Mind - Knowledge -- Knowledge - Mind

Ive been thinking on how to address this since it was posted, given the open form of the inquiry there is no direct answer; I would now be able to add that there should be a third notion, on top of knowledge and mind, that clarifies their relation.

Mind forms the capacity of knowledge, knowledge the capacity of mind.

Capacity implies certain things, most importantly perhaps, purpose.

Can knowledge exist without having a function to a purpose
(And thus does unwanted knowledge create undesired purposes -

Which kinds of things does a particular mind seek to know? What registers as quality, what registers as noise? What ‘sticks to the mind’, what is allowed to be known, and what is refused?
knowledge and mind as a pair do not suffice, if we scrutinize like this, to identify what thinking consists of. Mind is not cognate with will, or is will sufficient to mind - mind is as the circumference of will that is at the same time its cosmic leverage
because mind can be stored, and will can not;
knowledge of the will would seem impossible - experience of the will simply does not translate into knowledge. Mind must always guess as to the wills direction; to bring mind and will in concert as a human being is thus not a methodical practice in the outset, but an intuitive and speculative one - much like the deep state attempts in its effort to unite capacity and purpose -
capacity in the sense of actionable knowledge, which is usually referred to as ‘intelligence’ -that which is understood by a power so as to be able to be its consequence.

To become the consequence of ones knowledge - that is the greatest fear and the purpose of the mind. To ‘lose ones mind’ by virtue of the sheer actionability of ones knowledge - psychosis -
to operate at the threshold of knowledge and action is to be quite crazy - mind endures knowledge, knowledge tests mind of its capacity. Knowledge the sword, mind the sky.

OK, nice FC, very nice.

So Meno and yourself both smelt something off about it. Originally there was only one clause as follows: knowledge clearly depends on the mind - I got this off of a Catholic site and as soon as I saw it…mmm…it is hard to describe how I felt about it, to be honest.
…but it was troubling…
…perhaps even more troubling is why I was at that site…

It turns out that it seemed easier to reverse it and place it with its original for contemplation.

When I did that, I thought, hmm, OK, let’s place it on ILP and see what happens since I was already having a discussion about something kind of related.
…but none of this really matters…

You have given me something to digest.

Its interesting because by placing the two statements underneath each other you demonstrated how mind results from pieces of knowledge, and now mind activates knowledge. Thinking as will is not a straightfoward process but rather an orchestrated series of restraints, withholding of definitive value-judgment. How do we juxtapose the issues at hand without a priori entangling them in conflict. How to contrast without contradiction.
Knowledge is not sufficient to power, but right handling of knowledge gives power, like handling electrical or chemical complements so as to cause voltage or exothermic reaction.

My answer and in turn progress is disappointing. I proceed one step at a time. Give thought to each piece of your writing.

There is no direct answer with only two notions and yes I too would add a third notion to solve the problem. I am still under the delusion that two notions are solvable but this is probably optimism talking or even hope to surface but one must keep their delusions in check otherwise we become too removed from reality. I have always kept at my side that language also creates its own problem and that we have a limitation that surfaces from the use of language but again there is a chance that this is also delusional thinking given that we may not know how close to the truth we are given the evidence of our already existent mental superpowers - we can see this in our everyday life when we look around at our creations and furthermore when we think about our achievements. The question still remains, how close are we? How advanced are our language and thinking? Are we there yet? Man…it is hard to know and hard to choose when our most common form of validation is communication with another man. Take the man out of the picture and logic our way through and we can still delude ourselves.

That being said I must now contemplate the third notion.
I must now step closer. From here I think about your suggested purpose/s before proceeding with the advocated scrutiny you have given.

Purpose is simple.

I’ll post it as an affirmation. Affirmations are shit you keep repeating that are obviously false in order to manifest it as true eventually. The perfect affirmation is this:

“We all live our desired experiences at nobodies expense”

Doing this requires changing the fundamental structure of all existence.

That’s the purpose we currently have that is noble.

Other than that meta purpose, we have just this: everyone (not just you or me) is trying to have a better day.

Ecmandu, how do you connect this back to knowledge? Are you talking about will here? as in, something like Kant’s maxims and laws

None of it. We need a new plan for existence. The rest is just harm reduction. Fuck Kant. When you know as much as I know, you realize that exclusiveness that is desirable is the definition of sin, and the definition of sin, is consent violation, that means existence itself is sin. I’ve seen people try to make their mark here. What makes a life interesting when life itself is sin, is to give life the middle finger and say, “fuck you, I’m not going to model you, I’m going to fight you, I’m going to violate as little consent as possible and make a different plan in the process”

That’s living.

Fuck you life!

