Everything Best answer on the web

Knowing is very different from understanding, which makes knowing you understand this tricker then you know. Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not already understand?

pafalafa, I did not know I needed a refund. Although, in this world where knowledge is concidered so valuable that doctors get to burry their mistakes because of the valuable education they have, I guess, I am not surprised to have to pay for knowledge that is of no use to me. As I said eailer, if you feel you have answered the question then take the money. Money is really worthless to me. If I had a choice between a loof of bread and 100.00$ I would take the bread, money is only paper.(Please note, I did not give any circumstances under which this choice was made, so no argument please, just try to understand me.) That is why I put such a price on this question , so take it if you like. But what you could do to maybe satisfy us both is this: I have given the answer I was looking for and through discussion we have come, it would seem, to an understanding. I will place a new clairifaction of my statement and you, in your own words share your understanding and thoughts on all this and I will give them my rating, if that is fair with you. And I appologize if I offended you, although you seem not which is good. Sorry to give you the impression I know your world view, I most certianly do not, but would be most interested in it. My clarification is this, " Explain to me why it is that you cannot explain to me anything that I am not already able to understand. "

I often wandered when I am on vacation why some people spend an inordinate amount of time in Internet cafe's. Now I know. It is Google Researchers attempting to answer airspace-ga questions! Mongolia

I must say, I find a rather amusing use of a simple rhetorical device that I cannot recall the name of at this moment. Maybe "Catachresis" ? I have seen this many times before by people who are obviously intelligent but ultimately lack the logical construct to formulate their argument fully. If you do understand part of the answer to this question, you must also understand that you are using the words "understand" and "know" in ways that must be explicitly defined to us before we can give you an educated answer, assuming they are not dictionary definitions. If you do not define them in a more precise manner, you MAY be simply hiding behind them without more consideration, even in your own thoughts on the subject.

As Airspace is a new found friend of mine, I hope he is not upset by my answer. The only final answer to these philosophical type questions is ...Forget our wants and needs and look to the one who really controls our lives. Matthew 18;3. " Truly I say to you, Unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens" . Therefore, whoever will HUMBLE himself like this young child is the one that is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens", When that great day arrives, it will not matter whether we are a common unschooled labourer or a rocket scientist. What will matter is our attitude towards God. and what matters now is our willingness to humbly listen and learn. Just like first graders sitting in a circle on their first day of school.

Well paf please excuse my late rating, I thought I missed the chance to rate your answer when the question closed. At the time I was thinking of what I was going to say. This has certainly been a lesson in understanding in understandings typical ironic way. The only thing I would like to comment on now is how even two, seemingly hated combatants, get a warm feeling if they come to an understanding.
Take care of you,
airspace

Hello airspace-ga.

Thanks for your patience. I'm back from a lovely vacation, and like they say, tanned, rested and ready to tackle whatever needs doing, including your question, of course.
But first, I feel compelled to ask a question of you. Do you want a refund? If so, I'd be glad to arrange it. Your various comments make it sound as if you're unhappy not only with what I've posted thus far, but quite possibly my whole world-view as well.
Mind you, I'm not backing out. If you want to continue our dialogue, I'm happy to do so.
I just wanted to make sure you were aware that a refund is an option.

Let me know what you think.

paf

Hello airspace-ga,

As a fellow seeker of both knowledge and understanding, and perhaps even a smidgen of wisdom, I trust that you are aware of the compelling power of falsification as a fundamental tool for accumulating knowledge.
Demonstrate a statement as false, and one learns a lot, and amasses some truth in the process.
A statement like: "It cannot get colder than zero degrees Farenheit, since zero is the smallest number" is demonstrably false, and through falsification, we can reject it as a viable hypothesis.
Your hypotehsis -- the thing you assert as would-be fact -- it this: "...you can not tell me anything that I do not already understand?"
Allow me to falsify this assertion:

==========

Finis hominis, quem alium possumus statuere quam Deum ipsum exclamat Vives repente abreptus illo oratorio impetu quo abripi solet, etiam tum cum dialectico more argumentatur.
==========

With the above quotation, I have falsified your premise. That is, I have told you something that you do not already understand.

Of course, you could learn to understand it. I'd be glad to point you to the source of the original quote, if that would be of interest.
But at the moment, I am confident that you do not understand the above the quote as I have told it to you, and that your premise has been demonstrably falsified.

Now...you may wish to take exception to this approach, and perhaps even falsify my own attempt at falsification.
If so, please feel free to post a Request for Clarificaton to state your case, and I'll be happy to respond as best I know how.
Peace.

pafalfa-ga

airspace-ga,

Some thoughts and reactions...

>>Now the fact that they have a nerves system and react to their environment shows that they have enough understanding for the involuntary responces needed to survive...

True, but only up to a point. The fact is, a whole lot of bugs (a whole lot of other organisms) don't survive. They get extinguished as individuals, as populations and as entire species -- which we call extinction. So having involuntary responses is no assurance of survival. And survival is no assurance of the presence of a nervous system. Plants survive very nicely, without much going on in the way of consciousness, understanding, or any other sort of cognitive function.

>>all belief is that there is one power, one thought, one understanding, one knowing, one belief, one existance, one concious, one complete everything.
I rather agree, but I don't think everyone does. There are still polytheists floating around who believe in a multitude of divine powers. And there are others who believe in a sort of world-as-it-is sort of take on things, without any grand unifying principle/being/energy/consciousness pervading everything in existence.

>>We think in pictures.

