Why Thinking Is Over-rated

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:46 am
Conceptual thinking lead to the invention of the machine that you are reading these words on
That's what the creation myth is all about- it's the process of reification.

Turning abstract ideas into concrete things. It's about using reality.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:56 am The intellectual world and the real world are not mutually independent of each other because one is the map and the other is the terrain
Sometimes it is too complex to understand and sometimes it is too much information and sometimes both and sometimes neither of these
And while it can be experienced without it being understood it is not discrimination whenever it is being understood in any objective sense
This is the essence of this conversation [and unfortunately we must use the very same to have it, but...]. Our intellect is only capable of accessing a very small amount of available reality [through our five senses]. But who's to say that there isn't a great deal more out there we are not aware of in the least [analogous to visible and non-visible light].

The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that we are just getting the very tip of the iceberg and even then, we are not able to properly decipher its content/meaning in any significant way. What we are able to process is the best current guess, but of course, that is always changing as does everything intellectual.

So in one sense you are correct, the real world and the intellectual world do have some commonality, but very little. And since even the simplest of things is brought to life by an infinite number of things preceding, it becomes obvious [to this observer] that we have no chance of understanding even the .0000000...1% of the most basic things.

The good news is that we can lives very nice lives if we choose to leave our intellect to what it can handle and just accept life as it comes as being ok [no discrimination required].
Last edited by simplicity on Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:18 pm we are not able to properly decipher its content/meaning in any significant way.
It's probably not very wise to search for meaning in facts.

Is why I am asking whether you know what it means "to understand".
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:30 am
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:34 am The intellectual world is very complex, NOT the real world.
The real world is even more complex than the intellectual world. That is why we are not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. That is why we have that ideal - we want to be!
No, the real world is Absolute Simplicity. We can access this non-intellectually but can never understand it becauase we lack the capacity.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:30 amThe intellectual world's primary goal is to manage complexity, because complexity is precisely what's going to kill us in the long run.
At least that what it believes it is doing. Complexity is human thinking, nothing else.

Everything comes and goes [including us].
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:34 am And it's not that its too complex to understand, it's just too much information to process.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:30 amYes! That is a direct implication of the world's complexity! There is not enough computational resources to examine all the available information.

That is why we resort to heuristics like Mathematics. We equate things that are not really equal. We abstract away information that we think is not relevant so that we can reason about stuff in our heads.
The amount of information has little to do with its complexity. Here's an example. Say you are driving on the highway and a robust speed [80mph] and there's a lot of traffic. Every driver is having to process a great deal of information/react accordingly simply to stay alive. How is this person able to do this?

Now let's make our commute a little more interesting. Say there was a highway where there were no boundaries, that people in cars were going north, south, east, and west simultaneously. If people could process the amount of information necessary, they could all still be going 80mph and not crash into each other. Of course, their timing would have to be incredibly accurate, but it's not complexity that's the problem, it an information processing issue. In other words, people can accomplish this task at a four way stop-sign because they have slowed down the amount of information that needs to be processed. At this speed, complexity is not a problem. Increase the speed to even 1mph and calculating the variables becomes too much for people to handle [although it is no more complex that the 4 way stop-sign].
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:34 am The good news is that there is another kind of understanding that is not so dependent on our limited intellect...that which exists before our discrimination kicks-in.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:30 amEven though you recently stated that understanding is not possible? Abstraction is NOT possible without discrimination! You have to choose what to ignore; and you have to choose what to amplify! That is discriminatory by definition.

I guess I should just go ahead and ask: do you think you understand understanding?
Unfortunately, we are stuck using intelligence to communicate so I will agree with you that I am breaking all the rules, but I would state that I have absolutely no understanding of any of this and that I [and everybody else] just makes it up as we go. Even those who appear to be the most intelligent among us will appear to be fools when their well thought out missives are seen for what they are in the not so distant future, i.e., total bullshit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm No, the real world is Absolute Simplicity. We can access this non-intellectually but can never understand it becauase we lack the capacity.
The real world is the real world. Since you lack the capacity to understand it then one can conclude that "Absolute Simplicity" is only your own projection onto the real world.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm At least that what it believes it is doing. Complexity is human thinking, nothing else.
So if the world is simple, and our thinking is complex how could we possibly "lack the capacity" to understand it?
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm The amount of information has little to do with its complexity. Here's an example. Say you are driving on the highway and a robust speed [80mph] and there's a lot of traffic. Every driver is having to process a great deal of information/react accordingly simply to stay alive. How is this person able to do this?
It doesn't matter how. They are doing it. The brain's finite bandwidth is suficient for this task.

