Mind - Knowledge -- Knowledge - Mind

I have not thought about things like this for a while so…

I am interested in any thoughts about the following:

  1. knowledge clearly depends on the mind
  2. the mind clearly depends on knowledge

:-k

Mind is, in my opinion, a form of complexity.
It comes from simple components.
It has no “true nature”, no single purpose or creator.
instead it is a state of affairs, which arise when lots of components work together.
Knowledge is a component of this.

Conscious mind is the epiphenomena of physical changes. Most thoughts are analogies of physical occurrences or of themselves.

Is knowledge based on facts in your opinion? Must it be true in order for it to be classified as knowledge?

If so, what do we call that which on the surface appears to be knowledge but is in fact not true?

Do you have any thoughts on how this relates to knowledge?

It seems to me thus far that to build an ontology based upon knowledge one must place knowledge at the top of a hierarchy.

The only reason we ask questions like this is because the world sucks. In a shitty world, this is a healthy question.

Minds can obviously exist without reality orientation.

That is a type of knowledge too.

We know that there is real water and we know there are mirages. Our bickering is about which is which.

I agree with you. I also think it goes both ways in my original post. I can justify what I am saying but I won’t do it here and now because I wanted a lighter conversation about this.
Sometimes there are good reasons why people believe things that are not true and these things can keep them sane.
Of course, it goes the other way too in that beliefs can hurt people…but to an extent, there is plenty of room for error.

The mind adapts to the sense of what it uses: the process of processing information - flawed logics still work in general, especially to basic thinking(not excluding complex thinking), since a number of related processes have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments. This is relative to the person processing the information and can sometimes become problematic through communication particularly if the receiver is suffering from too much “noise” themselves. I am able to relate it back to my own Communication Theory of Knowledge(a partial pathway in a complete system).

I see knowledge as Mind’s archives. Of course one must ask–knowledge of what? If by Mind you mean consciousness, I still contend that Mind has physical underpinnings.

I think this may be the aforementioned circularity mentioned. Can the question be asked which is primary and which secondary in derivation?

As most syllogysm requires three parts , knowledge refers to both: the material and non-material aspects of the brain and the mind, maybe it is the way they interact determines their descriptive primacy.

Since the brain is onthogeneticallt primary, if we hold to the evolutionary, genetically selected process , the mind has very early established preordinate patters and channels of interpretation.

Knowlesge reinforces them by fine tuning these channels by breaking up the major schema into more similar patterns, dissolving circularity into a multiplicity of similar circulad/spherical bubbles, in fact, molecular and atomic descriptions may be basically a process of duplicating the representation by which the mind describes what it is describing, the way it dies describe that .

Almost every aspect of the brain must have the primary role of providing inputs derived from continual feedback. This primacy is known to the brain by neural connections. The roles of inputs (a, b, etc.) differ greatly from inputs involved in direct activity. In many cases, the input must either provide an input with neural processing or require a source to actuate the input.

The following will require analysis of what I am saying and some imagination. In the case of language, we can see that there is a pre-linguistic structure that gives rise to rules for how language should be used, followed by a set of cultural conventions about what constitutes appropriate usage of language. This kind of prescriptive structure allows us to observe that the brain interprets and develops processes through knowledge and critical experiences. A cognitive limitation is the thought process that the mind imposes on itself with regards to the understanding of any given mental situation. It is very clear that humans are generally better at understanding and reasoning about things like relationships between mind and material objects rather than dealing with the more abstract concepts required at times for dealing with explanation. However, as a general rule, there are infinitely different ways of dealing with thought. If successful, it will ensure that this reflective brain functions through a process that continues to be relevant to the integration of related concepts. However, the process of duplicating and splitting is nonetheless different because there are a number of ways of doing so.

I can post the notes(germs of deep thought) that this summary is based on if required - reconciling it to - Can dogs think phenominally? - on the other hand, is another story given my use of different terminology here.
I had intended to summarise in a different way in the other thread.

The old Cartesian philosophy of mind as separate from body has been refuted by neuroscience. Genes and memes determine mental content. A true knowledge would come from acknowledging its sources-- its physical underpinnings and archetypal/social heritage. Knowledge has an evolutionary history updated by current thinking.

Knowledge of what is real or what is true relies on consensus of agreement based on intersubjective communications. We both look at a crayon and agree that its color is blue. Is this an understanding of taught labels or does the agreement signify some deeper understanding?

It may, an apple CAN be red and green all over, if, for instance observed under a different light.

Wouldn’t it take at least two observers to note that change of color as a fact?

Irrellus says:

“Wouldn’t it take at least two observers to note that change of color as a fact?”

That is precisely the issue: 2 observers may see simulations of color, the simulation consistent with the perception of one observer seeing a red apple, while the 2nd observer sees green, and a 3rd observing bot red and green .

_
Can the colour of an object change intrinsically so tho… regardless of our observation of it?

No!

Animals and plants that change their color change it to their immediate environment for protection from predators. Two humans can agree that this is the case. Perhaps the ability to detect these changes is due to superior cones in the human retina. Color, after all, according to physics, is an illusion made when sunlight shines on an object. This is why we do not detect colors in the dim light of the moon. The message of color is transported along the optic nerve to places in the brain. It amazes me that we are constructed in such a way as to detect color and color changes. This still does not imply the existence of color in itself. In this instance knowledge is the functioning of the brain as gatherer of information. Mind is where the knowledge is kept and used.

There is a problem with the sunlight makes detectable color illusions. It is with neon lights or other artificial light sources. That we can create color is evidence of an intrinsic understanding of color. It remains, however, evident that there is no evidence of color as a thing in itself.

Yes, but what neuroscience has not done yet is translate the observed activity into the language that you and I use to communicate with and furthermore use to exchange information which in turn helps us build knowledge. Neuroscience knows about the connections but does not know how information is processed. This is a slightly more complicated process than mapping the human genome. So far we are able to build mathematical models that give us some insight; insight such as the possibility that information isn’t just processed in a static network of neurons but some of that information is passed along into other networks. I believe knowledge is stored in the brain matter and I believe we can explain things well enough to know that the perceived mind is just a by-product of the brain but this by no means destroys the current value of psychology. Psychology and before that philosophy gave us many insights into what was happening. For the time being the “perceived mind” is our most accurate interface to the knowledge stored in the brain.

Colours are specific chemical compounds, so an animal or plant changing colour does not change that fact… of a specific colour, being of a specific chemical compound, because they change their chemical compounds in order to change their colour.

Colour… and the world in general, is still an amazing place to feel awe over.