I'll take this as broadly meant, and something I can agree with as well, but I must say, my own capacity for mental visualization is pretty poor, and I wish I could "think in pictures" on a more regular basis.

>>So then what is our consious if it is not our understanding of our preception of the choices presented to our minds eye?
Very nicely put.

>>So what makes us diferent from the animals in our ability to choose? We have a clearer understanding of the physical existance we share and there for are presented more choices...The big difference between us and the animals, the thing that makes man unique, and the thing that makes him responsible for his soul, is that we can present our own choices to our minds eye.

Yes, I agree here as well, at least to the extent that I understand what you're getting at.

>>With this abilty also comes an awarness. We refer to it as enlightenment. It is what keeps man from doing right from wrong.

Hmmm. There's certainly one type of enlightenment that does present an individual with a deeper understanding of right and wrong. But I also think their are forms of enlightenment that, in their way, sidestep of transcend the whole question of right and wrong. If a philosophy promotes enlightenment based on a notion that we are meaningless specks in the universe should free ourselves of all desire, then one thing that can dissipate in the process is the notion that there IS such a thing as right or wrong.

>>Now lets not forget that this clearer understanding might be about what you want not what is good and right, and there may be a very thin line between the two, but to try to say choice is not there, then you are lieing to yourself from what I can see.

No, choice is there. I feel that strongly in the core of my being. And it seems, you do as well.

>>Take care of you

Thanks...you too.

paf

amitkuls, Your point is well taken, and I could not agree more. But I most add that understanding is much more them analysed knowledge, your similes are correct but not comparative. Is not observing the process by which we understand the knowledge we see? Is not listing the process by which we understand the knowledge that we hear? Please show me that you have read this by posting another comment and tell me what you think by .

I take it you mean like the pile of fluff you sent me to read? Now I understand why you need clarifiation, you don't understand understanding. You at least understand, "I know nothing by way of everything I know can change tomorrow." I am sure you also understand that a intelligent person does not ask a question they do not have some semblance of an answer to. So I again have presented 2 questions I have some semblance of answers to. You want my money by giving me long in depth accounts of someone elses understanding for an answer. sorry don't need it or want it. The answer is not long, show me you understand by using your own words and I will pay. If you are asking for clarification of this question then I beleive you cannot now answer it. Hopefully you will soon be able to. By the way, there is an answer to my other question.
This is the only clarification I can give for this question. "Anyone of us can ask this question to anyone of us." The answer should always be the same.

Hello Airspace-ga,

Please let me try to contribute with my two cents with your interesting topic.

Since you distrust the scientific method, I will not try to falsify your statement ?what, by the way, has already been done by pafalafa-ga, and impeccably, for those who would accept that approach.
In a different way, and with the intention of sharing with you my personal viewpoint to contribute to your understanding, I'll simply tell you that, IMHO, your statement is just hard to believe.
Life --which includes but is not limited to education-- has taught me that understanding is built through experience, thus the former doesn't precede the latter.
Let's take a child; she'll understand her mother language as a result of her experience with it. She already had the capacity to build understanding, but not the understanding itself.
This explains why a, say, seven years old girl who clearly understands the statement "you're a pretty little girl" in her mother language, will not understand the same phrase in a language she has never dealt with. Experience builds the structure of learning, and for any normal person with enough life experience, by the end of the adolescence that structure has become so strong that he or she may come to believe that is able to understand anything, but I'm afraid that that's just an illusion.
As an example, I remember that when I started to learn Latin, I believed that I would understand it all just because my mother language --Spanish-- has Latin roots. That belief obviously failed: my learning structure was not enough; it was a good foundation... to construct further learning structures on it, thus being able to understand that other language. If now I wanted to understand astrophysics phenomena, I would lack of a preexisting understanding: I'll need to build new structures.
Education doesn't give people all they need for understanding, but it does help them to understand that the mysteries out there are far beyond any previous understanding, so as far as we want to deepen it, we'll have to build further learning capacities.
Despite it is on the opposite side of your beliefs, I offer this reasoning to you with my best intention, in order to contribute with your search for understanding. I hope this helps.
Sincerely,

Guillermo

guillermo, your praise is well deserved. Please if you would, tell me what you think of this. I difinetly seek understanding, it is why I'm here, but is not seeking understanding also sharing understanding? And is it not what we should all be devotedly seeking? Would you agree that it is what Jesus was, and what he sought, and what he wished to bring? Please, from your heart, what do you think?

