Knowledge is not accumulative

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

When we increase knowledge through science and research what we are really doing is furnishing our mind - memory with a DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION of information. Now you can measure this as being “more” data or you can measure this information as solving “technical” problems, and this would be appear as progress. But our mind really does not increase its knowledge, it just changes its contents, its configuration, its memories.

This new configuration is not greater than or superior to the older less knowledgable configuration, it is simply different. And by changing the configuration, some knowledge gained is equivalent to the knowledge lost by destroying the previous configuration. Knowledge is not additive, it is a technical device to better solve some practical problems, and even to better understand the universe, but this improvement is not superior to any other mental configuration.

Why are we fascinated by little children ? because they are naive, they are discovering the world, they have a kind of knowledge that we have lost. The whole concept of progress is a false concept. There is no better end, no growth, JUST CHANGE. Is a change better or worse ? some changes are better “technically” but most are aesthetic. These changes are measured against a previous mental configuration and if they produce more pleasure they are considered “progress”.

But knowledge will end in the Technological Singularity. There we will not need to know anything anymore because we will directly manipulate our minds, our pleasure centers, and invent many new minds and emotions and mental configurations. It is then that we will see that knowledge does not mean anything, that progress is a false concept. Progress will end because the modified minds will enter an eternal pleasure loop or something like that where knowledge does not make sense. Will these minds really know more than us ? NO, THEY ARE JUST ANOTHER DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION, even ancient minds knew DIFFERENTLY and therefore more from one point of view and less from another point of view. Every gain in knowledge corresponds to a loss in knowledge of the previous mental configuration.

2

How many bytes of data can the brain - mind contain ? maybe 10 ^ 20 ? well just cycle through all the combinations and you can achieve all the possible knowledge imaginable. Knowledge through brute force, you don’t have to follow the typical process of experimentation, you just directly assign it!

Of course each combination is equivalent to any other, it is how we use the combination and what it allows us to do that makes the difference. There is no metaphysical value of a combination compared to another.

Of course if you take that mind and connect it to a world simulator and cycle through all the possible combinations of LIFETIMES which are minds + signals for each nanosecond of a lifetime of say 200 years, then you get every imaginable experience directly. Then you can cycle through all possible minds imaginable and you get everything conceivable. Then cycle through minds the size of the universe. How many bytes of information can the universe contain ? then cycle through a trillion year lifetimes. Then you can cycle through all possibilities imaginable. It is just a game of brute force combinations on minds, signals, and how the minds are designed…

3

Name: “When we increase knowledge through science and research what we are really doing is furnishing our mind - memory with a DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION of information. Now you can measure this as being “more” data or you can measure this information as solving “technical” problems, and this would be appear as progress. But our mind really does not increase its knowledge, it just changes its contents, its configuration, its memories.”

Have you considered neurology’s take on what is “memory”, or even “Knowledge”? First of all, the mind is not a ballon or box, with contents, an empty space in which bits and pieces of information…as if information was like a table and chairs…that clutter it here and there and whose Feng Shui is the equivalent to knowledge.
Memory is a chemical reaction/relation neuro transmittors and receptors. A metaphor of different road types comes to mind. We have different types of road. Some are simple dirt roads on which no grass grows because of frequent travel going over it. Others are paved roads which are clearly defined and which are not easily eroded. Memory is like that. Knowledge is also like that.
Suppose we meet. You tell me your name and we talk for 1/2 hour. At the end we say good bye. I see you again 3 months later and having had no further thought on our first encounter, I ask again for your name. This is not calling for a rearrangement of my mental furniture, but help in creating paths of knowledge. If I walk in a field for a bit, I might trace a path in the grass of the route I know. If I don’t go by it for a while, grass may re-grow over the path, making it untraceable. Not seeing where exactly where that path had been, I may still walk and create a new path near where the other one had once been. The more I travel this path-- the more I say your name-- the more clear the path will be-- the more I will remeber your name.
If this metaphor is useful to you, then you might come to believe that you’ve learned something, and that now you know something you did not before. But that does not mean that you have added knowledge, but that a tenous path has been traced which you might remember of forget depending on how much is used by you, or encountered by you. Knowledge is a chemical reaction to a given stimulus. It is walking a path we traced before.
When we meet a second time and I admit to have forgotten your name, though we were introduced, I cannot be said to “know” your name. No amount of rearrangemet of information can help this condition but a new experience.

4

This is another question between science and philosophy. Who’s to say that our experience effects our neurotransmitters and that if I met a certain person and receieved their name that I would somehow acknowledge them 3 months later. What if it was just a mere coincidence that I once led myself through a forest path, let the grass grow back through the path, and then coincidentally made a new path next to it.

In my opinion if it really were neurotransmitters that held part of memory then next time we went to that forest to find that path, we would find that path at that exact same location, not next to it. Chemical reactions don’t just change over time. You cannot get the same cold ever again, and you cannot simply forget your Father’s name (unless you severely damage your brain).

What if name was right, when I read his information it seemed a lot more logical to me then neurotransmitters. But then again i’m no neurobiologist i’m sure there is a lot more information I haven’t read about.

5

Socratic.

— Who’s to say that our experience effects our neurotransmitters and that if I met a certain person and receieved their name that I would somehow acknowledge them 3 months later.
O- Who’s to say indeed? But if you’re willing to sign a few documents we can start slicing into your grey matter to find out what makes you tick.

