Bad motor scooter...

Ahem...

I meant to say motor skills.

Walking, running, throwing, catching, riding a bike, scratching our head, etc.

Intuitively... :insert puzzled face:

Is that how we learn these things, or is that just another useless label to describe a natural process?

Knowing how to use knowledge to benefit the whole, is wisdom, not simply "knowledge."
On the other hand, knowing how to use information (in any way) is just knowledge. This can be a self serving act, but not 'wisdom.'

There is information or data.
There is knowledge, which is the conscious access or familiarity (experience) with the information,
and there is wisdom, the knowing of what to do with that knowledge and information to benefit the whole.

Information and data is just that. (It can be had by a computer.)
Knowledge involves information and data with experience and consciousness.

Wisdom is using knowledge for the best advantage of the whole.

Is that something that can be known? Do some poeple know how, and other do not? Are Children wise? Do we start wise, or do we get wise? Does age seem to effect wisdom?

Hmm, I dont know, it seems to me any skill based activity is something we learn through the process of doing . . . so Id I guess that would be a kind of knowledge as well . . . hmm.

If something is learned does that imply knowledge somewhere?

When excreting waste, one would think that it does not require learning in the same way that cleaning up the mess does.

Do creatures learn how to open their eyes, or does it just come naturally?

Is that experience-based action to be considered a type of knowledge?

^^^Creative quote


^^^Bushido quote



There are physiological systems in our human bodies that are wired to perform basic levels of function, some with out our conscious thought...

It is what allows us to function, without it, we would not exist in our present form...

The autonomic nervous system (ANS or visceral nervous system) is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control system functioning largely below the level of consciousness, and controls visceral functions.[1] The ANS affects heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, diameter of the pupils, micturition (urination), and sexual arousal. Whereas most of its actions are involuntary, some, such as breathing, work in tandem with the conscious mind.

It is classically divided into two subsystems: the parasympathetic nervous system and sympathetic nervous system.[1][2] Relatively recently, a third subsystem of neurones that have been named 'non-adrenergic and non-cholinergic' neurones (because they use nitric oxide as a neurotransmitter) have been described and found to be integral in autonomic function, particularly in the gut and the lungs.

With regard to function, the ANS is usually divided into sensory (afferent) and motor (efferent) subsystems. Within these systems, however, there are inhibitory and excitatory synapses between neurones.

The enteric nervous system is sometimes considered part of the autonomic nervous system, and sometimes considered an independent system.

There are very complicated functions in the human body that many people have spent many years trying to learn how they work...

I think that the physiology of the human body is something that allows us to learn, to assimilate external information/data and bring us to a certain understanding/knowledge about it...

I do not think that basic physiology is knowledge or knowing...it just is.

so, IMO, I separate out the physiological "knowledge" that makes us human, to the information, data, or knowledge we learn with some external input...

We can however, teach the body/nerves/muscles to re-learn their function when they are damaged...



EDIT: my apologies, I did not list the link to the information I provided. I used wiki this time, although I think they are better sources out there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system

Mmmmmm.... excellent additions.

Knowledge requiring conscious correlation?

IMO, the automatic action of blinking is not knowledge...

when someone "learns" all the nerves, muscles, functions that are used by the human eye to blink...that is knowledge.

Yes. Well, I would say it is just my opinion.



How to be wise? Or how to act in the best interest of the whole?

Yes, I suppose, if they have enough knowledge and enough compassion and love.



In general no, but wisdom is not specific to age.



We get wise.



More than age, the ability to LOVE and understand self and others, effects wisdom. Wisdom is not specific to age. It is specific to awareness, compassion and love.

So now we have distinguished two types of knowledge and illustrated how processes are not necessarily knowledge based on awareness and intention.

AWESOME! I love this thread!

Exqactly, I second that! ! !

If we're willing to overlook the "bruised ego", we will get to the very gist of most anything! ! !

Idealism and Realism
Knowledge and Wisdom

Compare and Contrast:
Idealism - we define who we want to be, the virtues, the characterstics, and we try to live in accordance with that 'ideal'. We change our ideals of self from time to time as we gain wisdom through experience.
We can broaden self idealism to include individual dreams of the world as is could be.

A person can dream unrealistic things, like having super powers, being able to fly unaided, curing the sick with a touch or time travel at will.

A person can dream of fixing a moral issue in society to make life better for everyone at least for many. Martin Luther King Junior comes to mind. This dream can be transformed into a vision from which the real and empirical way in which we live can be changed.

