of anything (a horn).

So, why compare a metaphysical horn with actual paint?

If we postulate paint made up of a 'quantized super fluid with infinite tension/compression (whichever fits) capability' (e.g. the fundamental matter of cosmic space, just an idea), then we can paint infinity.

=> If 'infinite' is compared to 'finite' then obviously, ultimately, there would be incongruence - call it paradox, chaos, whatever...
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
Just a thought:

If someone only read books their whole life, what have they made of that life? If they only travelled, conducted business, interacted with people, everywhere on earth, how much of life would they have made? How much value would they be to themselves? And how much value would they be to others if they have not realised the value of their selves?

There's an analogy which can be used to show the difference between real value and illusory value. Ever thought of those guys who work at financial institutions, at which, one of their job descriptions entails counting loads of money? Perhaps this was so mostly in the past, I'm not sure now with electronic banking and such. Anyway the premise still holds. So, think of someone (long retired now) who must have handled millions maybe billions of money in such kinds of employments. In the end, that money does not appreciate his/her value financially. In that same period, it is possible for millionaires and billionaires using the services of such enterprises to never have had such money in their literal grasp. They own the money but don't need to see it to use. Others see it and handle it, but can never use it.
So, that's the fundamental difference between the ideal of a monk/yogi and that of a normal guy. One interacts with people in their everyday occupations - they think/are thought about, follow/are followed, develop feelings and opinions, etc, etc, and at the end of all that, they have done nothing to raise the value of a human (even themselves) beyond its mediocrity. Then comes a yogi who teaches that the power of the self is such that we can achieve self-control over our thoughts, emotions, bodies, actions, interactions, perceptions, imaginations, etc, etc. They teach that we can refuse to do bad to others even if they do bad to us. They teach about how materiality is not a dimension that we ought to exemplify. And so many other teachings which, if we were to learn only by experience, then a new generation of apes and monkeys would evolve to humans before we achieve anything significant.
It's like the average guy is dealing with so much thoughts, emotions, things, etc, while the monk/yogi is dealing solely with the value. And not just casually or carelessly, but as their value. Value they understand, develop, put to action.

My point is, we can philosophically delineate how attachments are important or necessary to our values but, bottom line is, we have no such values. They are values we think about, have developed emotions/feelings for, talk about, etc, etc, but we don't have them. We are the guys counting money while they're the millionaires and billionaires who own them.
If they who know the true value of a life, TEACH (not just say) that it's not worth the attachments, why argue with that?
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Athena

It's not crazy, it's just a way (an attempt) to preserve certain kinds of value. If we had perfect recall (memory of thoughts, emotions, things, situations, everything about any moment) we may not feel compelled to hold on to 'things' as much as we often do. That would be because we could recreate the life-energies we value and re-experience them whenever we choose to. We would have special moments with our loved ones that never fade and always inspire. We would relive experiences, reread books, revisit places, etc, etc. However, how much forward progress would we make?
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Jack Cummins

At the same time, I also understand that this is a complicated discussion because we've already developed systems that are biased/polarised in one way or another and galvanised them with values and significance which we are compelled to uphold (fight for). It's why we must consider the positives of attachments even when, in essence, by definition, it is the antithesis to the meaning of freedom.
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
Meaningful connections are fine, but sometimes they become more than this, or we would probably not have friendships or relationships at all, including sexual ones. Also, sometimes we want connections with others and this is not reciprocated and this leads to the negative side of attachments. — Jack Cummins

What I get from that is a failure in communication. When the appropriate meaning is not expressed then we cannot receive the proper response. This is usually the cause of the imbalance/confusion in our connections (communications/relations). Friendships, romances, family ties, etc, etc, are not more or less meaningful than other connections - they just have different meanings. There is no need for a hierarchy of meaning. Can you imagine words in the dictionary having a hierarchy of meaning? Ridiculous, right?
Each connection has its own value/significance. There is no need for comparisons and competitions.
A friendship allows us certain expressions, a romance - other expressions, family - other kinds of expressions, even acquaintances allow their respective modes and degrees of expressions. None of which need to infringe on others even when there are similarities.