But if the task places strain on cognitive load beyond the brain's capacity you will quickly see things going pearshaped.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm Of course, their timing would have to be incredibly accurate, but it's not complexity that's the problem, it an information processing issue. In other words, people can accomplish this task at a four way stop-sign because they have slowed down the amount of information that needs to be processed. At this speed, complexity is not a problem. Increase the speed to even 1mph and calculating the variables becomes too much for people to handle [although it is no more complex that the 4 way stop-sign].
I think you should open Google and type "time complexity computer science".

You can't slow down time! The only thing you can do is increase the speed of your processing. And when your processor is your brain... that's pretty damn hard.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm Unfortunately, we are stuck using intelligence to communicate so I will agree with you that I am breaking all the rules, but I would state that I have absolutely no understanding of any of this and that I [and everybody else] just makes it up as we go. Even those who appear to be the most intelligent among us will appear to be fools when their well thought out missives are seen for what they are in the not so distant future, i.e., total bullshit.
This is just a tautology. it says nothing interesting. If every successive generation can see the bullshit of the past, surely progress would be made if a generation can come to see its own bullshit and do something different?

Like abandon the pursuit of Truth as "picture-perfect understanding of reality"
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:39 pm
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:18 pm we are not able to properly decipher its content/meaning in any significant way.
It's probably not very wise to search for meaning in facts.

Is why I am asking whether you know what it means "to understand".
This would be a helpful conversation. There should be many words to describe the many meanings that the word understanding can embody. In an absolute sense, I believe we can have no true understanding, that is, access to actual Reality. As far as the reality created by our intellect, using the word understanding would be a stretch, as what understanding we might have appears to be quite superficial [at best].

Non-intellectually, realization is a better word, as it describes something that might have confluence of stimuli. Who knows?

What we do think of as understanding, e.g., the sky is blue, 1+1=2, this way is south, etc., can easily be deconstructed and is subject to many relative states. What we know is layer upon layer of things that seem to make sense but don't really [once a critical part of the puzzle is found to be fraudulent]. How surprised the physicians of the day must have been once they figured out that drilling holes in patients' skulls [in order to extricate evil spirits] was not such a great idea. All things work this same way.

So understanding is really accepted misunderstanding, that is, nothing that is thought to be true today will still be thought to be true in the future [be it 5, 10, 100, 500, 1000, etc. years]. What does understanding mean to you?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:00 pm
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm No, the real world is Absolute Simplicity. We can access this non-intellectually but can never understand it becauase we lack the capacity.
The real world is the real world. Since you lack the capacity to understand it then one can conclude that "Absolute Simplicity" is only your own projection onto the real world.
I'll buy that.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm At least that what it believes it is doing. Complexity is human thinking, nothing else.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:00 pmSo if the world is simple, and our thinking is complex how could we possibly "lack the capacity" to understand it?
All things are simple. Once somebody figures out what's on the other side of the Universe, that will seem simple, as well. Complexity indicates misunderstanding.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm Of course, their timing would have to be incredibly accurate, but it's not complexity that's the problem, it an information processing issue. In other words, people can accomplish this task at a four way stop-sign because they have slowed down the amount of information that needs to be processed. At this speed, complexity is not a problem. Increase the speed to even 1mph and calculating the variables becomes too much for people to handle [although it is no more complex that the 4 way stop-sign].
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:00 pmI think you should open Google and type "time complexity computer science".

You can't slow down time! The only thing you can do is increase the speed of your processing. And when your processor is your brain... that's pretty damn hard.
Time is an entirely different discussion, but the way we perceive time is anything but static.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pm Unfortunately, we are stuck using intelligence to communicate so I will agree with you that I am breaking all the rules, but I would state that I have absolutely no understanding of any of this and that I [and everybody else] just makes it up as we go. Even those who appear to be the most intelligent among us will appear to be fools when their well thought out missives are seen for what they are in the not so distant future, i.e., total bullshit.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:00 pmThis is just a tautology. it says nothing interesting. If every successive generation can see the bullshit of the past, surely progress would be made if a generation can come to see its own bullshit and do something different?

Like abandon the pursuit of Truth as "picture-perfect understanding of reality"
I have to live in the real world so I must adjust to differing realities like everybody else, but I figure that I can have some fun chatting with people about all kinds of things. Again, my point is always pretty much the same, that very few people understand the limits of the human intellect and what lies beyond it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm This would be a helpful conversation. There should be many words to describe the many meanings that the word understanding can embody.
If you are focusing on the word "understanding" I think you are getting off on the wrong foot.

