What is the mechanism by which human knowledge expands?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

We have highly educated professors, scientists and philosophers. We believe that they can help our children to expand their knowledge. But, I have an open question to the teachers/professors/scientists. Here is the question: What is the mechanism by which human knowledge expands?

I asked several people. No one told me as if it is a top secret. I came up with my writing but no one liked it. Being a human, I ask everyone of you - what is the mechanism by which human knowledge expands?

If you are interested, you can see my version of answer here: images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 … Prasad.pdf Do not scold me after reading it. It is my answer. I like to hear your answer on this question.

2

By documentation. All of the rest is circumstantial. As long as Man’s reasoning is documented, he will continue to learn, “expand” (assuming he didn’t replace himself of course). Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, none of it matters other than how fast he grows. It doesn’t alter that he will grow… as long as he keeps documenting why he thinks what he thinks.

3

I think this borders a reification of “knowledge”. There is no mechanism by which the whole of human knowledge expands. Human knowledge is not some cohesive entity, like a library, to which we all have access. Rather, the world is more like the library, where human beings are the books.

In other words, An individual human being obtains knowledge through experience. Then we share that knowledge in our relationships by means of communication.

4

Hello, interesting points you make in your paper. Of course, dissecting out the perceived qualities of things and then reifying these qualities as fundamental over the “thing” in question is sort of nonsensical, I believe. Sure, everything that exists is divisible, comparable, etc – so what? This is just saying that the notions of indivisibility, incomparability, etc. are nonsensical notions and self-contradictions. I do not think there is any sort of “wow!” type of knowledge that arises from understanding this, it is pretty much common sense. Philosophic and scientific understanding and knowledge begin at this point, rather than terminate there, as you seem to think.

Now, what is the mechanism by which human knowledge expands? What knowledge type are we talking about here, knowledge in the individual alone, or collective knowledge? Are you asking, What is the mechanism by which my personal knowledge expands, or are you asking, What is the mechanism by which the collective human body of knowledge expands? These are two different questions. To the first, I suppose we could say, individual capacity for sensitivity and processing of encountered information, the ability to draw sensed data inside and process it in a manner consistent with generating “knowledge”. This would also involve personal levels of cognitive and perceptive ability, curiousity and desire-motivation to learn, and life circumstances that facilitate or prevent the learnings of certain knowledges. To the second question, we might answer, perhaps language and technological systems are primary here, facilitating communication between one person and another, and allowing for the storing/archiving of knowledge in external forms such as books and computers. Of course, the second question here encompasses and includes the first, and to a lesser extent, the first question also includes the second.

5

This …

Plus this …

… is a big part of it. Knowledge expands when we experience (it doesn’t matter what) the same thing over and over. There are probably other first person, immediate experiences that happen that are not fully noticed and that do not get included in the expansion process because of the lack of recognition and sharing.

6

…a very good point to remember (documentation IS memory for a society). We tend to think that merely the names we have heard are the only real geniuses in human history. The probability of that being the case is nil. Very most probably 1000’s of geniuses have said extremely important things, but were never really heard. Politics controls who’s voice gets heard during which era (especially when controlling the press) and thus necessarily slows progress.

7

Documentation is reference. A memory suggests recall of a previous experience. I’m not recalling anything when I read a history book, I’m learning. Also, societal institutions can’t possibly affect the whole of human knowledge. When progress appears to slow, perhaps it just becomes less apparent.

8

We start from an early age forming a background of learned experiences through assimilating material given to us. One acquires, from various sources, knowledge which does not originate in him. Any progress in this domain will provide for the intelligent way we live in a world of ideas – a societal world that exists if only in the form of ideas with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human cultures.

But I realize this is not the kind of direct human experiences you are talking about. I suggest that to live honestly one must be free of that false sense of self, and allow notions and experiences to be made by themselves. From the institutional point of view the institutionalized-self is not there for the sake of your happiness, it is there for the propagation of the knowledge that makes it up. In other words, by its very nature the imposed societal knowledge brings about self-recrimination and self-doubt.

9

An analysis on the documented knowledge reveals that only these properties/qualities are repetedly known about each object studied.
These properties take us from object to another object.
For example, we say human body is a divisbile entity. Then, the consequent question is: what are its divisions? what are its parts? Then, one lists the parts of the body. Then, for each organ (the part of the body), again the same question is repeated. For example, take eye. What are the parts of eye? Then, one lists the parts of eye. I felt, the same question is repeated again and again in order to expand our knowledge.
Like the question, what are its parts?, there are other questions - what are its forms?, what can affect it?, what can substitute it? - the questions associated with those 7 properties. These questions are not only applicable to all objects but also take us to other objects and with that our knowledge expands.

I thought this is the way the human knowledge expands. There may be other mechanisms too.

There are two questions:

  1. What is the mechanism by which human knolwedge expands? (not the transfer of knowledge from one human to another human)
  2. What is the mechanism by which human knolwedge expands on anthing? What is the mechanism by which human knolwedge expands on any single thing?
    I focused on these questions.
10

Hi Stellamonika

Together, we ask: “What is the mechanism by which human knowledge expands?”

