Human Knowledge & its Expression:

Posted by khuram on January 29, 2007

In my other articles like “Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind”, “Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times” and “Animism and Mythology”, I have taken “Knowledge” as equivalent to “theoretical awareness”. As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions. Computers etc. display theories, but they are not ‘aware’ of any theory. So “theoretical awareness” can be considered as the unique property of only humans. But the fact that animals are generally aware of their environment, raises the question that if all knowledge theoretical? Following article is basically an attempt to reply this question.

As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans. My opinion is just that we can consider only this type of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. There can be other modes of ‘awareness’ also. It does not seem wrong to not treat other forms of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. Awareness can be as remote as like a thermometer being ‘aware’ of body temperature as it can show exact amount of temperature. This type of awareness is neither ‘theoretical’ nor ‘conscious’. Only thing here is that let’s say mercury expansion has direct relationship with temperature. Mercury, in a sense, is ‘sensitive’ to heat or temperature. Mercury shall show a specific ‘response’ i.e. of expansion, whenever it shall be exposed to heat. But this type of ‘sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’ is totally mechanical. Mechanical actions can be considered to be quite rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’. We say, just for our own convenience, that thermometer is ‘aware’ of temperature. In fact it is not. Fact is just that the mercury in thermometer has rigidly, blindly and unconsciously been affected on the basis of a constant physical law. It is we humans, who can take conscious notice of how much mercury has been affected through the application of heat. Then we call so measured heat as temperature. In the article on the topic “Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind”, I have defined ‘consciousness’ as the “manifested form of sensitiveness and responsiveness which originates from biological sense perception.” Now question arises is that what are the core elements of biological sensitiveness and responsiveness? In above discussion, we have recognized that mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness has to be in a constant pattern, has to be blind, rigid and non-conscious etc. An animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness will have whole different features. In an ordinary animal, there is presence of famous five senses. In addition, there is ‘memory’. This animal may show many types of responses like fear, belongingness, anger etc. etc. The issue here is that just what are the differences between the sensitiveness and responsiveness of a thermometer and those of an animal like a dog? In a thermometer, mercury will show its response only when it shall be physically exposed to heat. Mercury is ‘blind’ because it cannot show any response without physical contact with heat source, where obviously, heat source may include hot surrounding air as well. A dog, on the other hand, is not blind because it can show some response without having been physically exposed to hot surrounding area of burning fire. A dog can ‘see’ burning fire from as much distant place as to just able to ‘see’ the burning fire but not able to feel any heat thereof, and then can show its response. At this point, real ‘awareness’ comes to scene. This ‘awareness’ can be thought of as such a ‘sensitiveness’ which must have been originated, may be just partially, from “past memorized experiences”. Here it seems pertinent to mention Henri Bergson’s concept of Mind. He has conceived ‘mind’ as a faculty, which can ‘store’ past. Although I do not think that the only function of mind is to just store past and then, as Bergson says, to recall the relevant contents of past experiences upon facing the current situation. Mind, in my opinion, can have many other functions than to this one, but this definition of mind, in my assessment, does comprehensively describe an animal’s mind with the exception that still the pure instinctive actions of animals, which are generally independent of any of past experiences, are not covered by this definition. In this way, we can say that those animal actions that originate from the application of ‘stored’ past memories (may be like movie clips) upon current situation are the ‘awareness’ based actions. Other actions, that are independent of past experiences, may be considered as just ‘instinctive’ actions.

