I am curious what you think about this?

The distinction I use is fairly simple. Knowledge is stuff you know and wisdom is understanding how and when to apply such knowledge.

Everyone has knowledge of some sort, but generally speaking wisdom comes with experience. There is a reason people say someone is 'wise beyond their years'.

An uneducated person can certainly be wise. Like many things in life people have more of something than others. If someone has more wisdom then they are better able to apply what they know (no matter how specific or broad) when and where it matters.

Are you wise, or getting there? — Tom Storm

I am. Took some years to get there though. I do not think it is something that came naturally to me though and generally think I am a late bloomer.

I have never met or heard of anyone below 30 who I would call 'wise' in the broader sense. I would say I reached a point where I could call myself in my early 40's. At that point I think people generally have a reasonable grip on life and the perhaps the hormonal changes play a significant role here. That said, I did have an experience that fundamentally shifted my appreciation for life in my early 30's and changed the trajectory of my life, but one fleeting moment of unified 'wisdom' was more or less the catalyst rather than the point where I really obtained something permanent.

I fully expect once I get even older I will look back and think 'I did not quite get it when I was 45,' but I will still see myself as hitting that point of 'wisdom' by that time. Maybe it is just nothing more than a feeling of balance or something? Hard to put into words.

I can sum up my 'lived philosophy' in a very simple way.

"Expect the worst, Hope for the best"

I adopted this mindset around about the time I turned 30 and it has served me extremely well. It is a recognition of our innate optimistic biases alongside our attraction to negativity. When things do not go distasterously wrong I am pleased, but this does involve having to create rather horrific scenarios sometimes.

Think of it something like this when you wake up in the morning:

"I am not strapped to my bed with a torturer about to go to work on me for the next 24 hours. Life is GREAT! I am so lucky."

The hope for the best part is just leaning into dreaming about the impossible coming into fruitition -- then by sheer chance it might just happen! Something taken from Crowley where he says the biggest mistake any individual can make is to set achievable goals.

Everything else for me is something like the belief in creating the best version of myself I can as being the most sensible path forwards.

I cannot seem to fathom how we can appreciate time without partially transcending it.

Time is something we frame in time. It seems so inherent to the human condition that we tend to think of it as inflexible.

Even taking into account our conscious subjective appreciation of time -- a narrow window of attention -- relative to the semi-conscious and unconscious 'appreciation,' there is still something of a covering-over going on in terms of the homunculi account of time.

At the very least it seems to me that conscious subjectivity is distributed in a specular sense from multiple temporal instances. How else could anything be apprehended without having a fundamental atemporal aspect?

Even if we view consciousness ar large as a simulation -- meaning representation of -- how would it be possible to hold such appreciation of in a distilled instant? We are not photons, yet we live in a finite respect like photons, able to experience change firsthand.

I said it was a bit mad :)

As mad as it may sound the only 'reasonable' conclusion I can come to is something about consciousness is atemporal. That or it is one helluva temporal trick!

What is the difference between noumena and things in themselves according to you? — Janus

Phenomena is everything grounded in our sensibility.

Noumena is not Phenomena.

Things-in-themselves are the intuitively inpenetrable 'whereness' of Phenomena. Scare quotes to denote how it makes little sense to talk of something meaningless to space and time.

I think that is as simple as I can express Kant's view.

The subtle difference in meaning between things-in-themselves is the approach. Noumena is conceptually useful as a limitation whereas things-in-themselves helps to appreciate the aboutness of phenomena as our means of knowing the nature of existence.

A lot of this makes more sense form a phenomenological perspective (which is how I originally approached academic philosophy). Consciousness is 'of something' (the intentional), so if you follow that line of thinking further down the track you presume a grounding function.

If you have literally no interest in phenomenology then I can see how none of the above would serve any purpose nor inspire you to look further. I draw the line at people like Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida myself. If you draw it at Kant so be it. It would be a pretty boring world if we all looked at things in the same way :)

and this is still a kind of dualism for all intents and purposes. — Janus

Someone may perhaps say the same as to your position and say for all intents and purposes it is just a kind of solipsism. I would not say this -- or what you say above -- are at all charitable in terms of interpretation.

If you refuse to believe he meant noumena as a negative concept, and that things-in-themselves was used as a means of distinguishing the subtle difference between 'unknown,' unknownable' and 'nothing' that is your choice I guess.

It is absolutely skirting on the fringes of useful language and is only likley to serve you if you hold a certain view. Much like those who study Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze and Foucault are happy to frolic in their obtuse verbosity I am not. Regardless, I find them of negative interest and can take something away from reading them.

Noumena are not things-in-themselves. You stated:

I don't hold to a two worlds conception of nature. There is only one world. As I said before I don't accept the bifurcation of nature into phenomena and noumena. — Janus

Maybe you simply mispoke and meant 'phenomena and things-in-themselves'? If so no big deal :)

I am asserting that there are people who misunderstand the difference between 'things-in-themselves' and 'noumena'. I am also asserting -- having read Kant quite thoroughly -- that it makes no sense to talk of a 'bifurcation of nature' between 'phenomena and noumena'. That is very much a gross misunderstanding, but a very common one.