I like it

I have been toying with curiosity for a number of years - it seems in a mathematical model of connected neurons that this network is unconsciously curious and curiosity bleeds into the mind - curiosity is a form of seeking. Obviously what is focused registers as quality but later this becomes segmented into remaining quality and noise. So nothing is truly refused but what is to be known as to be allowed and this is what sticks to the mind and most of the rest >sticks to the brain< I can not separate entirely mind from the brain and therefore there is a process of partial decay in both when what is refused undergoes some kind of diffusion. Something else that I have noticed is: curiosity seems to be somewhat deterministic - it is like a stream but instead of being subjected to gravity as the concept would imply it is subjected to unresolved entities - like a kind of general prediction that there must be something else there.

But not necessarily. Right?
Only inductively at it’s fringes

Is the brain not just a system of inference?

You already know that I will happily consider what you are saying - in fact, I already am.
…I still have to work through each line of thought and distill the complete result

I am always looking for holes in the networks of thoughts. Dead nodes, weak connections…etc.

You have me questioning myself Meno and this is a good thing. Luckily I am only side-tracking minorly.

I have discussed with you concepts of narrow thought versus more broad thought bleeding from the brain into the mind. The characterization by the inference that comes from generalization should not be removed unless it is useful to do so from the more narrow field of inference that comes from discrimination produced from particular instances(be they an object in the environment or a synthesized thought(a type of relation to an internal environment)). We assume that the brain does analyze and synthesize in order to determine whether there are correlational influences in the environment. This is a product of more broad bleeding thoughts mixed with narrow bleeding thoughts encapsulated by the concept of inference. Do you see what I mean?

When the attempt to consider all factors emanating from the mind associated with the mind or even the brain is made to wrap the mind up into a simpler concept it is easier to consider each facet individually and look for similarities so that things can be grouped in such a way to create a hierarchy in which the discussion can be performed at the top level or any level underneath. Just so long as the vastness of the mind leads back to the concept of mind then we are on the right track.

If we refer to fringes - physical fringes only come into account minorly but temporal fringes come into account majorly - providing of course we are thinking about the end result of diffusion.

Also Meno…

Something I just wrote:

An individual’s complete knowledge is only partial knowledge of all possible knowledge.

Bringing us back to unknowns as a form of knowledge. Also, that mind depends on knowledge.

An example of a word - When coming across a new word for the first time we discover an unknown, an unknown is a form of knowledge; a new word…and learn a partial knowledge of this word through context and on further reading of the same word in different situations that partial knowledge increases given different contexts. This is not quite the same as being given the definition of the word prior to seeing the word used, however by being given the definition of the word I suggest that only partial knowledge of the word is gained nonetheless.

I have discussed this before - but I can not remember if it was with you. Also, the process of diffusion assures that we only ever have partial knowledge of the word.

I believe this depends on how we look at it. This depends on what angle we take. Many angles are plausible and possibly arguable at the same time. Are we looking at this as a quandary of causality? Much the same as the chicken or the egg? Or is there possibly another way to look at this? Leaving aside cause and effect we can still easily see both as we would applying causality’s principle. At this point in time, I am working the mind clearly depends on knowledge angle. Sidetracking, it becomes intuitive that mind and knowledge are circular dependencies of each other but to what point? Mind and knowledge without anything else just sit there as concepts. Questions arise, one, for example, being: How do mind and knowledge work together?

Establishing the connection between knowledge and mind is only necessary when contemplating a workable system involving knowledge and mind. Since the brain produces the mind and the brain is made up of many components and knowledge is also made up of many components perhaps we should be asking what is representative of knowledge. There seems to be something missing here. The mind is the representation of the brain so we should think that we need to fill in the gap of what represents knowledge. Does the mind also represent knowledge? Or does the mind only recognize knowledge via the brain? Since we have established that the mind and knowledge alone do nothing then maybe knowledge comes from outside the mind and the brain.

This brings us back to: An unknown is a form of knowledge. I should perhaps demonstrate this using a workable system. We can briefly explore what such a system does with an unresolved entity(in this case an unknown) by introducing the system to an unknown. Is it possible that the system will have any concept involving this unresolved entity? I am confident. We can also explore the difference between that which has been discriminated against and that which has not while we are at it. I will have to get things set up for this but more to come…

The following example is produced from an unknown with no discriminative filter applied…

I may as well call this the insanity test. You can probably guess at the information that it is feeding on.

Time for me to rest a while…

Quick note: Unknown to partially known.

From the unknown to the known: We never truly know something.

We are better at recognizing something than we are at recalling something.

There is no pure knowledge in the brain so what it represents must come from outside the brain.

Essentially knowledge does not depend on the mind. Knowledge does not depend on the brain.

To recap I need to recycly previously essential stuff that does not flow naturally into itself:

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Sat May 01, 2021 7:35 pm Post
Meno_ wrote
But not necessarily. Right?
Only inductively at it’s fringes

Is the brain not just a system of inference?