Now if we try to differentiate mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness from the sensitiveness and responsiveness of an animal, we can do it at two levels; i.e. (i) on the level of just instincts and; (ii) on the level of ‘awareness’. On the level of instincts, such things as pleasure, pain, comfort, discomfort etc. shall characterize an animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness. These things are not to be found in just mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness. Secondly, mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness is just a one-way process. The behavior of non-living entity, which is showing mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness, has to be perfectly ‘passive’. On the other hand, instincts based animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness is a two way process where animals generally show ‘active’ behavior. An animal that feels pleasure would by itself move towards the source of pleasure and similarly shall move away, at its own (i.e. by using its own biological mechanical or locomotion energy), from the sources of pains and discomforts. Now come to see the difference of mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness with animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness on the level of ‘awareness’. Animal’s mind possesses the faculty of storage of past experiences and the ability to recall relevant past experiences upon facing the current situation. Actually, it seems that animal mind is able to store the related or “associated” observations in serially connected form. What I mean is that let’s say an animal, which is ‘aware’ of ways of its routine path etc. shall recall the next turn or way-out after having reached that particular place where that next turn is situated. It means that animal’s mind, where past experiences have been stored, shall retrieve the corresponding relevant information i.e. about next turn, only when the animal shall again perceive the place of that turn. It is simply not appropriate to suppose the presence of any such ability in animals that they could have some sort of imaginative mapping of ways of their usual route. In this way, in animals, process of sense perception continuously keeps on drawing next relevant information from the storeroom of past experiences i.e. mind; because sense perception itself is a continuous process. And since past experiences are guiding animal here, so we can consider this type of animal behavior to be based on ‘awareness’. In the same way, animals can memorize (i.e. store) the information regarding what to do upon listening particular commands of their Masters and can retrieve that information from memory whenever they listen those commands. In addition, animals can expect or anticipate the commands by their Masters as well. But it seems that they can have such expectations only in the presence of those Masters.

Now we can try to differentiate between this type of animal awareness and the ‘theoretical awareness’ that can be found in our perceivable world, only in humans. First of all we should accept that basically, or by birth, humans do not possess anything like ‘theoretical awareness’. Innately, humans possess only ‘learning potential’ as well as certain tendencies for it. I shall discuss these tendencies at pertinent stage. Human childs acquire or learn theoretical propositions or other theoretical stuff only and mainly out of their experience of living in human groups or society. Without going into the speculations regarding just how primitive theoretical knowledge could have been evolved in early human societies, we can just assume that it might have been so evolved as a result of very long term processes. I have mentioned earlier that it is not appropriate to suppose that animals can have anything like ‘imaginative mapping’ of their ‘stored past’ because it is only the process of sense perception in animals, that can retrieve or draw the relevant past contents out of memory. But for the case of humans, it is pertinent to suppose the presence of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past contents even for the case of such an hypothetical individual human who gets no experience of living in human group or society at all. Due to this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are able to recall those past contents in their fresh memory (or conscious mind) that may not have any linkage with their existing sensory information. Due to this ability, humans, for instance can recall and tell ways of path of some other city while standing on a different location of another city. In this way, actually humans can imaginatively ‘explore’ the storeroom of past experiences. And although humans can imaginatively explore the past experiences of mind but it seems that they cannot reach up to a particular past memory content just arbitrarily. What seems right is that they can reach up to a particular past memory content only through a chain like process. For example, in order that I may recall ways of path of some other city, first of all I need to bring the idea of that other city to my conscious mind. With the idea of that city in my conscious mind, then I shall recall different spots of the path etc. and then, only through this chain like process, I shall be able to tell the complete path to some other person. I shall discuss the structure of this chain like process in some other article. The thing to be emphasized here is that the ability of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past experiences exists only in humans and that although this ability itself is not equivalent to humans’ ‘theoretical knowledge’, but the same ‘imaginative mapping’ is an important source of this ‘theoretical knowledge’. The same ‘imaginative map’ is the source of origin of all human thinking, imaginations and dreams as well. Due to having this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are in need to ‘express’ this map of stored past experiences. They can do it in the form of let’s say artwork like drawings as well as in theoretical format. Archeological evidences of various cave-artworks reveal that humans used to express their ‘imaginative maps’ in the form of drawings in as early period as about fifty thousand years ago. Evidences of theoretical expressions are relatively quite recent.