— What if it was just a mere coincidence that I once led myself through a forest path, let the grass grow back through the path, and then coincidentally made a new path next to it.
O- Just a metaphor buddy. You may trace a path on the same patch, but not necessarly so. No reason exists that one neuron alone can be used to remember your friend’s name. But because memory is divided generally in regions of the brain, chances are that we can guess that in remembering names you will use neurons from a certain region and not another or some regions and not others in your brain. For this, scanning for activity within the brain may be studied.

— In my opinion if it really were neurotransmitters that held part of memory then next time we went to that forest to find that path, we would find that path at that exact same location, not next to it. Chemical reactions don’t just change over time.
O- But the body does. Now, I said that some roads are paved. Some memories are etched strong enough that they do not disappear even in old age. We never really forget curse words. I may forget my wife’s birthday but not her name- the former visited as a memory only yearly, while the later on a daily basis.

6

Summary below.

I think this belongs in psychology. No matter.

It seems that human gnoesis is consistent with fantasy refined into justified belief.

Human “Knowledge” is based on fiction. Passions, egos, and genuine beliefs are based more on what excites us rather than what is justified. We become religious about our values, maybe not because those beliefs are all correct, but because believing it refines and specializes us. Lies lead us to truth. We learn by excitement, but we become disciplined by accepting the mundane.

Knowledge has accumulative properties; but it is by nature qualitative, not quantitative. For human beings, knowledge is dependant on the right combinations of pleasure and pain rather than raw data. Society exchanges raw data to avoid propaganda, and human professions must translate that semi-emotionally.

(1) Fantasy inspires pursuit, (2) Fear of opposition and misguidance regulates inspiration with prudence, (3) a pattern of learning is instilled, and the human being is “set” for this type of learning and refining.

(A)-- This is probably why a computer’s knowledge is more quantitative, in that it can be uploaded with software until it’s dubbed in a specific niche of understanding (a multimedia computer, a store inventory computer, etc). Or wiped out and changed for a different purpose.

(A & B)-- A computer treats knowledge like a switch by exchange of software. “Know” and “not know” are its best aims for reason. In humans, “driven to know” and “not driven to know” are their best aims for reason. That compliments the basis of many disciplines such as “The love of wisdom” (Philo sophia) rather than simple “wisdom.” Thus wisdom could not be a software, only a pursuance.

(B)-- Human beings are left with “dharma” which can be seen either spiritually or more for utility. Knowledge is less of a thing that we attain and more of a place that we are put into. An mind-set / attitude, more than a tool. Human knowledge makes the person “for” something rather than “have” a property in it. You learn what you WANT. Not what you are FED. But be warned that learning will own you more than you own it. So the gain of knowledge can only be practical based on what you want to BE, not what you want to HAVE.

In both cases, we can consider certain features as “gaps” of non-knowledge to be filled with knowledge (by data or experience). ‘a’ can be more easily corrupted, but quickly improves. Logic gates are left quite deterministically empty. ‘b’ can be more resilient, but requires the tax of experience. “Logic gates” are not left empty, but are born in erratic nonsense which requires experience to work copascetically.

Knowledge is probably better regarded achieved rather than accumulative. It’s better to lay out a plan, establish a set of certificates of knowledge, and afterwards live in a general pursuance after the fact of those certificates . . . -rather than- Living in a constant dream for a pursuance guided only by goals, without deadlines and proofs.

The life of a human being is practical by having a learning phase, then a doing phase where understandings are assumed and learning becomes casual. “Accumulative” but not “the more the better.” It’s more important to find a comfortable position.

SUMMARY (IMHO)

Knowledge is better regarded as determined, not accumulative.

People are better to perceive knowledge as: “I’ll be x when I grow up” as opposed to “I’ll get more and more x, and maybe y as I learn.” Do DREAM, but also do EXPECT.

Knowledge in general: (a) Computers are more quantitative, (b) Humans are more qualitative.

QUERY

What if centuries from now there were people born and fed secure, raw data. Once the feed is done, their ability to exchange data directly is “snipped,” in order to avoid corrupt data. Experience alone would be necessary to change their program.

Knowledge comparatively with food: This would be much the same as the umbillical chord. Food is provided efficiently and securely by the womb’s screening process and its virus-killing white blood cells. Babies, wheened, must ingest their surrogate foods.

Could knowledge be preferrable in the same sort of process?

7

The very reason one thinks is to somehow improve their mental configuration. So it is expected that the new configuration will be better than the old one. Actually the process of thought automatically presupposes that the sequence of thoughts is heading towards an improvement, a progress in how the information is organized or understood. But how is this progress being measured ? isn’t it already measured on the outset, since we proceed automatically ? Are we just measuring what we already assigned as better ? We start the thought process combining new facts and creating new combinations of information expecting this new combination to be better, to lead to something more valuable or pleasurable. But it is an arbitrary measurement, we simply assign it as better, we have no real way to measure it aside from our own self assigned value of it.

Of course when trying to solve concrete, technical problems we have a sure way to measure since we have a concrete goal, but in the realms of philosophy or art or psychology how do we know how to measure a different combination of information items we usually call further or different knowledge ?

8

Why must we have the approval of logic for something to be valid ? Why must we have the approval of truth ? Who cares if something is false ? If we measure by simply assigning value, anything, any mental configuration can be assigned infinite value.

We also you pleasure as a standard of value, but we can assign value independent of pleasure, or emotional pleasures or any form at all of pleasure. We can assign all we want, even pure absolute delusion, no more interdictions.