You already know that I will happily consider what you are saying - in fact, I already am.
…I still have to work through each line of thought and distill the complete result
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Mon May 03, 2021 9:57 am Post
I am always looking for holes in the networks of thoughts. Dead nodes, weak connections…etc.

encode_decode wrote
Is the brain not just a system of inference?

You already know that I will happily consider what you are saying - in fact, I already am.
…I still have to work through each line of thought and distill the complete result

You have me questioning myself Meno and this is a good thing. Luckily I am only side-tracking minorly.

I have discussed with you concepts of narrow thought versus more broad thought bleeding from the brain into the mind. The characterization by the inference that comes from generalization should not be removed unless it is useful to do so from the more narrow field of inference that comes from discrimination produced from particular instances(be they an object in the environment or a synthesized thought(a type of relation to an internal environment)). We assume that the brain does analyze and synthesize in order to determine whether there are correlational influences in the environment. This is a product of more broad bleeding thoughts mixed with narrow bleeding thoughts encapsulated by the concept of inference. Do you see what I mean?

When the attempt to consider all factors emanating from the mind associated with the mind or even the brain is made to wrap the mind up into a simpler concept it is easier to consider each facet individually and look for similarities so that things can be grouped in such a way to create a hierarchy in which the discussion can be performed at the top level or any level underneath. Just so long as the vastness of the mind leads back to the concept of mind then we are on the right track.

If we refer to fringes - physical fringes only come into account minorly but temporal fringes come into account majorly - providing of course we are thinking about the end result of diffusion.
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Mon May 03, 2021 1:03 pm Post
Also Meno…

Something I just wrote:

An individual’s complete knowledge is only partial knowledge of all possible knowledge.

Bringing us back to unknowns as a form of knowledge. Also, that mind depends on knowledge.

An example of a word - When coming across a new word for the first time we discover an unknown, an unknown is a form of knowledge; a new word…and learn a partial knowledge of this word through context and on further reading of the same word in different situations that partial knowledge increases given different contexts. This is not quite the same as being given the definition of the word prior to seeing the word used, however by being given the definition of the word I suggest that only partial knowledge of the word is gained nonetheless.

I have discussed this before - but I can not remember if it was with you. Also, the process of diffusion assures that we only ever have partial knowledge of the word.
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Tue May 04, 2021 11:42 am Post
Meno_ wrote
Can the question be asked which is primary and which secondary in derivation?

I believe this depends on how we look at it. This depends on what angle we take. Many angles are plausible and possibly arguable at the same time. Are we looking at this as a quandary of causality? Much the same as the chicken or the egg? Or is there possibly another way to look at this? Leaving aside cause and effect we can still easily see both as we would applying causality’s principle. At this point in time, I am working the mind clearly depends on knowledge angle. Sidetracking, it becomes intuitive that mind and knowledge are circular dependencies of each other but to what point? Mind and knowledge without anything else just sit there as concepts. Questions arise, one, for example, being: How do mind and knowledge work together?

Establishing the connection between knowledge and mind is only necessary when contemplating a workable system involving knowledge and mind. Since the brain produces the mind and the brain is made up of many components and knowledge is also made up of many components perhaps we should be asking what is representative of knowledge. There seems to be something missing here. The mind is the representation of the brain so we should think that we need to fill in the gap of what represents knowledge. Does the mind also represent knowledge? Or does the mind only recognize knowledge via the brain? Since we have established that the mind and knowledge alone do nothing then maybe knowledge comes from outside the mind and the brain.

This brings us back to: An unknown is a form of knowledge. I should perhaps demonstrate this using a workable system. We can briefly explore what such a system does with an unresolved entity(in this case an unknown) by introducing the system to an unknown. Is it possible that the system will have any concept involving this unresolved entity? I am confident. We can also explore the difference between that which has been discriminated against and that which has not while we are at it. I will have to get things set up for this but more to come…
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Thu May 06, 2021 9:31 pm Post
The following example is produced from an unknown with no discriminative filter applied…

Workable system wrote
this type of mental process is characterized by the combination of good or bad information and evil information

I may as well call this the insanity test. You can probably guess at the information that it is feeding on.

Time for me to rest a while…

There is a great deal i feel need to be filled here.
Just a reminder, to reconnect with the interweening later…

Thank you, Meno.

I will go through it and see where I went wrong.

The four main problems that I imagine would be stumbling blocks are as follows:

  1. unknown
  2. known
  3. brain
  4. mind

I will not just look at these.

First I will analyze the flow of information as you suggest…
…and then I will look for any ambiguity of terms…
…and finally, look for broken logic that might not fit in with the principles I am following(want to follow).

This result indicates a problem on my side Meno. Just working on the connection between knowledge and mind has me sidetracking a lot.
I will spend a bit more time focusing on this rather than getting over sidetracked on other topics.

Ill take partial credit for the problem to my delayed correspondence, so as to minimize Your responsibnsibility for error. Thanks