Human mind, unlike animal mind, not only stores past experiences, it also alters or modifies those past memory contents. For the case of animals, what can be safely assumed is that they do generalize various past experiences but obviously, to a far lesser extent to what humans can do in this respect. What only humans do and so animals cannot be supposed to be able to do is that humans can draw analogical as well as other inductive and deductive conclusions. And the limitation of human mind is that every kind of conclusion or inference, whether it is simple generalization or analogical or it is any other form of inductive or deductive inference, is not more than just a re-arrangement of already possessed past experiences. Suppose there are two experience based similar entities (Aab) and (Babc) in human mind. Let’s say, A and B are two students. A is experimentally known to have ‘a’ and ‘b’ qualities and similarly B is experimentally known to be the possessor of ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ qualities. On the basis of this information, this human mind can draw an analogical conclusion that probably A possesses ‘c’ quality as well. Here this mind has assigned ‘c’ quality to A at its own i.e. without any prior experimental test. In this way, there has been some addition to mind contents because previously mind had only experimental data whereas now mind is having an analogical inference also, in addition to the old experimental data. It means that mind is having some new information that has not directly come from sense experience. And although this new information has not directly come from sense experience but the fact to be noted is that the same new information has come indirectly from the same sense experience. Mind has come to know something quite independently of sense experience. But in fact mind has not created anything at its own. In more understandable words of our information age, mind just has performed a copy-paste thing. It just has copied quality ‘c’ that belonged to B and then has assigned this copied entity to A. In analogy, mind only performs copy-paste whereas usually doesn’t perform cut-paste.

In the same way, in any other form of conclusion or inference, mind does not create anything at its own. It just re-arranges, or modifies the given information and then presents so modified information in such way that gives some new meanings. For example, consider the following simple example of a deductive conclusion:

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore All A are C

Here we can suppose that premises of this argument had come from sense experience whereas now mind has reached to the deductive conclusion i.e. “All A are C”, at its own. In a general sense, this conclusion is the product of mind. But in a more technical sense, this conclusion is not any creation of mind because not a single word of conclusion “All A are C”, is a whole new thing. In fact all the words of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In this deductive conclusion, mind has just re-arranged the information, which was contained in the premises.

In this way, we can say that unlike animal mind, human mind not only stores past experiences, it re-arranges or alters those past experiences as well. In addition, unlike animals, human mind contains many abstract entities also because due to the process of sense experience and thinking and imaginations, humans can identify many abstract entities like beauty, friendship, mind, knowledge etc. etc. Humans’ ‘imaginative map’ thus not only includes original sensory information, it includes abstract entities and re-arranged, modified or altered information as well. And humans are in need to ‘express’ this type of imaginative map. And again, as already has been described, humans usually do it in theoretical format or in the form of drawings or some other artwork etc.

Now we can discuss the main issue i.e. is all knowledge theoretical? The above discussion actually implies a relatively more technical definition of knowledge, which may be stated like: “Knowledge means those stored past experiences, that may include original sensory data as well as abstract and re-arranged or altered information, which can be expressed with or without having been exposed to the associated or relevant current sense perception. In addition to being able to be ‘expressed’, those stored (original plus altered) experiences must be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions”. We should consider that ‘knowledge’ is far complicated thing than to this definition and that this definition is trying to describe only some particular aspects of ‘knowledge’.

In this way, we can differentiate between ‘knowledge’ and just ‘awareness’. ‘Knowledge’ includes ‘awareness’ whereas just ‘awareness’ may not be accompanied with ‘knowledge’. Awareness is just ‘sensitiveness’ that comes, at least partially, from past memorized experiences upon facing current relevant sense perceptions; and it may include corresponding ‘responsiveness’ as well. ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand must be able to be ‘expressed’ as well as it may not have any relation with currently-perceived sensory information. In addition, knowledge should be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions.