Hi paf, how is ya,

So to prove the existance of a bug God eh, now there is a challange hehe. I will point out though, that you really did not address the question of selfpreservation as a form of understanding, you only present a lack understanding of why bugs will do things to end their own life. You have also made it clear that you understand this is involuntary action, as well as you have shown that you understand humans have the ability to show less understanding of selfpreservation then bugs. But I will try to help you understand the bug God anyway.
Yes bugs it would seem have little if any choice. They seem to operate only on involuntary responses. Now the fact that they have a nerves system and react to their environment shows that they have enough understanding for the involuntary responces needed to survive. In displaying no choice they show lack of concious not lack of understanding.
Now we humans also have involuntary functions of our nerves systems. we will pull away from an open flame instantly, but we have enough understanding of our environment to choose to burn ourselves. This would display conciousness in the form of choice.
Now not to go religious on you, but basicly all belief is that there is one power, one thought, one understanding, one knowing, one belief, one existance, one concious, one complete everything. Even a true belief in nothing is a complete nothing and therefor is everything. So what is everything? Energy is the one thing that is everything I can see and is everything I can't see. Energy is the one thing that is everything.
Back to us and the bugs. Now we very much exist in the real world with the bugs. So what is responsible for our existance in the real world can eaisly be assimilated to involuntary bodly functions. With out the involuntary actions of our hearts, our lungs, etc. we would die. Even without our instinct of selfpreservation we would walk off a cliff. Now if you understand what is responsible for our involuntary actions, then you can see with what I have presented here so far, that what is responsible for my physical existance can also be responsible for the bug existance.
Now our mental existance. We think in pictures. Our concious, our soul, our minds, our thoughts. All I am I my consious existance is thought. My mental existince is a constant bombardment of choice in the form of pictures presented to my minds eye. We really do not no for sure where the concious is. I feel like I think in my head, and we know thought is real but we don't know what it is other then energy.
"I feel like I think in my head." The brain runs everything that is my physical existance. It send the required signals to the verious parts of our bodies nessessary for our survival. This is a function that, like the bug, does not reqiure any apparent choice, so the need of a concious is not nessessary for life it would seem. So then what is our consious if it is not our understanding of our preception of the choices presented to our minds eye? Now higher forms of animals definitly show signs of choice, even if is limited in comparision to us. Well choice shows some signs of concious so maybe all animals do have concious. Not for me to say. Now I am not saying we are the same as the anmals, it would just appear that we operate the same. The difference is in our choices. If our complete existance is in the form of pictures in our minds eye then this is where our choices are. So what makes us diferent from the animals in our ability to choose? We have a clearer understanding of the physical existance we share and there for are presented more choices. But still this does not explain our concious choices. The big difference between us and the animals, the thing that makes man unique, and the thing that makes him responsible for his soul, is that we can present our own choices to our minds eye. Oh paf, stop me when I tell you something you don't already have the ability to understand would ya.
So here is mans existance. We have the ability to construct thought base on our understanding of what we preceive in the phycical and mental world. So we can form a picture of what we want. Now life is choice and belief. Why man seems to have so much free will is because this gives him unlimited choice in his ability to ask for understanding. You see we form pictures based on knowledge and understanding of what we want in our minds eye. We receive ideas on how to realize our wants in the form of pictures in responce to our wants, which is understanding. The more focused you become(the clearer the picture in you head) and the more you grow to understand your want, and the closer it is to becoming realized in the real world.
So life is belief and choice, and the more you believe in your choices the more real they become. This does not come without a price. I will say God gives us our choices. We have increable freedom of choice, unlimited is my guess, and God will give us what we want, if we want it bad enough to understand it and then believe it. With this abilty also comes an awarness. We refer to it as enlightenment. It is what keeps man from doing right from wrong. I will refer to it as Gods will, and it is always good and right, but rarely followed. As I said eailer, there is a constant flow of images to our minds eye, we could not stop it no matter what we do. In the images are the understandings of what we want, but also there are the images of what would be Gods will(what is good and right). The stronger the focuse and clearer the picture of what you want, the less you see Gods will.
So you see, the way I see it is everything is everything and that includes everything. This means there is only one everything and everything has it's understanding. Mans most wonderful gift is understanding. You can ask for any understanding and it will be given you. Also with this gift comes choice. This does not mean we get to choose, this means the choice is up to us. Every little insignificant choice is entierly ours to make for our selves. We are most definetly influenced by how we feel about what we understand. The choices we make are directly related to how we feel and we get to choose weather or not to act upon one feel or another. We quite often put off making a decision because we are not sure how we feel about it and then make the decision after clearer understanding comes to us and we feel better about it. Now lets not forget that this clearer understanding might be about what you want not what is good and right, and there may be a very thin line between the two, but to try to say choice is not there, then you are lieing to yourself from what I can see.
Well paf I guess I have said understanding is complete within you, which I have tried to explain here. Tell me what you think.
Take care of you,
Airspace

oh sorry made a small mistake, forgive me please, "Explain to me why it is that you can not explain to me anyting I do not already understand."

Hi pug, how are you. Please excuse my approuch, it does not display my true intent. My intent is understanding, and I am not having much luck. I can see that I am being difficult but this is important to me. Lack of understanding is where all our problems and differences and arguments come from. I would be so happy to pay someone to show me understanding instead of showing that they are correct. I again agree with everything you have stated here pug. This is just type, if I were to meet pafalafa-ga in person I would hope to greet him as a friend and equal, and I feel confident they would feel that from me.

Airspace,

I just want to thank you for your praise, and tell you that I'm glad that this thread finally helped you get a bit of the understanding you so devotedly search.
Best,