The amount of time and energy we apply to any connection is dependent upon our choices and predispositions. And, instead of instigating conflicts they should reveal to us our situations (which can be altered if need be).
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Jack Cummins

Why go from meaningful connection to attachment? Why not maintain at meaningful connection?
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Jack Cummins

The difference between attachments and connections is that in attachments, the objects and subjects we are attached to are given greater priority than (or as much as) our selves. However, in connections, we are the priority, followed by the expression we are communicating. The objects and subjects involved in the expression are just tools to facilitate the process.

*Thought I should explain myself a little.
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
Even if we follow the path of self realisation and self-analysis, I think that attachments are still likely to play a large part. — Jack Cummins

Not attachments, just connections. Attachments are limitations while connections are channels for expression of our life-energies. We can connect without being attached.
A thought experiment in reality
↪Outlander

To me, all such thought experiments seem like responses to deep rooted fear within the coding of one's consciousness. They're all based on the premise that reality is what 'another' or 'others' inform you instead of what you inform yourself from the data collected. The idea behind it seems to be that if many people tell you something ought to be one way or another then you have no choice but to conform.
However, what if, like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, among other inventors, discoverers, leaders and pioneers in all fields of life, etc, you showed the rest of the people what reality was and they had no choice but to agree with your information because, strange as it might sound, that one person had a greater capacity to process data than the many.

Suppose one day, one time, a man woke up from slumber and urged others to follow him/her with the promise of helping them awake from the slumber they call life into a greater awakening of their true realities (which may be referred to as enlightenment/nirvana/heaven or whatever else).

Now, suppose the previous supposition is reversed and the many people are trying to influence the few.

At the end of the day its the same process and the outcome can only be determined by external and internal factors about the events (logistics and predispositions). For example, from the first hypothetical, dimensions like religions, spiritual and political movements have arisen. And from the second, what we refer to as trends, ethics, culture, etc, have arisen.
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Jack Cummins

Also, until one recognizes or realises their individuality (self or 'I'), life will remain a series of attachments. The only true path in life is self-realisation (study of oneself). Any appropriate method will do.
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
↪Jack Cummins

I think it depends on the importance to which we assign the need/want of overcoming the attachments. In analogy, I would say it's like any other problem - if you really want to overcome it then you put up the fight. For me, the biggest obstacle which I see as preventing most people from overcoming attachments is the need to bargain - which is a sign, to me, that those people are not really committed. For example, I know people who realise that alcohol isn't good for them but they don't/can't stop because they've not yet decided to stop the party kind of lifestyle. So they end up looking for half-measures which don't really solve anything and the problem gets drawn out for a really long time.

Meditation/yoga works for those who integrate them into their lifestyle. Most people don't and it doesn't work, then they accuse meditation/yoga of being mumbo jumbo. Meditative/yoga sessions can only give moments (an hour or two) of harmony, a meditative lifestyle allows for harmony all the time. The same with therapy - one can see a therapist for a few moments or they can have a therapeutic lifestyle.

Anyway, there are so many types and degrees of attachments as well as the methods of overcoming them. But the bottom-line is the same - a person has to do it or go through it the whole nine yards.

I have steps which I follow when I want to rid or distance myself from something/someone/situations. In short:
The list is just an outline of how I've tried to overcome some of my attachments.
A Monster Question: Is attachment a problem and should it be seen as one?
The "Attachment" that is a problem is not the natural connection to things and situations. It is the inordinate craving/compulsion/dependence (addictions in various modes and degrees) that corrupts that excellence which is forged by nature.
All attachments (including attraction and lust) fade away with time according to the natural order of things. Attachment to material things, even short-term, is almost non-existent - until we add psychological components (emotional, mental, etc) and then it extends for as long as we maintain those relations. (Natural attachment to material things is more along the order of curiosities and enjoyments and they have very clearly defined limits.)
Money, sex, social interactions, education, employment, etc, matter too much because we've created psychological relations which define them beyond their actual boundaries especially in our appreciations (significance/validation) of the connections to other people.