Knowledge therefore may be considered to be the ability to express (original plus altered) past. Secondly, ‘awareness’ is also other main component of knowledge. So in lose sense, only ‘theoretical awareness’ can be considered as ‘knowledge’. In a strict sense, combination of ‘awareness’ with any mode of expression such as theoretical expression or artistic expression or any other form of expression can be regarded as knowledge. The foundation of this knowledge is the ‘imaginative map’ of past experiences. This map is not the true picture of past because it includes such altered contents as well that may range from just vague and meaningless conclusions to marvelous metaphysical theories etc. This imaginative map sometimes reflects itself in disorganized or random styles in the forms of dreams and illusions, and the same imaginative map can reflect itself in very accurately constructed pieces of arts as well as logically/ mathematically and grammatically accurate pieces of philosophies, sciences and literature. It has been mentioned earlier that although theoretical awareness is not innate in humans, but humans do possess some pre-given tendencies that can refine and improve the quality of ‘imaginative map’ and also help in the process of construction of theoretical mind stuff. These pre-given tendencies are that humans, with passage of mind related experiences, tend to become logically, mathematically and grammatically more accurate and consistent and artistically and poetically more precise and balanced. As we live in already civilized age, so we get introduction to theoretical knowledge from the society. I already have stated that discussion in this article shall not go to speculations regarding just how theoretical knowledge first time originated in human societies. But however, it seems right to point out that these pre-given tendencies might be having a great role in the original creation of theoretical mind stuff. Theoretical stuff itself is not knowledge but it makes us ‘able’ to express our ‘imaginative map’. Our tendencies of becoming logically and mathematically more accurate and consistent can work on raw ‘imaginative map’; but it seems that these pre-given tendencies work more efficiently on theoretical mind stuff. When we logically, mathematically and grammatically improve our theoretical mind stuff, then actually we also make corresponding refinements and improvements in our ‘imaginative map’. And every segment of theoretical stuff corresponds to more than one aspect of ‘imaginative map’ and vice versa. By having a particular theoretical proposition in our conscious mind, we are having its related aspects of ‘imaginative map’ also in our conscious mind and vice versa. And just like that we can explore our imaginative map only through a chain like process, each and every bit of theoretical stuff also can be accessed (recalled/ expressed) only through a chain like process. Let’s say I have memorized page No.110 of a particular book. Normally, I shall recall the contents of this memorized theoretical stuff only through such a chain like process that I shall start telling it from first word and shall tell or express the complete page word by word. The chain is like that while uttering second word; I shall get a ‘spark’ of what is going to be the third word and by following that ‘spark’, I shall utter that third word; then I shall get similar ‘spark’ for next word and so on. This chain like process should be compared with photo copying process of photocopy machine that instantly copies all the contents of page. Secondly, it is very difficult to suppose that let’s say a classical singer is fully aware of all the complicated ups and downs of music before starting to perform. The fact, that seems right is that the singer shall start singing; and at stage of every bit of up or down in the music, he shall get similar ‘spark’ regarding what to perform in the very next moment. And then he shall give a continuous performance in this way. The wave of ups and downs of music is not “hard-coded” in his mind. Actually each and every bit of those ups and downs is just recalled, through a chain like process, at the right stage. The guiding factor behind this process is not any “hard-coded” material but seems to be consisted of many pre-given tendencies of humans, out of which “sense of musical balance” may be considered to be the main guiding factor behind this particular process.

Similarly, knowledge does not reside in mind like any “hard-coded” theoretical propositions. Whenever we are required to ‘express’ knowledge, we start exploring our ‘imaginative map’, obviously in a chain like way; then some of corresponding theoretical stuff also comes to conscious mind. Our innate tendencies of keeping ourselves logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate also come to action. These tendencies, instantly, help in translating the exploration of ‘imaginative map’ into the logically connected and interrelated theoretical propositions. In this way, we theoretically describe our ‘imaginative map’. In the same way, we can instantly interpret the currently observed any new phenomenon and can describe it theoretically.

Thus existence of imaginative map is a great advancement in humans. It cannot be said with surety that other animals do not possess this kind of imaginative map at all. What can be said safely is that the most advanced imaginative map of any animal would still be inferior to very rough and less developed imaginative map of any primitive human. And as we live in already civilized societies, so the imaginative maps of our past experiences include various kinds of theoretical stuff as well. It means that here, theoretical stuff being a part of imaginative map, may not have its existence apart from, or distinguished from the imaginative map. The systematic structure of theoretical propositions and language helps us in refining and improving our over-all imaginative maps. We tend to keep our imaginative map and our expressions logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate. Theories of logic, mathematics and grammar etc. in this way, have been discovered out of our own general tendencies. Humans are much more than animals and it is not right to think that human knowledge is just some quantitative advancement in animal intelligence.