Guillermo

Dear Airspace,

I'll briefly clarify a few points and then excuse myself from continuing commenting in this thread since it seems that, in search for understanding, we've ended to build a real mess... Very human by the way!
You're right about that I didn't completely understand you until you posted your last comment. However, I almost did it when I said that our viewpoints would get closer by "reformulating again your question to: 'tell me why it is that you can not explain to me anything that I am not already able to understand?'", as opposed to "anything that I do not already understand". That is very close to "...we already all have complete understanding within us..." as opposed to the "assumption that I am saying I already understand when I have said I already have complete understanding within me". So please notice that I did take your thoughts into account and in good faith used my understanding to correctly interpret them.
Now, the complete context of my quotation from your comment goes like this: "To presume that I am saying that I already understand simply because I say we already all have complete understanding within us is again to minipulate my intentions to serve your end, not understanding, and this is childish. It is your rediculus assumption that I am saying I already understand when I have said I already have complete understanding within me. you see I grow tired of this lack of understanding."
Please be reassured that I had no assumption at all, since it was you who wrote "anything that I do not already understand" (instead of "anything I already have complete understanding for"), and by no means I ever thought or suggested that it was childish, ridiculous or manipulative.
Now that through several posts you have clarified your point (i.e.: "tell" meaning "explain", and "I already understand" meaning "I already have understanding"), it comes to light that all of the attempts that some of us did to match your needs, would inevitably go wrong, misled by a slight imprecision in the original wording. Maybe you should have considered Pinkfreud's invitation to clarify in the beginning ;-) ... on the other hand, had you done so, we would have missed the debate!
Well, as it's now clearly understandable for anyone, I had indeed taken your thoughts into consideration, and had actually understood you. Still, there was something I had been misunderstanding until your last post: since this service is meant to help people who ask for answers ?be it given as a formal answer or as a comment-, all the time I was addressing you with the intention to explain to you what I figured you wanted to be explained. Had we met in a forum meant for debate instead of in a service for information research, I would have not been so "didactic" ;-).
As to research, well, that has nothing to do with this issue once you have finally made it clear. Still, I want to tell you that, while not completely, I do agree a big deal with your thoughts on it ?e.g.: we definitely don't *need* new smaller cell phones and smarter weapons, IMHO.
While it's been stimulating so far, and taking for granted that further comments from you or other users would be most interesting, I'm afraid this is when I say good by, since I'm supposed to invest my time in researching. This has been most enlightening. Thank you.
Best regards,

Guillermo

Hello Airspace,
I expect that you have been around here long enough to understand that quite a few of us don't "understand" the tenor of your clarification as it is directed towards Pinkfreud-ga.
Your question again:
"Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not
already understand?"

Maybe I cannot tell YOU anything that you do not already understand, but I know that many people can tell ME a lot of things that I do not understand - and then I still do not understand them.
Although this is a highly philosphical question, that is, one that can be discussed - if not answered - without reference to religious concepts, from your other postings, it seems that perhaps you are seeking such.
Proverbs 16:22 Understanding a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools folly.
Myoarin

paf, I thank you so much for your comments, they have given me all sorts of direction to concider, and I have come up with some thoughts I am sure you will find interesting, I know I did. First I would like you to know that you have more then earned the fee I placed on this question. This question was about understanding and although it did not take the expected path, like I had one hehe, it has most definitly been an adventure in understanding. As you have shown much understanding I would like to give you a rating but would like to continue our disscuion a little further. Tell me, do I need to rate you before the question expires for you to get paid if our discussion is still going? You have raised a very interesting point with bugs. Yes they are certainly, it would seem, incapable of even simple learning. Now this also relates to us and the animals as well, something I have not been able to even come close to a satisfactory understanding of how they fit in with everything, in relation to me. Your comments have been the cataylist for some more direct thinking on the subject. Bugs, they seem incapable of learning in the conventional sence of what this means to man, but are they without understanding? Well a bug will run away from open flame, an ant will stop when it sences vibration and go again when it feels it again, and a fly will move out of the way as you try to swat it. All this shows understanding of selfpreservation, even without consiousness. If the bug did not have an understanding of the danger it would not move. Now this also shows the complete lack of a need for knowledge in have understanding, the bug certianly can not do the math involved in explaining the physics of a fly swatter comming at it, but it understands to get out of the way. Tell me what you think, I have enjoyed thinking of this responce and look forward to what you have to say. I thank you for your patience, and the charter you have shown.
Take care of you,
airspace

Well, from my casual reading of this Q&A, it seems to me that *if* the question is:

Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not
already understand?

Then the most obvious, although not necessarily correct, answer is that you have asked the wrong question. Yours is predicated on the idea that you already understand everything I can tell you, which, unless you're omniscient or the basic tenets of reality are not what I think they are, is obviously but not apparently false. So in this regard I agree with PF.
But more telling perhaps is your first clarification in the above question area. Call me crazy, but after reading your original question and your murky clarification, I firmly believe that you're just being didactic by asking what you say is a rhetorical question. This is in sharp contrast to your claim just to be seeking knowledge, although of course you may have changed your mind after some of this correspondence with PF.
Clearly, this annoys me and I don't have the same patience as PF, indulging what appears to me to be an empty college freshman philosophy 101 throwaway question. Ironically, I am perfectly willing to waste my time *making* this comment as well, so I may well be as didactic as you, lol.
But it's your money, my comment isnt' even worth us$0.02 haha.