Understanding is a state of mind.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm In an absolute sense, I believe we can have no true understanding, that is, access to actual Reality
Sure. That would mean omniscience/omnipresence. We don't have that.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm What we do think of as understanding, e.g., the sky is blue, 1+1=2, this way is south,
Those are just things we say. It doesn't address why we say them.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm So understanding is really accepted misunderstanding, that is, nothing that is thought to be true today will still be thought to be true in the future [be it 5, 10, 100, 500, 1000, etc. years]. What does understanding mean to you?
To me understanding means knowing how ot maifest my will into reality without reality getting in my way.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by surreptitious57 »

simplicity wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
The intellectual world and the real world are not mutually independent of each other because one is the map and the other is the terrain
Sometimes it is too complex to understand and sometimes it is too much information and sometimes both and sometimes neither of these
And while it can be experienced without it being understood it is not discrimination whenever it is being understood in any objective sense
This is the essence of this conversation [ and unfortunately we must use the very same to have it but ] Our intellect is only capable of accessing a very small amount of available reality [ through our five senses ] But who is to say that there is not a great deal more out there we are not aware of in the least [ analogous to visible and non visible light ]

The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that we are just getting the very tip of the iceberg and even then we are not able to properly decipher its content / meaning in any significant way . What we are able to process is the best current guess but of course that is always changing as does everything intellectual
There is so much out there that we are not aware of because we can only study what we can see
And not everything that we can see can necessarily be studied to any significant degree

However despite that knowledge increases over time both quantitatively and qualitatively
As long as knowledge is increasing then progress is being made

Why must it be necessary to know everything anyway
Feynman once asked what is wrong with not knowing to which the answer is nothing at all absolutely nothing at all
The best thing for curiosity is limited knowledge because that limitation is what drives us to seek more knowledge
Remember what Einstein said about imagination

Omniscience is so overrated it really is
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Fja1 »

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pmThe real world is even more complex than the intellectual world. That is why we are not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. That is why we have that ideal - we want to be!
What is chance? Chance are results such that are unpredictable, because they depend on causes too numerous or complex to identify and analyze, despite determinism.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:01 pm If you are focusing on the word "understanding" I think you are getting off on the wrong foot.

Understanding is a state of mind.
Please elucidate.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm What does understanding mean to you?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:01 pmTo me understanding means knowing how to manifest my will into reality without reality getting in my way.
Again, please explain what you mean by the above.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:52 pm As long as knowledge is increasing then progress is being made
It seems to me that the vast majority of knowledge contains little use-value. Similar to possessions [in general], one needs little stuff and little [albeit prescient] knowledge [e.g., skills for attaining personal autonomy].
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Sculptor »

simplicity wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:01 pm If you are focusing on the word "understanding" I think you are getting off on the wrong foot.

Understanding is a state of mind.
Please elucidate.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm What does understanding mean to you?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:01 pmTo me understanding means knowing how to manifest my will into reality without reality getting in my way.
Again, please explain what you mean by the above.
Don't hold your breath
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Fja1 wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:15 pm
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:45 pmThe real world is even more complex than the intellectual world. That is why we are not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. That is why we have that ideal - we want to be!
What is chance? Chance are results such that are unpredictable, because they depend on causes too numerous or complex to identify and analyze, despite determinism.
This was not my quote, but your reasoning would apply to all things. Things are the way they are for reasons nobody will ever know [and thank God for small favors!]. Imagine the brutality of our kind if we actually understood how things worked!! :twisted:
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:17 pm Please elucidate.
When you utter the English sentence "I understand" you are making a claim about reality.

You are, of course, making a claim about yourself. But you are part of reality. So you are making a claim about yourself AND about reality at the same time.
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm Again, please explain what you mean by the above.
OK. A bunch of steps back first. In Epistemology there's this central problem called the problem of criterion. A set of conditions (broadly or narrowly specified) which need to be satisfied before you make the self-claim "I understand".

Richard Feynman's challenge to himself is "If I can't create it - I don't understand it.". He's talking about first principles thinking and he's talking about derriving Mathematical equations, but we'll ignore that bit for now. For the purposes of elucidation "understanding" is determined by your ability to turn your abstract "understanding" (your ideas) into something concrete/real.

This process goes by many names. Reification, creation, self-expression, art.

To claim that you understand consciousness (in the abstract) requires that you are able to create consciousness (in the concrete).

And so if I am able to create a machine which can do some of the things consciousness can, then on some level I understand consciousness.

Self-driving cars. Artificial intelligence. It does some of the stuff humans do.
Post Reply