There is a large variety of things which we measure, and each has a name. There is also a variety of different types of measurements. I've never heard anyone claim to be measuring matter. What type of measurement do you think that would be? — Metaphysician Undercover

Kilograms. That is how we do physics.

I think this is a very important point. "Noumena" for Kant is analogous to "matter" for Aristotle. They are strictly conceptual, not referring to any independent thing as people are inclined to believe. But "matter" is more like the limit of conception, the closest we can come to contradiction without crossing that boundary. Then many people assume these concepts to be a description of some independent feature of reality. But they are not descriptions at all, just concepts which somehow represent what cannot be described. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a stretch too far. We can -- and do -- measure matter. For Noumena there is nothing to say anything about. The very idea of noumena (negative only) is an adumbration of a null concept.

It is fully understandable why people repeatedly misconstrue what Kant meant as it is fairly obvious and fairly obtuse at the same time.

I very much agree. — Leontiskos

It cannot think. It is just a tool.

An idiot using a hammer is still an idiot using a hammer. Destructive rather than constructive. Authority? Nope, none.

As I said before I don't accept the bifurcation of nature into phenomena and noumena. — Janus

This is a gross misunderstanding if you are referring to Kant. There is no bifurcation at all.

And yet he talks about them in a positive sense, saying that noumena cannot exist in space and time, while being unable to offer an argument for that, other than that we know space and time only via our experience of phenomena. — Janus

He is talking about Noumena negatively because we have no sense of other-than space and time. That is the point. He cannot even 'point to' noumena only flit around it as a kind of negative limitation on human 'sensibility' (which is all we have).

Edit: 'it' is not an it! Language can make something seem to be that is not possible.

I would add that I believe strongly that anything we can say is possible to be brought into existence as a 'semblanc'e of such ideas. Like a Backwards Purple Banana Hoop or any other string of nonsense.

I should add that philosophy is one area where such limitations on language should most definitely be pushed. Sometimes we push too hard. Hopefully philosophy is still rigorous enough to make some headway though.

Added to that I think that if you are speaking about something it is a contradiction to say it doesn't exist. You might say unicorns don't exist, but they do exist as imaginary creatures. Fictional characters exist as fictional characters and so on. To say there is a thing-in-itself and then to say it doesn't exist is a contradiction. — Janus

These are different things though. Kant frames Noumena as something only talked about in the negative sense (meaning we cannot comprehend any 'aboutness'). For unicorns we can visual an 'aboutness' (menaing we have a sensory frame of reference for such a creature).

When talking about ontological epistemic conditions it can serve a useful function to delineate between the unknownable and the ... well ... 'that which is not to be spoken of'. I think this is an area where mysticism shines, with talk of Tao/Dao and other similar concepts in other branches of human exploration.

Anything that can reflect on the framework that is a human being is all there is. What is ineffable can still have a semblance of existence and so the concept of Noumena or Tao/Dao is presented as a roughshod adumbration of our human limitations (through which we can only say is everything).

What divulges meaning intent for one can confound another. Not because they do not comprehend, but due to the fact they have not yet had any reason to apply the intent of the meaning in a productive dialogue.

We are often happy to talk of the 'infinite' yet struggle with the obvious problem of relating to the concept in an experiential sense. Sometimes it pays to speak in order to better present silence beyond the white noise that can never be experience -- when tinnitus dies away we assume the experience of silence exists.

AI is biased. It wil try and substantiate and support ideas rather than criticise them. It takes quite a bit of work to get AI to do what you want, and even then it can make glaring mistaking (struggles with verbatim quotes).

It is a damn useful tool but not at all intelligent. If you are just copy and pasting AI text as your own post then it is almost certainly not expressing what you want to say perfectly. If you are using it as a fact checker it will require more effort than needed to just write and express your ideas yourself (as it makes errors without exact instructions).

And making radical changes would likley result in millions dying but that is okay because it will benefit future generations. You know what I mean when I say we need to be cautious.

Imagine the hardship and suffering it woudl cause to ban people from using fuel, or switching to vegan diets. The best we can do is attack the problems we foresee from multiple angles. We are already doing so in many sectors and huge strides have been made already in terms of how we manage farming. In the near future we probably won't need farmland as hydroponic will have moved on a lot.

The only real threat I am concerned about is AGI, but I am not entirely sure that can/will happen anytime soon. Hard to say. If it does that has far more potential to ruin our lives as well as improve it dramatically.

I am not overly concerned about the future of humanity tbh. Someone needs to be and it looks like you are so that is enough for me.

Okay, but how should we react to the danger? — Athena

Any danger. Cautiously and with consideration of what effects it may have. If we start literaly changing everything about how we live unforeseen problems will arise. Revolutions are revolutions because they cause severe upheaval.

For example, in today's world people complain about how the economy is bad and their quality of life has fallen without fully understanding this is not at all true for the vast majority of the population around the world who have seen an increase in their quality of life.