First off I would like to say I difinetly am being didactic, and if you haven't noticed not getting any where. And I'm not the only one being didactic but what I would like you to observe is that I am one of the few who is trying to explain what I understand not tell you what I know. I thank both myoarin and guillermo for their comments. I would also like to make a special thanks to guillermo for pointing that I use logic well. I also have much common sence, and am extreamly observent. I am going to use these talents to hopefully show the both of you where you are lacking in your understanding, something you try to do for me instead of trying to understand me. Niether of you make any comments regarding what you think of my thoughts, you just agree to have the same incomplete understanding of things that maybe you should not be commenting on but instead should be considering. For example did not either of you notice that I clarified the word tell 8 days before guillermo's first comments, so what have you been talking about there. Now secound your understanding of belief is so simple it is truly sad. The only thing I will mention that could be preceived as religious is this, "Belief is why Jesus could not run away from himself and was nailed to a cross. Faith is what nailed him to it." What you to have decided is belief is in deed part of belief but not belief, it is faith. myoarin you even guoted the dictionary in an attempt to prove your correctness. Well I looked in my own Webester's dictionary and Could not find a similar meaning directly under belief, although I did find a similar meaning under one of it's synonyms, faith. Now in my Webester's dictionary, directly under belief, I found this as the third meaning. "Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenom esp.when based on examination of evidence". So belief is indeed knowledge and understanding. Actually, everything is belief. Your belief in your cup to hold water is based on your knowledge and understanding. Faith is the strength of your belief. Faith is unsubstantiated belief, belief in nothing. So alittle belief is far more powerful then any amount of faith. All the faith I can through at you, the faith of 10,000 men is not going to convince you I can pour water through your cup. Your knowledge and understand, your belief will not alow faith alone to change anything for real. Hopefully this has gave you and understanding of belief beyond some German's understanding of faith. Now all I am going to say about your lack of understanding of education is that you don't seem to understand that the goal of the learning process is understanding and that teaching is simply providing for the attainment of understanding. Understanding Is not something you can give or make anyone come to. To presume that I am saying that I already understand simply because I say we already all have complete understanding within us is again to minipulate my intentions to serve your end, not understanding, and this is childish. It is your rediculus assumption that I am saying I already understand when I have said I already have complete understanding within me. you see I grow tired of this lack of understanding. You see I have already stated that without mans knowledge my understand would be nothing so stop trying to teach me and start trying to understand with me. After all you can't even see where the use of genisus is actually proving me correct. Yes with out long deep internal reflection on things then they would not have understood and have been able to explain things to help us understand. Oh my gosh, is that not what you said and what I said. Tell me why you show no consideration of my thoughts, are they too dificult for you to understand, One more thing, you realy don't want my view point on the complete and utter waist of government and private funds for the purpose of better serving the wants of man. You might want to consider this, Marijuanais still by far the most effective pain inhibitor know to man. Completely nonphysically additive and has never killed anyone. Might hurt you pressious economy though. You people should really wake up to what you are saying. Yes we should diffinetly be spending massive amounts of money on research, after all we all need a new smaller cell phone and smarter weapons, and oh yes, the 400 treatments to combat the 7000 deseases and ailments. Research, horse cha cha, just another industery we seem to think we need to keep alive, WHAT A JOKE. By the way, before anyone decides to make a comment about this please concider that there are only 3 necessities in life and we ain't doing no reserach to improve these for everone, are we.

airspace-ga,

I wonder if you can call a bug's built in self-preservation behaviors a form of understanding?
Yes, bugs can do all sorts of things to keep themselves alive and reproducing -- find food, avoid dangers, navigate the world, seek out mates.
But consider the affinity of some bugs, like moths, to bright lights. No one seems quite sure what the attraction is, though some speculate that moths are 'attracted' in a way to the moon, for use as a navagational aid, and they confuse other bright lights for the moon.
And they confuse, and confuse and confuse! And even when the other bright lights are deadly bug-zappers, or even an open flame (hence the phrase, 'like a moth to the flame') they still fly right for the light, and often perish in the process.
Humans would learn from this, eventually making a mental equation of bright light = possible danger. We'd even get subtle about it, distinguishing benign bright lights from those that are dangerous (...is that a light at the end of the tunnel, or a train heading right for us?)
The moths just don't seem to get it, though! They see the bug zapper, they fly into it.
So...do the moths really have a complete lack of a need for knowledge to have understanding, as you speculate?
ZZZZAAAP! There goes another one. If there is a supreme being of moths, it might be considering imparting some knowledge to its brethren right about now.
But then again, we oh-so-smart humans can be pretty mindlessly self-destructive as well.
So...your turn now. What do you think of all this?

paf

P.S. Don't worry about this question expiring...it's already been answered, I've received the fee for answer it, and the exiration date is no longer a consideration. Feel free to add a rating or comment about the answer if you wish -- it will not affect our ability to continue with our conversation.

Hello again,

Sorry to hear that my last round of clarification wasn't to your liking. I'll elaborate a bit more (and in a different direction) when I'm back from vacation, so please be patient for another week and a few days. (At the moment I'm in an internet cafe off the beach, and it's just not conducive to the type of thoughtful feedback I'd like to get you).
So...stay tuned, and I'll get back to you soon.

paf

That wasn't just two cents' worth, Guillermo.

Airspace,
One of the problems here is that readers have to take words literally; you wrote "tell", now apparently meaning "explain", which is fair enough, and in a face to face conversation would have immediately been clarified, but here, thanks to Guillermo's comment and your reply, this has taken a while - maybe even for you to recognize the better choice of word.
So: "Tell me why it is that you can not tell me anything that I do not already understand?"
Isn't that just what learning and education do: explain things that are till then not understood? Of course, the learning process is built on little steps of understanding: first language, then the necessary understanding of simpler matters before more complicated ones can explain interrelationships and cause and effect.
You bring belief into this: "Well believe is knowledge and understanding ..."

This is not true, to the contrary: belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptilble to rigorous proof" (Webster's). As a German saying puts it: "Believing means not knowing."