You provide us with a nice Aristotelian explanation. You identify a list of categories and suggest that knowledge expands by asking how those categories apply to each kind of thing. In your words, “An analysis on the documented knowledge reveals that only these properties/qualities are repeatedly known about each object studied. These properties take us from object to another object.”

This provides a partial explanation of the mechanism by which human knowledge expands. You may have found a good list of ultimate categories. Certainly the application of some list of ultimate categories has something important to do with the expansion of human knowledge. But this kind of answer to our shared question does not answer all issues that are relevant to our question. How do we learn to apply these categories? What makes this activity possible? What motivates this activity? Why do we use these categories rather than others? What principle determines what categories there should be, and why should we attend to the results of the application of that principle?

I suggest a return to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It gives us a picture of where the knowledge project escapes the confines of mere competition between the powerful to control what assertions can be made. The origin of the true project of knowledge begins with a radical shift in perspective.

In the cave, it is the puppet masters who control the interpretation of experience: They control the size of the fire, they control which puppets are used, and they control where attention will be directed by binding the poor souls who are forced to stare constantly at the shadow infested cave walls. In the cave, the wishes of the powerful become the standard by which all interpretations of experience are judged.

Outside the cave, a different standard controls the evaluation of interpretations of experience. For the perspective of one who has emerged from the cave, all things are seen in the light of the Good although the Good itself is not yet fully understood. The Good is recognized to be something that is not subject to the control of the whims of the powerful.

Let us not get tied up in arguments about the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of the forms. Plato explicitly recognized its weaknesses in some of the later dialogues. It is not essential to the Allegory of the Cave that we assume that every thing outside the cave is an unchanging form. What is essential to the allegory is that we recognize that the possibility of pursuing knowledge depends upon a radical shift in perspective which involves letting the Good become the standard that controls the interpretation of all experience.

The project of pursuing knowledge involves a shift away from letting the interpretation of experience be controlled by the whims of the powerful, to requiring that interpretation be guided by our ongoing attempt to answer the question of what is the truly best way of interpreting this or that body of experience.

Of course, it can be argued that we can never get out of the cave, because our idea of the good is itself controlled by the whims of the powerful. This argument is not entirely false. But, in true Platonic fashion, we can respond that while the Allegory contrasts two ideal states, empirical reality always participates in varying and vacillating degrees, in each of the ideal states. Our imperfect pursuit of knowledge results in imperfect knowledge because we have not yet become perfect knowers.

What is the alternative to letting the powerful control the idea of the good to suit their wishes and whims? Jesus, Confucius, Hillel, Mohammad, and many others have suggested that the alternative is the golden rule. That rule requires that our pursuit of understanding the Good involves expanding our empathy. If the powerful discount the cares and concerns of everyone else in defining the Good, their faulty method marks their resulting definition as being suspect.

Empathy involves placing oneself in the perspective of another. It involves the interpretation of experience not only through the lens of one’s own cares and concerns, but through a lens that combines one’s own cares and concerns with the cares and concerns of others. The lens that would reveal the truth would be one that combined the cares and concerns of all beings who have cares and concerns. We can, of course, only aspire to such universal empathy, but we can approach that ideal in varying degrees.

Thus, we can say that what distinguishes life in the cave from life outside the cave is the degree to which we have become committed to seeing through a lens of empathy expanded to the greatest extent we can achieve.

The mechanism by which human knowledge expands (when it does expand) is the project of interpreting experience through ever expanding empathy.

Conversely, the mechanism by which human knowledge contracts is through the concerted acts of selfish persons and associations of persons, whether particularly powerful or not, designed to thwart the expansion of empathy, and to make their own wishes and whims become the ultimate standard by which various interpretations of experience are to be evaluated.

Your humble and ignorant servant,

beyondthecave

11

Theoretically we can have two individuals who both know the same information, but one may be a lot cleverer than the other. I would say that you could also have a more intelligent mind which knows less than a mind with a greater knowledge base. In Taoism you have the empty cup thing, where you read a book and throw away everything you feel you don’t need e.g. references and arguments, then keep conclusions, thereby emptying the cup [mind]. To the onlooker it would seam such a mind is low in intelligence, however it can have a vast databae of things it wants to know. More importantly we can take this one stage further, and instead of filling up the mind with knowledge we can create ‘a means by which to know’, such that when you come across something in life that needs working out, you will have a greater capacity to do that.
This apposed to what I would call the composing intellect, which is equal to the empty cup intellect in that it has a vast array of knowledge from which to resolve issues and make calculations etc.

The important mechanism is in the ability to know, regardless of method.

For me this is a very holistic thing full of ideas and archetypes in a matrix, this ‘machine’ grows as one wills, where one concedes they cannot know a given thing the next person continues. One could say that religion [at least Christianity] is based on the act of giving up [just thought I would throw that in there].

I wouldn’t know how to define ability to know further than this, but would certainly like to. :slight_smile:

edit;

I would say there are certain components of the intellectual machine;

Desire to seek
Knowledgebase
Mental dextrousness
Tolerance
Expansive
liberal

Maybe
Universality

Though one may be very intelligent within a specific field, I think you have to be expansive and universal to develop the tools you need for that.