If the exercise of one's free will without the intentional harming of others causes disharmony in one's situations and relations, then it is proof of attachments that must be gotten rid off.
Why do we assume the world is mathematical?
How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein (From the lecture, 'Geometry and Experience').
A fun puzzle for the forums: The probability of God
An understandable way of looking at things. But if I decided to, and classified it as in the argument, does it work? — Philosophim

Yeah, everything just is. It allows for maximum focus upon oneself (the most significant point of anything that is).
A fun puzzle for the forums: The probability of God
↪Philosophim

I don't know any of that. For me, whether there is one 'first cause'/'being' (God or other) or many of such wherefrom the universe(s) - (if such a limit actually exists) - has its origin, is of little consequence. The aspects of unity and equilibrium which we observe, are just that. Sure, we can tag all of that with names (God, Life, Energy, Vibration, Universe, Spirit, Consciousness, Nature, Laws of Nature, etc) but they don't become anything more than what they already are (even to us).

Can anything compare with the idea of infinite probability? It's like the ultimate cheat code.
A fun puzzle for the forums: The probability of God
↪Philosophim

It's just another endless loop, isn't it. Sure, it assumes one unique first cause. However, what does it say about the arising of other unique causes. The logical question that has never been answered isn't the probability of God/first cause or the assumption of such (because if we exist, then an origin is entirely feasible), but the why (purpose) and how (methodology) of it. This is because neither purpose nor method is unique (at least from the perspective of limitless probabilities/possibilities/assumptions).

Logic is about defining the purpose and process alongside the aforementioned what (fact/truth/reality/existence). That's when we deem it to be concrete knowledge/understanding of something. Otherwise, any number of assumptions/probabilities/possibilities become the most likely conclusion, each according to its own narrative. Soon enough, that narrative becomes insufficient (and seeks support - string theory, creation in six days, etc), or worse, boring.

The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. — Philosophim

This statement is the query and its own answer. Logic, reason, common sense, knowledge, understanding, explanations, beliefs, etc, etc, are based on rules (configurations of limits/boundaries).
A fun puzzle for the forums: The probability of God
If effects arise from causes, what is the cause of the first cause?

Does the ultimate/fundamental origin also have an origin?

I think the problem isn't philosophy but congruence in language.
Is inaction morally wrong?
Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation? — Marin

If the intent behind the inaction is to enjoy the carnage, then it is wrong.
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Was Judas a good man doing Jesus’ will or was he a traitor? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Perhaps, in a weird way, by helping advance the plot of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection narrative, he did right by God. From the human point of view, he seemed to fail himself - didn't he suffer a mental breakdown and commit suicide (or something)?
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Was Judas a good man doing Jesus’ will or was he a traitor? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I've read what is referred to as the "Gospel of Judas" (or what's left of it). I think it's deeply esoteric and, if true, it may hold within it the mystery of Judas' character as a person, as well as the symbolic expression in the relation between Jesus and twelve disciples.

This reminds me, we also don't understand who the devil/satan is as an individual and what he symbolises in the inner/greater expression of human life.

And there seems to be more to the crucifixion plan than the disciples knew because Jesus refers to Peter as Satan when he refuses to accept Jesus' suffering and eventual death:

Jesus turned around and said to Peter, "Get away from me, Satan! You are an obstacle in my way, because these thoughts of yours don't come from God, but from human nature." — Matthew 16:23 (Good News Translation)
False Awakening & Unknowable Reality
The idea has another, philosophical, meaning - describing a person who believes s/he has grasped true reality but actually hasn't; maybe s/he misunderstands, or s/he has only a partial understanding of, true reality. — TheMadFool

Whatever understanding is possessed by an individual(ity) is limited to and by that individual(ity). Only the absolute is and has absoluteness. Those who are awake (enlightened) know their limitations better than those below them on that scale.
If women had been equals
Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

I think it is (in more ways than not, I believe so). I think our intelligent impetus deems what would have been seen as "cultural/traditional feminine predisposition" type of qualities and characters to be better suited for the future. These are qualities referenced in the idea of 'maternal instinct' such as compassion, a more objective acceptance of individualities and situations, communal service/sharing (less of 'my this and that', and more of 'for the greater good/peace of heart', etc), openness to reciprocity. Basically, a more heart-centred society.

One thing, I think, which is important to realise, is that dominance doesn't necessarily imply subjugation of others' will, independence and individualities.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
Words are symbols of concepts. They act as the means of making concepts into mental concretes. They allow the storage of a conceptual integration that can be recalled on demand. Words are references to a concept. — BrianW

A definition describes the basis of integration of a specific concept. It describes the essential nature of the concept. It differentiates all other particulars from those included under the concept. — BrianW

Are the concepts of 'truth' and 'fact' completely differentiated in the way they are defined and symbolised? No, I don't think so. Also, no source of information, philosophy, linguistics or other, seems to have completely differentiated them. However, there is a concept, a principle, which seems to be the source or the fundamental upon which their respective definitions and symbolism are based. Right now, I can only explain that concept as, "that which is." It can be what is designated as reality or existence but, both fact and truth are attempts to symbolise aspects of 'that which is'.