I think we have to leave "belief" and "believing" out of this if we don't want to get into a religious discussion. But if you do, then that makes a discussion of your question on a philosphical basis rather impossible.
didactic: intended for instruction; inclined to teach or lecture others too much (Also Webster's).
Myoarin

Because you are tuned into the universal intelligence that is available to us all.

guillermo-ga, I have read your comments and thank you, they have been food for thought. Time to eat. First I would like to say that I did not indicate that I do not trust the scientific method, I understand it for what it is. I have stated time and again that I know nothing because everything I know can change tomorrow. Now this applies to science does it not. By the way, I do not see any resistance to this. So I will only offer one word to sum up science, PHOTOSYNTHESIS. Now you said you agree that paf did indeed falsify my statment. And to show you I understand I will also agree, he did falsify my statement if you choose to only consider the word tell as it pretains to speeking. Even paf claimed not to understand the meaning of his statement. So, would you not agree that to explain is also one of the meanings of the word tell? Now paf cannot even explain his own statement to me so I would think that he did not tell me something I do not already understand. Now if you can not see the trickery in this attempt to answer this question, weather intended or not, then you are choosing to fool yourself. I would like to take this time to point out somethings. First if you review my statements I have agreed with most everything anyone has said, I have spook from my heart with my own honest thoughts, and I believe I have stayed consistant. My maine focuse has remained understanding. Here again you have tried to give me your understanding, Which I have continually showed you I share, and yet I see very little in attempts to share my understanding. Even here you, guillermo-ga, have said you find my statement hard to believe. Well believe is knowledge and understanding so you are telling me you do not fully understand my statment. Now if you alow yourself to consider the very real possiblity of my statement, with a free and open mind, understanding will come which will then be followed by belief. All I have to say about your wows with Latin is if you are not still trying then you choose not to be able. Now the senario you painted of the little girl, I would like to expand on it, which is my wont. Doing this Wihtin your own mind brings understanding by the way. So the little girl,7, knows when she is told she is pretty, and cannot understand this in a language she dose not recognize, correct. Well I understand and agree. But let us consider this. The mother, undoughtably, accompanies this statement with emotion, expression, and maybe even a jesture such as lightly grabing her daughter's chin. Now the child understands all this to mean she is pretty. Now if the mother does everything the same and changes the language she uses only, her daughter will understand that she is pretty all the same, and she will also understand that she did not comprehend the words. Now if a stranger does very similar jestures to her mother and address the little girl in a unrecognized language the little girl will still have some understanding of the message and will understand that she does not understand the statement. Now if the statement is made with no jestures in a unrecognized language then the whole message is lost but the child still understands that communitation was made. One more thing, elijstar-ga, Could you explain the word didactic to me, obvious a simple word I just see no need of waisting my thoughts on , but am courious. This would not be to much to ask of your simple mind I hope, or weight on your frazzled attention span. grillermo, I thank you again for you involvement and hope this gives you more to consider. Please respond, I will give it my attention.

You have placed a handsome price on this question. I'm sure there are Researchers who will be glad to take your money and offer you a pile of fluff in return, but if you'd like a good, thoughtful answer that is appropriate to your needs, it would be helpful if we had a clearer idea of what you're seeking here. Are you looking for theories on the origins and/or meaning of knowledge?

Congratulations Paf!

guillermo you are truly a blessed individual. You have my most gacious praise, as you have shown true patience, caring, and of course, understanding, in putting up with me. You have my most humble appology also, as I truly must addmitt I totaly missed your, quite correct, clairfaction of my understanding in your previous posting. You are so right in everything you have said in this posting, even down to the start when I did in deed not respond correctly to pinkfreuds request for clarifition. I would like to thank you for giving me understanding and would like to use this to expand on what you have introduced. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time I am given A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF SOMETHING I UNDERSTAND BETTER THEN MOST. You see, where I gained understanding is in the in complete presentation of my understanding, which translates into a deeper understanding, because the better you can explain yourself for others to understanding you, the more complete is your understanding. One other thing I would like to point out is this; even when we think we are trying to seek out understanding, it is amazing how we unknowingly resist it, as I have more then demonstrated here, I hope, with my addmittance of my own missunderstanding. I hope I have shown you how true to understanding I am, it is truly mans biggest challange. guillermo, you are also correct about your job as a resercher. Maybe these guestions should not have a place here? let me tell you a story. When I first came here as a visitor to google answers it grabed my attention with the first question I found, "why do changes in our preception occure?" When reading the answer given I noticed in the first line of the second paragraph the word "know". Well not that this would normally be a problem except for the way it was used. This made me laugh and read on through the lengthy bable that was presented, which was interesting but not even close to an answer, as I expected from the use of the word "know". The Avatar master had writen this I believe," any Avatar master knows". Well I laughed because I know that if any avatar master knows anything, then he understands that he knows that he knows nothing and would have said," any Avatar master understands". So here was this clown answering questions he should not be. Now in all honesty there are a very limited amount of questions here that intrest me. The real questions in life are like thoughs I have placed here and the answers are only levels of undrestanding. We all have knowledge, which with understanding, forms belief. Our faith is confused with our will for our knowledge to be right, instead of having faith in our ability to understand from within. This world will get no where untill we all stop trying to be right and start trying to understand. I placed these questions for the purpose of showing exactly what you said, These questions shouldn't be asked here,so why can I ask them, money? I think it is time to go straighten things up with pafalafa. Thank you again, this has been enlightening.