Why is a vision of moral betterment realistic when dreams of flying, curing with a touch,or time travel at will are not?

If the only thing in our control to change are moral applications, than this would be qualitative realism. Whatever remains out of our control to change must then be quantifiable realism.

Both exist, both are empiracally evident are they two seperate things? Do they, can they exist independently? Do univeral quantitative realities need qualitave idealism to exist?

Does qualitative idealism reqire quantitative universal reality in order to exist?

What makes them necessary to each other? What makes them unnecesary to each other?


Continueing with knowledge and wisdom in the same vein,
if knowledge is quantitative and wisdom is qualitative, can they exist independently?

Way too many questions Red. You make my head hurt. I don't think it is all that complex anyway.

Have any answers?

My responses in bold.

I realize this is your premise. How did matter arise? What is matter?

Then how did mind arise from matter?

What are your grounds for this belief?

I find this statement to be quite interesting.

All the world's data is useless without the qualities of perspective to guide the use of data

What exactly is "data"?

It would seem to me that the very idea that atoms could come together to form very complex molecules of DNA that actually become patterns for replicating themselves in very complex ways to produce a chain of evolution that ultimately leads to the human animal would be a "useful" use of data.

What "guided" that usefulness of raw data?

And when I say, "guided" I don't necessarily mean to imply that human animals were in any way the specific "goal" of evolution. None the less, if "usefulness" has any meaning at all, surely the development of something like a human animal that can become aware of its environment, have a sense of "self", and even manipulate and enjoy interacting with its environment, would be considered to be "useful".

If you're suggesting that only "mind" has the qualities of perspective to do something "useful" with data. Then wouldn't that also require that some "mind" was associated with the guidance of molecules ("data") into something as "useful" as a human animal?

It just seems to me that this would be where your hypothesis would naturally lead.

Otherwise you'd have to assume that atoms, molecules, DNA and evolution were all totally happenstance. But that would then fly in the face of your hypothesis the "mind" is required to guide the "useful" use of "data".

I personally see a major contradicition in your hypothesis.

Clearly this is just my own perspective.

I'm just sharing how I feel, and I'm attempting to offer 'grounds' (or at least offer my explanation) for why I feel this way.

I've always tried to offer 'grounds' with my views.

I must be realted to Jaun Valdez.

Abbra you said...
'What "guided" that usefulness of raw data?'

In reguards to human evolution...

Survival of each generation.

mho DNA changes slightly with each generation. The DNA that survives to replicate by human birth in 10 centuries will be quite different from ours.

Yet we will still be us.

Yes, but to even talk about "human evolution" you're already at the end point. A brain has already evolved.

I'm talking about how evolution even got started to end up creating something as "useful" as a brain?

It must have started with just a bunch of amino acids in a protein soup.

How did they become a human brain? Or any brain for that matter?

I mean, if we chalk that up to "happenstance" wouldn't that then fly in the face of the hypothesis that Jeremy is proposing?



Then how did amino acids in a protein soup become something as "useful" as a brain, if data is useless without "mind"?



I'm just asking?

it must have started with the first generation to survive a complex joining,,, continued with each generation to the point where we are now.

Data passed by DNA(generation that survived) would eventually = data that we think is auto response today.

so then...

What part of human is the image.

The DNA or the physical body.

It seems to me that evolution alone is proof of at least one of the following two things:

1. Mind is not required to guide the "useful" use of data.

OR

2. There must have been a "mind" involved in evolution at some level.


I'm drawn to accept #2.

Although, I don't require that a conscious mind was required to 'baby-sit' the process of evolution every step of the way. Abeit that may have happened too on some level.

But I can see it having happened at the very start of creation by simply being placed into the design of the atoms and the laws of physics in the first place. The "guide" was in the original "writing" of the "data".

That would still be data that had been 'guided' by design, not unlike a random toss of dice is 'guided' by the very design of the dice. Only the numbers on the faces of the individual dies can come up. But all numbers are "useful", so you'll never roll complete "gibberish".

Yes, I believe in "Intelligent Design" in this way. But not in the sense of a 'baby-sitting' intervening deity that watches over and intervenes in every step of the process.

So I chose to accept #2 above as the most likely solution to this query.

I confess that #1 is difficult to accept. Even Jeremy denounces #1 but doesn't seem to feel that this conflict with evolution for some reason.

It would be interesting to hear why he feels there is no conflict there.