Information and knowledge are other words whose definitions and conceptions are not completely differentiated, and kinda relate in one way or another. I don't think we have, as yet, developed the kind of context (or perspective) in which they could be completely uncoupled. The many arguments in this thread may be proof of that.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com

*The above site is not the definitive on philosophical terms and meanings. It has a disclaimer at the bottom which reads,
The content of this website is primarily based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.
And, because of that, it will be readily evident what its shortcomings are. However, it presents a very good (workable) relation between the meanings of various philosophical expressions.

Some of the expressions and meanings are:

- An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.
The term "axiom" has been abused in many different ways, so it is important to distinguish the proper definition from the others. The other definitions amount to calling any arbitrary postulate an 'axiom'.

- Words are symbols of concepts. They act as the means of making concepts into mental concretes. They allow the storage of a conceptual integration that can be recalled on demand. Words are references to a concept. They are mental entities which trigger the contents of the concept. By making the concepts into concretes that can be easily maintained and used, we are able to use concepts as particulars, allowing further integration.
Words in themselves are meaningless and mostly arbitrary. They are auditory or visual symbols of concepts, which contains the meaning. A definition applies to a concept, not a word. A word is a name given to a concept. It isn't the concept itself. A word is only meaningful if it has a concept, which in turn, has a definition. Without these, a word is just a noise.

- A definition describes the basis of integration of a specific concept. It describes the essential nature of the concept. It differentiates all other particulars from those included under the concept.
A concept has a genus and a differentia. The role of the definition is to describe both.

- Knowledge is the mental grasp of the facts of reality. It is the awareness of the identity of particular aspects of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality. An example of knowledge is the identification of the law of gravity. It is a characteristic of reality that is identified and understood.
Knowledge is gained through a successful evaluation of one's perceptions. It is through the use of reason that man draws conclusions about the world. It is through objectivity that man identifies the validity of those conclusions. Knowledge is the clear, lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
Through all the discussions on this thread, I have managed to gather some ideas which, it seems, everyone who's participated is okay with in some way or other (according to my judgement). That is,
From the above, I've also been able to develop other definitions for information and knowledge which I think are pertinent, somewhat differentiating and still correlated. That is,
Of course, there's the obvious common usage of information and knowledge, e.g. if you have information, then you know; or if you know, then you have information, etc. But, even with common usage, the test/limiting factor which, more often than not, differentiates between the two is application. Right application qualifies one as possessing knowledge in favour of those who may just possess information without the capacity to apply it. (These are just my ideas and nothing is definitive.)

To all who've participated, I would like to give my thanks. This is a very illuminating discussion.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
↪Harry Hindu

So, for you, is there a difference between information and knowledge?

Or, perhaps, they're the kind of words (also, truth and fact) whose meanings and significance, as I seem to be learning, cannot be acquired through comparative thinking. That is, the differences have no real significance to our perspective. It's like illuminating one's home with white light or amber (yellow-ish), bottom-line is, they make it possible to see things.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
I guess the difference then is that some types of information are undesirable but knowledge is always valuable to possess. Can you pick up the thread from there? — TheMadFool

Yeah, thanks. I've learned quite a lot from that. It seems that there's an inherent idea that, at least, one of the differences between knowledge and information is based on some kind of judgement with respect to its significance to us, e.g. desirable/undesirable, valuable/useless, etc.
What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
I'm not sure about knowledge being about utility because while it seems instinctively desirable, tool-makers that we are, to put knowledge to some use, utility per se doesn't constitute an essential feature of the definition of knowledge. I mean that if ever we encounter a well-justified proposition it would still count as knowledge to know it even if it proved to be completely useless. — TheMadFool

I've tried to hold this sort of position before and I think my worry is it doesn't seem to give much of a difference between knowledge and information. I've been using utility to, primarily, differentiate between the two. Is there another way?

Home » BrianW

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message