Some of this material may be of interest to you:

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=516220

To me the answer is the question ...
Mary Baker Eddy makes it clear
She said all is Mind and Minds infinet manifistations... If that is true and all is Mind then we are part of that mind and all knowing like our infinet source... If mind is all then there is no intelegence apart form that Mind. We need only to get in touch with our source who is all knowing ! We reflect that one Intelligence and there for knowing is no more than reflecting MIND and there is no one else but the one all knowing Mind. Seattle Jack

hi pafalafa-ga,

So you wish question clairfication. Well I am glad to see you seek understanding, hopefully what I write will help you becom a little wiser. If you are truly seeking understanding then you would understand already the concept presented in the previous clarification," I know nothing." So to try to prove something wrong by saying it is false would be to presume you know the truth. That won't work in this case, sorry. You are right in all that you said, and I do not understand your statement as you presented it. Could you rephrase it so I might better comprehend it and I can show you that I already understand it. To try to answer this question this way is child's play, and I will not be so eaisly tricked. But since you see this as a trick question instead of the real question it is, I will give you a trick responce. "I did not ask you to give me understanding."

Guillermo, please understand did not mean in anyway to introduce religion into this discussion. For me Jesus can be just a man and still have done the same things. So the question I last asked of you pertains to how you understand this man, the same as I would of your understanding of any man. I am just trying to see if anyone can see how the topic at hand, and this Great man from our history, are so closely linked and so missunderstood.

>>Explain to me why it is that you cannot explain to me anything that I am not already able to understand...<<

All right, airspace-ga...I'm ready to take another crack at this.

I'm not sure if humans come into this world with any sort of understanding or knowledge. But it seems clear that we certainly come in with the capacity for understanding and knowledge.
I can spend years explaining to a cockroach how to tie a shoelace, ride a bike, read a book or dance the Macarena, but to no avail...the bug just doesn't have the capacity to learn these things. But I can teach all these things to my sons, and they'll get them, in due course. And as their simple skills grow, so will their deeper understanding of their inner selves, as well as their place in the world around them.
So, there's some huge, important, wonderful difference between bugs and boys. But what is it? Might the difference be that my sons already have understanding built in to their beings? An understanding that cockroaches do not and cannot have?
Is it this understanding that makes us human? That gives us a soul? (Or perhaps just the opposite -- it's our soul, and our humanity that gives us our understanding).
Perhaps this difference between people and bugs is the essence of your question, though I'd be inclined to recast it along a more positive line: Explain how it is that anything that can be explained to you, is something that you already understand?
I don't claim to know the answer to this, but I suspect it has something to do with the difference between bugs and people. Humans can have things explained to them -- and take on new knowledge in the process -- because at some level they are already familiar with that which is being explained. Bugs don't have this familiarity at all, and explanations (of anything) are irrelevant to their existence.
Let me pause here, so I can get some feedback from you. What do you think of this so far?
I'm perfectly willing to continue this as an extended dialogue, if I'm off in a direction that is of interest to you. So let me know what you think, and then we'll see what the next step is.

paf

airspace-ga,

Thanks for the kind words (and the stars, too, of course).

Hope we'll have a chance to work together on another question of yours one of these days.
paf

Thank you both Airspace and Myorin for your reception to my comment. I agree with Myorin on the concept of "belief", which requires neither knowledge nor understanding to accept something as true.
Airspace, through your comments you've shown that you manage logics, acquisition that any normal person would complete by the end of their adolescence if properly stimulated through life ?regardless whether having had a scholarly education or not. (Education is intended to add method to enhance that capability and contents to make it produce knowledge, and also to help those who have some sort of blockage to develop it by themselves, but the construction of logical thinking is an innate human ability that begins from the very first day ?note that I'm not talking about logics as the scholarly discipline, which is a whole object of knowledge and research by itself).
Well, if you are talking about that ability, the management of logics, when you say (using Myorin's rephrasing) "tell me why it is that you can not explain to me anything that I do not already understand?", then our viewpoints are getting closer. I mean, reformulating again your question to: "tell me why it is that you can not explain to me anything that I am not already able to understand?", then I would answer: "because you manage logics".
Still, there's a difference between the ability of understanding and the understanding itself. Everyone has a range of logical complexity that they can manage with a relative immediacy, and that also differs for different fields of knowledge. For example, I can handle a complex text with almost no thinking delay, but for a math problem, please give me paper, pencil, calculator, even a book and I can't guarantee that I'll make it ;-) And for others is just the opposite.
When in your experience you've mostly come across with subjects which fall within your range of immediate understanding ?either because you have a very high IQ, or because you've always dealt with rather simple issues- you may come to believe that you really understood them in advance. Actually, the case is not that, but that you figured it so fast and easily that it seems you had already understood it. Sometimes very well written essays or very good teachers get that effect for complex things. But every time that you need some time to figure it out, you'll see that you did not understand it in advance.
Geniuses like Newton, Plank, Einstein, Hawkins, are not so because they understood things in advance, but because they worked hard to understand things that were difficult even for them, and succeeded. And later, with a lot of effort, made others much smarter than you and me understand them as well. Now the laws of Newton may be understood with relative ease by most high-school students, but that's because that understanding has been spreading in our culture for centuries.
But even the understanding achieved by geniuses like them sometimes proves to be mistaken, by further research, and new understanding replaces the previous. Think of it, if understanding preceded the work to understand, e.g. the explanation, research would have no reason to exist, and you know that governments, companies and other institutions invest billions in research.
What is research other than the intent to understand what no one can explain, because no one has understood it yet?
Another lead to the idea that we don't understand things before they're explained to us ?or observed and interpreted by us- is the existence of misunderstanding, what is literally something observed by or explained to us that we understood in a wrong way. If we understood things in advance, that would never happen, and this is not the case.
Regards,