9 Responses to “Human Knowledge & its Expression:”

  1. Akhtar said

    as i have told u before that one must need an excellent mind to comment on ur writings…. i will coment when i ll have excellent mind, so plz dont mind if i am not giving my comments on ur writings…u really really hv excellent mind…. MashaAllah, keep it up… but dont forget that now its time for u to be 2 frm 1, understand?????????

  2. Hyra said

    I disagree to the part that computers make theoretical constructions, being aware is completely a different matter. Once if there is construction, the presence of awareness is vital. Hence, that would be illogical to say that computers make theoretical constructions but are “not ‘aware’ of any theory”.

    “As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans.”

    I have to disagree out here too! Only humans aren’t blessed with this “awareness” but through the way of paranormal and Para psychological there are certain species, which exist but their physical appearance has always been a matter in the questions. Such specimens have been discussed in the folds of “Occult” and possess the theoretical awareness, which might be not as higher as that of humans.

    ” Mechanical actions can be considered to be 100% rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’.”

    I agree to the part that Mechanical actions can be considered to be unconscious but they are never rigid, constant and blind. If we analyze this part more critically then we can also derive the result that it is not always necessary for “unconsciousness” to be rigid, constant and blind at the same time. Some of the properties may not be present at the very same time. Also, labeling something to be “100%” sounds rather illogical to me. There is some consciousness in unconsciousness as well, but in that case consciousness might possibly be dealt with wrong logics and this is what creates “unconsciousness”.

  3. Hyra said

    I agree with your definition of “animals” in the sense of mostly used English Language, but as far as the Biology is concerned I deem it to be incorrect ‘not’ to call humans to be the animals. Biologically, humans are also classified in the category of animals as a whole and “more-conscious animals” in particular. This can be taken in a very simple definition of “living beings with five (or more) senses”.

    I’ll reflect on the idea of “theory” and “knowledge” here. They have an “indirect” link with each other. Theories are created more on the bases of fiction than the factual knowledge. However, many times they are also created out of “assumptions” but we really can’t label that to be “knowledge” (in the critical sense). Since “knowledge” is “something known” or “to know something”. Theories on the other hand initially don’t have the scientific authenticity, until they establish themselves as the “universal facts”. Therefore they can’t have any relation with “something known” but serves as the alleyway “to know something”. This is from where the “indirect” relationship of theory and knowledge begins.

    + Knowledge as taken in “something-known-perspective” is always authentic for everyone, but theories on the other hand (initially) are bound to have both: contradictions and conciliations.

  4. khuram said

    @ Hyra

    First of all thanks for your analytical comments.

    About Computers:

    You wrote:

    […I disagree to the part that computers make theoretical constructions, being aware is completely a different matter. Once if there is construction, the presence of awareness is vital. Hence, that would be illogical to say that computers make theoretical constructions but are “not ‘aware’ of any theory”. …]

    I had written those words in the introductory paragraph in just ordinary usual sense or better to say, in a superficial sense. Technically speaking, computers only display results of binary operations in human understandable form. Computers don’t even perform those binary operations at their own because they only act in accordance with human instructions. Only humans consciously give instructions to computers and only human are ‘aware’ of what output computer displays before them. Computer’s actions are like ‘mechanical actions’. Computer itself remains totally unaware of whatever actions it performs. Anyhow, there is need to change this part of article which I should do now!

    Your Next Point:

    [… “As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans.”

    I have to disagree out here too! Only humans aren’t blessed with this “awareness” but through the way of paranormal and Para psychological there are certain species, which exist but their physical appearance has always been a matter in the questions. Such specimens have been discussed in the folds of “Occult” and possess the theoretical awareness, which might be not as higher as that of humans. …]

