CaptainHook
[05] Battler
Well to be entirely fair, technically the statement 'I have no true knowledge' cannot itself be true knowledge. So, in other words, there is no way of knowing for sure whether we actually have true knowledge or not. At this point my best guess is no.
I didn't want it to sound as though the word 'knowledge' itself shouldn't be used as a description. When you think of your college history teacher, it's okay to use the word 'knowledge" as a description. But all of his so called 'knowledge' can be reduced to experience and memory. (just to be clear, knowledge and memory are not the same thing)
Think of it this way, when I say the sky is blue, it is just a description, but one that is entirely dependent on the way our eyes and brain operate together. The sky isn't actually blue objectively, but rather it's my brain telling me that it's blue. It's entirely subjective because your brain's version of 'blue' is different from mine slightly.
When someone uses the words knowledge or intelligence, it's merely a description. Knowledge is nothing more than a series of acquired sensory data collectively organized into a cohesive whole. A gazelle knows to run from the lion, but you wouldn't describe the animal as knowledgeable, would you?
Furthermore, we tend to only apply the concept of knowledge to human beings, which is just human bias. I prefer to call it 'processing' instead of knowing, because it exists in a state of constant change, or rather in flux.
I've come to understand the meaning of intelligence as the ability to reason and solve problems, or the ability to form abstract concepts. In order for something to be called 'intelligent' it must be an autonomous being capable of free will and 'outside the box' thinking. But this is exactly the problem. I don't believe that human beings or any life for that matter has free will. We act in accordance with our 'programming' (genetics and experience), we cannot think outside the boundaries of our own sensory perception. This is why it's so difficult for people to understand quantum physics; It defies every common sense notion we have about physical space and how things move. Newton would have been dumbfounded to say the least.
And besides, how do you define true knowledge when it's so flexible with time? What was considered scientific knowledge 100 years ago is now considered pseudo science.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is that the best we can hope for is an interpretation, but not knowledge. Also, we are not intelligent any more than the computer or animal is.
When I see an naked attractive female, I get turned on. That wasn't my free will, but my biological programming. I think the same can be said for all mental processes.
But don't sweat it though, remember I know nothing :) In philosophy we are all equals.
I didn't want it to sound as though the word 'knowledge' itself shouldn't be used as a description. When you think of your college history teacher, it's okay to use the word 'knowledge" as a description. But all of his so called 'knowledge' can be reduced to experience and memory. (just to be clear, knowledge and memory are not the same thing)
Think of it this way, when I say the sky is blue, it is just a description, but one that is entirely dependent on the way our eyes and brain operate together. The sky isn't actually blue objectively, but rather it's my brain telling me that it's blue. It's entirely subjective because your brain's version of 'blue' is different from mine slightly.
When someone uses the words knowledge or intelligence, it's merely a description. Knowledge is nothing more than a series of acquired sensory data collectively organized into a cohesive whole. A gazelle knows to run from the lion, but you wouldn't describe the animal as knowledgeable, would you?
Furthermore, we tend to only apply the concept of knowledge to human beings, which is just human bias. I prefer to call it 'processing' instead of knowing, because it exists in a state of constant change, or rather in flux.
I've come to understand the meaning of intelligence as the ability to reason and solve problems, or the ability to form abstract concepts. In order for something to be called 'intelligent' it must be an autonomous being capable of free will and 'outside the box' thinking. But this is exactly the problem. I don't believe that human beings or any life for that matter has free will. We act in accordance with our 'programming' (genetics and experience), we cannot think outside the boundaries of our own sensory perception. This is why it's so difficult for people to understand quantum physics; It defies every common sense notion we have about physical space and how things move. Newton would have been dumbfounded to say the least.
And besides, how do you define true knowledge when it's so flexible with time? What was considered scientific knowledge 100 years ago is now considered pseudo science.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is that the best we can hope for is an interpretation, but not knowledge. Also, we are not intelligent any more than the computer or animal is.
When I see an naked attractive female, I get turned on. That wasn't my free will, but my biological programming. I think the same can be said for all mental processes.
But don't sweat it though, remember I know nothing :) In philosophy we are all equals.