Guillermo

I am sorry for my eailer comments, you see I don't even have my high school education, so I don't go for this joke political correctness of pointing out the little errors of others to judge myself better. When faced with such behaviour I just get direct. It frustrates me by the way, not insults me. Being insulted is a choice and I guess since my eailer comment was removed I will presume you chose to be insulted. Funny, I was informed my comment was removed because of the use of certian terms. But i would be surprised to have a question removed if i posted it like this,"Please explain to me the orgin of the word moron." so I can't see the reasoning behind removal of my commont other then you chose to be insulted. Which, with the fact that you are judgeing me with spelling to make me appear not as smart as you, shows me you are not as confident as you would like me to think. You see, I didn't go the education rout because it involves to narrow a line of thinking, which you conveniently pointed out for everyone who wishes to understand. First off all you people out there with all this knowledge, it is totaly worthless without understanding, at least I think that makes sence? You see we will look at what pafalafa has do her to show you what I mean. They have pointed out, seemingly some what proudly I might add, that they have a scientific minded, which means the scientific method. One I believe in by the way, just extreamly narrow. You see I could never understand starting with your answer, you are obviously going to miss so much along the way. You see palafala choose to try to answer this question by deciding the statement was false. They spent no time, it would seem,restating or braking the statment down to cover all that it could mean or ask. You see palafla only focuses on the word tell as it pretains to speaking to or informing of. The simplest of its' many meanings. I have restated my question for comprehension purposses, and I believe this shows that you have fell far short of answering this. You have decided to play a little kids' game of "I said something you don't know." Even my statements you have choosen to represent only to serve your end. So, here is what I will do. I will give you what I would except as an answer, explain it as best I can, and since my statement is false as fare as you are concerned, you will have no problem falsifying my answer.
"You can not tell me anything I do not already understand because, we all already have complete understanding within us."
The very first thing I have writen was what you should have most considered. Knowledge and understanding most difinetly work hand in hand, but they are very different. Knowledge is the clue which unlocks understanding from within. Sorry I do not need your knowledge to understand. Sorry that I may have less knowledge and more understanding. I don't seek knowledge, I seek understanding. I do not need complete knowledge to understand do I? It is a sorry thing to see what a little money can do to us. Now I have restated my question so you might better comprehend the answer I wish you to show me you understand. You have again made a arrogant responce as fare as I can tell, so I have given you my answer, prove me wrongh and take your money. By the way, hardhat-ga had the answer right away, I'm not sure they completely understand it, but they are headed in the right direction. You should pay more attention to what the lesser people then you put here. So good luck, and I hope to pay you, or have you understand and agree. Oh, one more thing that might help you,"I understand that I can not comprehend your statement." So you have not told me something I do not understand.

airspace-ga,

Thanks for your response. Please allow me take your comments point by point, as is my wont.

>>So you wish question clairfication<<

No I don't. I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but I was perfectly satisfied with your question as it first appeared. What's more, it seemed clear from your response to pinkfreud-ga that you said all you could say, and didn't want to entertain any further requests for question clarification.

>>Well I am glad to see you seek understanding, hopefully what I write will help you becom a little wiser<<
Most of my GA customers assist me in this respect.

>>If you are truly seeking understanding then you would understand already the concept presented in the previous clarification," I know nothing"<<
Have to disagree with you there. I know many things, and it appears that you do as well. You know how to type. You (sometimes) know how to spell 'clarification'. I do not hold with the 'Matrix' crowd who would have us believe that life is but a dream, and everything we think we know is mere illusion.

>>So to try to prove something wrong by saying it is false would be to presume you know the truth<<
Disagree again. I wouldn't prove something false by simply saying "it is false". Nor would I presume -- at the outset of an investigation -- to know the truth of something. But I think the truth of some things is discoverable, and the falsehood of some things is demonstrable. Perhaps it is my training as a scientist that orients me this way (or perhaps it is my orientation that led me to science).

>>That won't work in this case, sorry.<<

As I said, it doensn't work in any case...but it's not something I would do, or did in answering your question. But your apology is wholeheartedly accepted.

>>You are right in all that you said<<

Thank you.

>>and I do not understand your statement as you presented it<<

Nor do I. It's from a centuries old text, and in a language I do not understand.

>>Could you rephrase it so I might better comprehend it and I can show you that I already understand it. <<

Sorry, no can do, because I don't understand it either. I did not see anything in your question that set a condition that I had to understand the thing being told. If that, indeed, was an implied condition, I still feel confident I could come up with a statement (modern day English, this time) that I understand, but that you would not.

>>To try to answer this question this way is child's play<<

My children don't yet have this capacity, bur perhaps yours do.

>>I will not be so eaisly tricked<<

I don't understand what leads you to conclude that there was an attempt to trick you, so I don't really know how to reply.

>>But since you see this as a trick question instead of the real question it is<<

No I don't. I took it at face value, and interpreted it through my own lens of knowledge, perspective, wisdom, understanding, stupidity, fluff ....whatever you wish to call it. That lens may differ markedly from your own. No tricks, though.

I will give you a trick responce. "I did not ask you to give me understanding."

You did not. But perhaps a bit of understanding sneaked in, just the same.

As always, the answer here isn't complete until you are satisfied with the response. So if there is any more you wish to add -- or wish me to clarify -- just post another round of comments.
However, please be aware that it's vacation week for me starting right about now, so it may be a while yet before I am able to respond to any new comments that you post.

All the best,

paf

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

Pages

Categories

Archives

Meta

Latest Links

Everything Best answer on the web