    Let me here give some explanation about the over-all nature of my work. I, in my work, am trying to describe ‘perceivable’ nature. So I have no concern with unperceivable things. There can be Ghosts, Evil Spirits and other like things. Instead of investigating for their ‘physical existence’, I would like to form an empirical opinion/ explanation about them. To the best of my personal knowledge, only parrot is such a species that occasionally utters small theoretical sentences. I accept the possibility of existence of some other similar species as well. In this article, I have mentioned that animals can recollect past only when they again perceive things that should have some association with the past memories. Whereas humans can recollect even those segments of past memories that may not have any relationship with current perceptions. Now If I try to analyze the behavior of a parrot which can speak, I recognize that parrot can utter the words which it can speak even at those moments at which it is not perceiving any associated things. For example my cousin had a parrot that could speak “Mian Mitthu” whenever my cousin showed it mirror. But occasionally it also happened that the parrot uttered this word even without having been shown the mirror. My focus point is still that only humans possess the faculty of imaginative map of past. Due to having imaginative map, I can tell stories of my remote past even if my eyes are closed. But see that parrot usually needs to be brought before mirror, in order that it may become able to utter its memorized words. But since parrot occasionally also utters the same words without having seen mirror, it means it is able to bring something of past to its fresh memory even with its eyes closed. Then what could be the real difference between a human and a parrot? Obviously that parrot also possesses some sort of imaginative map. When I say that it is only humans who possess imaginative map, I actually do not attribute 100% rigid meanings to this assertion. The ‘quality’ of animal’s imaginative map is so much inferior and remote as compared to the quality of imaginative map of humans that it seems right to say that animals don’t possess any imaginative map at all. Philosophy is not like mathematical equations. Some times we ‘know’ that there is something but we ‘feel’ that there is nothing in that something. Philosophy may have to deal with this type of situations!

    Even parrot is not aware of any “theory”. It is aware of just a learnt action, like some other animals. Animals can be ‘aware’ but they can’t be ‘theoretically aware’.

    Your Next Point:

    [ … ” Mechanical actions can be considered to be 100% rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’.”
    I agree to the part that Mechanical actions can be considered to be unconscious but they are never rigid, constant and blind. If we analyze this part more critically then we can also derive the result that it is not always necessary for “unconsciousness” to be rigid, constant and blind at the same time. Some of the properties may not be present at the very same time. Also, labeling something to be “100%” sounds rather illogical to me. There is some consciousness in unconsciousness as well, but in that case consciousness might possibly be dealt with wrong logics and this is what creates “unconsciousness”. … ]

    Again, here I am not talking about equations of Physics. I am talking about difference between animal behaviour and the behaviour of non-living matter. In such type of comparison, we “can” “consider” mechanical action to be 100% rigid, constand and blind as compared with animal behaviour. Although I realize that I should change this part of article and should use those words that should not talk in absolute terms. Thanks for bringing my attention on this issue.

    Your points in your second post:

    First of all I have not defined “animal” in this article. And yes, I have avoided to use word “animal” for humans. Theory of Biology is concerned with material or physical aspects of animals and humans. Biologically humans are also animals. But my article is not concerned with physical or material aspects of humans or animals. It is concerned with ‘abstract entities’ like ‘knowledge’ and ‘mind’. Here word ‘mind’ is not equal to ‘physical brain’. Functionality of human mind may depend on physical brain but mind itself is not equal to physical brain. Mind is an abstract entity. Human mind is so much advanced from animal mind that in terms of abstract Philosophy, it doesn’t seem right to call humans as animals, even though biologically they are.

    About your differentiation of ‘theory’ and ‘knowledge’:

    You are right in a sense but I do not want to think in that way. The theories that we make out of fictions or assumptions or out of ordinary observations, form “subjective knowledge”. When we test or confirm the truthness or authenticity of that subjective knowledge through the application of “scientific method”, then the “proven” theories become “objective scientific knowledge”. But in order to have scientific knowledge, we always need to have subjective ideas first, which could be tested or confirmed through the application of scientific method. Galileo’s experiments were the attempts to confirm or verify the truthness of already established Greek subjective ideas on those issues. Jabir bin Hayan’s experiments were also his attempts to verify already existing subjective idea that ordinary metals could be converted into gold. Polvov was experimentally verifying another subjective idea when as a happy accident he came across the idea of conditional learning. Michealsons and Morley conducted an experiment to test the subjective idea of the existence of Eather. As a result, they not only had to deny the existence of Eather but they also came to conclusion that relative speed of light always remain constant.