.

12

Experience would have to be number 1. Babies manage rather well with this alone - along with generalized nurturing.

I thought it was rather odd that you started with each item with divisibility. I would try to experience something functioning as the whole it is first - and maybe only. With some ‘things’, like the first items on your list, this exploration of a being could be endless.

13

How do the laws of nature empower you to expand your knowledge on anything?
You can never expand your knowledge if the laws of nature do not permit you to expand it. The laws of nature empower you to expand your knowledge. For example, you have water. You use it and experience it throughout your life. Can your experience allow you to know that water has hydrogen and oxygen? The laws of nature empower you to see the divisiblity of water. If you attempt to see the divisibility of water, you not only get the knowledge of divisibility of water but also get the knowledge of its parts (hydrogen and oxygen atoms). When you attempt to study the divisibility of water, your knowledge expands from water to its parts. In the same manner comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability and satisfiability of things empower us to expand our knowledge.

14

If this is a response to me then I will say, experience is necessary, and it seems quite often sufficient for us to learn many things, given out natures. Can we learn that water is hydrogen and oxygen via experience alone - complicated - but first I will say - you certainly cannot learn that without experience. And that is why experience is number 1.

Could you explain how they do this, in concrete terms. I can imagine a number of possible interpretations.

If you attempt this in very specific ways.

Yes, it certainly might.

Can you explain in concrete terms how comparability - which is an abstraction - empowers us to expand out knowledge? Do you mean that using this as a heuristic device - the idea that things are divisible - and then trying to divide things can lead to knowledge? Sure.

Though I can think of other abstract reifications that might also act as good heuristic devices: (with water) perceptability, palpability, visibility, abundance, drinkability…

15

Experience is not an absolute necessity to extend your knowledge.
From earth, you can send space ships without experiencing the exact nature of the planets and stars.
The universal laws of nature of enable us to do so.

I see a man on the riverside everyday. I experience that there is a man on the riverside everyday. But, does it help me to extend my knowledge on him? I have to look at his connections, forms, etc in order to extend my knowledge on him. Just merely experiencing him does hot help to extend my knowledge about him.

Comparability implicity includes multiplicity, abundance. No comparision is possible in the absence of multiplicity.
Drinkability is not a universal law. Drinkability cannot be applied for all objects.

Let me explain comparability clearly.

I have the equivalents of those which the others have.Who/What has the equivalents of those which I have?

For example, I have figer. Who/What has the equivalents of those which I have? You have. Every human is having. Every animal with some exceptions have fingers. Plants do not have fingers. So, you acquire the knowledge of distribution of a particular property using comparability.

Futher, no quantification is possible in the absence of comparability. “How many”, “How much” will have no meaning in the absence of comparability.

16

Typically, the pursuit of any sort of holy grail is going to be returned with a lot of questions like “could you elaborate” or comments like “this is where your question commits a fallacy” I wonder if philosophy on the whole is the skill of one’s subverting the questions put to hrm. :laughing: anything otherwise would not be humble enough.

You want to know the source of wisdom. That’s gonna cost you . . . maybe two firstborns. I don’t have a direct answer- but I like to think of measurable knowledge as this (I know it’s not original) . . . the ability for separate entities to independantly come to the same conclusion in solving a logical problem. “Independant” vaguely meaning a different physical location or experiencing different circumstance.

So any mechanism which measurably increases human ability to exhibit these characteristics is a force driving their intellect. I can think of 3 successive events which revolutionized this resource: (1) Writing, (2) Printing press, (3) Telephones (the rise of internet).

The system of modern orthodox education, if you ask me, is a hindrance more than a benefit to this end (not always to the individual, but to the populace). But there are comparative strategies which can be taken side by side, and some are more successful than others at training general people toward a specific capacity. Maybe later we’ll just mentally download the software.

But I know your question is not specifically about this. You want to know the driving force more esoterically. To that I give you the hall of those that will answer your questions with questions.

As for your document, an obvious labor of love, I don’t think it should be ripped apart by some literalist like me. My ilk would think it cute but are too stilted-minded to recognize the esoteric wisdom. Eastern-philosophy-esque writing usually goes great with relativism. Then I can say: “It’s your call buddy. I guess we’ll do our own thing.”

17

sorry double post

18

Do the qualities of a thing expand with the expansion of your knowledge on it?

Do the qualities of water expand with the expansion of your knowledge on water?

19

No but the holistic mechanism by which we know things [along with the ‘ability to learn’] can expand, I doubt it has limits bar age. For every set of knowledge you get greater contrasts and comparatives, more things to weigh up in the mind, along with which the minds eye becomes sharper.

It is not like water, more like life, it can grow and keep growing.

Though I do wonder if there is a point of equality I.e. where once reached the ability to learn and know anew is as great as it needs be to know anything.

20

You knowledge can never change the laws of nature and all are under the same laws of nature! So, the mechanism by which one knows things will function only in accordance with the laws of nature