I am kind of shocked that we appear to disagree about the need to rethink everything. — Athena

You must be using hyperbole? We do actually constantly rethink things all the time, but thankfully we do not act on them because all people have some conservativism too.

I said either is dangerous in the extreme. There is nothing unusual about that. Changing everything is an extreme thing to suggest -- dangerous!

If we had already gotten everything wrong we would not be here today. Tilt too far into conservatism or liberalism and it will result in distaster. History has shown this and life experience has shown me this personally too on an individual level.

rethink everything. — Athena

This is the kind of thinking I find most scary. There is something to be said for conservative values as much as there are for liberal ones.

someone might benefit from our memory of the past and gained wisdom. — Athena

I think this is something we should be more concerned about that adaptation. We can only step forward confidently once we appreciate what happened before us. This is likley why human progress tends to take the form of 3 steps forwards then 2 steps back.

That is a cultural problem more than a 'school' problem I would say. Symptoms of a deeper underlying problem. I do not accept that 'guns' are the main cause they are merely a convenient tool to express a hidden societal problem.

Generally speaking I think parents assume the part they play in how their children turn out is vastly overestimated. That is not to say that parenting does not effect them, but the parent's job is most important in the first few years of development.

The fault likely more with me here. I guess I was trying to say something that appears quite tangental to this thread and I am still far from the level of competence I would like to reach when it comes to philosphical writing (that sentence is a good example!).

I think we can both agree that a formal tone is required in order to present a sense of neutrality? If one attacks an argument that is fine, but such should probably be done in a formal manner.

If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement.

Examples:

- Formal: I am not sure I agree with your position on this point due to X and Y.

- Informal: You are probably wrong about this mate, because of X and Y.

Of course there are more severe degrees and everyone has a lien of tolerance for the style they encounter. I would find the second a little disappointing as the 'mate' from someone I have never met seems misplaced, but I would not judge on one sentence alone.

Read the exchange with I just had with Banno. You do need to understand the issue of Supervenience though in relation to Mental States/Identity.

I think I'll just write a paper on it and send to a Journal. Looks like no one else has written about it yet.

It is a subtle point.

@Ludwig V Do you understand what I am getting at above? No one seems to :(

As I understand it, you believe (rather, it has been proven), the proliferation of intimate and highly-engaging historical data will kind of "cheapen" or, no, let me use a more neutral word, "skew" the perception of the world we live in (time as it relates to one's lifespan), in a negative (or at least possibly less than conducive to the human experience) way? — Outlander

Will answert to rest, just gotta dash to work in 5 mins.

Anyway, no. I was pondering a thought and it wondered over into thinking about how we appreciate certain aspects of our world and it threw up this idea. I think there might be something to it, but it is not something we can judge for a few centuries or millenia yet as far as I can see!

Actually the main difference is where in 100 yrs time someone watched the video, read the journal or simply knew someone climbed a mountain and no more.

There are distinct differences in term of resolution in how the history of those three people are recorded.

We have only lived at the start of this trajectory having access to written words for a century or so in a global sense. I am speculating about how current media technologies -- projected forwards a few centuries or millenia -- could influence our overall perception of time due to the historical access we will have receding into the past.

In terms of the frequency of how we use different tenses. There is evidence that it effects foward planning.

What is the relationship or ability (or perhaps disability) between the three individuals in relation to the idea or premise your OP is discussing or otherwise wishes to explore? — Outlander

None. I was considering this more broadly as effecting future language as having a more visceral relation to historical events could perhaps lead to a better appreciation of an individuals place. A bit like the difference between reading something happened 10 years ago is quite different to seeing it play out before your eyes -- it has a more immediate and real impact on you as it is sensory rather than conceptual.

I used the term Phenomenological as it is the standard terminology in Philosophy of Mind.

I think the issue here is nothing other than a mismatch in terminology.

He does not use that term. EDITTED

EDITTED

A striking feature of attempts at definitional reduction is how little seems to hinge on the question of synonymy between de niens and de niendum. Of course, by imagining counterexamples we do discredit claims of synonymy. But the pattern of failure prompts a stronger conclusion: if we were to find an open sentence couched in behavioural terms and exactly coextensive with some mental predicate, nothing could reasonably persuade us that we had found it. We know too much about thought and behaviour to trust exact and universal statements linking them. Beliefs and desires issue in behaviour only as modified and mediated by further beliefs and desires, attitudes and attendings, without limit. Clearly this holism of the mental realm is a clue both to the autonomy and to the anomalous character of the mental.

These remarks apropos definitional behaviourism provide at best hints of why we should not expect nomological connections between the mental and the physical. The central case invites further consideration

- Davidson, 2003, p. 217, 'Essays on Actions and Events'. — Donald Davidson

EDITTED

Maybe this is a very particular connection that is tangental to the discussion. I think it is an important considered though.

The exact same point can be argued for Venus as Evening and Morning star. The Planet remains the same physically, other than relative daytime positioning, but the appreciation and importance of this difference gives them distinct identities that transcend the mere nomological description.

This is exactly where Davidson's regard for mental causation breaks down. He even admits himself that there is a discrepency between the phenomenal-description-of and the nomological-description-of.