    My opinion is that whether it is right or wrong, true or false, subjective or objective, scientific or non-scientific, in any case ‘theoretical awareness’ is ‘knowledge’, because it is the fundamental thing which clearly differentiates humans from other animals. What is right, what is wrong etc., these are secondary issues. Subjective knowledge is more important because it is the primary thing. If humans stop producing subjective knowledge then any growth in scientific knowledge would be impossible.

    Your Following Words:

    [ … + Knowledge as taken in “something-known-perspective” is always authentic for everyone, but theories on the other hand (initially) are bound to have both: contradictions and conciliations. … ]

    Which is “authentic” for everyone is “objective”. “Objectivity” may not be true in real sense however. I believe that “authentic” scientific knowledge also can have inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Only thing is that there are lesser disputes on objective knowledge. For details, you will have to go through my all posts under the category of “Subjectivity/ Objectivity and Scientific Method”.

    Thanks & Regards!

  5. […] Contact Us English Afrikaans العربية Беларуская български català česky Cymraeg dansk Deutsch ελληνική español eesti فارسی suomi français Gaeilge galego עברית हिन्दी hrvatski magyar bahasa Indonesia íslenska italiano lietuvių latviešu македонски bahasa Melayu Malti Nederlands norsk polski português română русский slovenčina slovenščina shqipe српски svenska Kiswahili ภาษาไทย Filipino Türkçe українська tiếng Việt ייִדיש powered by jQuery( function($) { $('#translate_popup').css('background-color', $('body').css('background-color')); }); var sc_project=5564160; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=60; var sc_click_stat=1; var sc_security="4061f65c"; Information Age […]

  6. Hafthor Saevarsson said

    Hello Khuram! (I am guessing that is your name) Hafthor here (21 year old novice chessplayer from Iceland).

    Please excuse my forwardness. I am glad we played chess and chat and you linked me to this site. It is truly a a special feeling to find someone of the other side of the planet from a very different culture from your´s, and see his thoughts are not that different from your own. Maybe that is partly why I love philosophy.. The universality of it´s nature.

    My mother teaches philosophy and I have grown up under ‘heavy’ influence of it. In the moment I am very interested in comparing metaphysical theories with quantum mechanics, though I admit I am by no means more then on a novice level.

    Great article! The human brain is a baffling puzzle for today’s scientists, not to mention how something like consciousness can possibly exist!
    (Of course neurosciences try to offer a thin explanation but neurological and biochemical explanations tend to offer explanations that are themselves not explanatory of phenomenons, only descriptive of them! (which is no less a paradox then materialism itself, at least philosophers like Kelley L. Ross argues so ( )))

    “So in lose sense, only ‘theoretical awareness’ can be considered as ‘knowledge’”

    “The foundation of this knowledge is the ‘imaginative map’ of past experiences.”

    I like this article! 🙂

    Today is a growing habit to think that consciousness can easily “awake” in robots and computers. To those I try to point out John Sarle chinese room thougt experiment ( ) which I find a good way of explaining that function is not the same as ‘being aware’. At least is stating that (aware=function) built on a metaphysical assertion and not ‘science’. (although one might argue that whole of modern science is built on a metaphysical assertion, namely materialism).

    I look forward reading more on this site!

    Kind regards from Iceland, Hafthor

  7. Orien Rigney said

    Perception and instinct have been born into every living thing that has ever existed, regardless of it being plant or animal. While humans happen to be “leader of the pack” at this moment, the wings are filled with litigants anxiously awaiting to be our successors. Even as a towering brain laden species, we have just recently began to understand what nature is all about. People like Aristotle, Darwin, Hubble and Einstein were puzzled at their findings. Even today with our scientific marvels, we remain ignorant to most of natures secrets. Dinasaurs roamed the earth for millions of years without leaving a trace other than some large fossalized bones. Will we leave behind only mans decaying graveyards and rusted out monoliths? Disaster may also be a curse of too much intellect?

  8. It’s great to see good information being shared and also to see fresh, creative
    ideas that have never been done before.

  9. Shawn Elan said

    Thanks for your greatful informations, working in, ASIAN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE.
    Try to post best informations like this always

    Iraq : Shia paying high price for America’s missed chance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: