What We Call 'Knowledge', Is Really ...

[PureX]

What we call "knowledge" is really just control. The more we "know" of our environment, ourselves, and each other, the better we are at controlling their affect on us. Which is WHY we "seek knowledge". What we're really seeking is greater control.

So, ... what we so often refer to as "truth", is really just relative functionality. If an idea of something "works" for us (gives us control over our environment), we accept it as being "true". If it doesn't "work" for us, we consider it "false".

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

 

[Thief]

without knowledge.....control is a crap shoot

if you don't know what you are doing.....you can get hurt

but 'knowing' is also the notion of awareness

you know the stars above
the earth beneath your feet
at least you think you do

and do you 'really' .....know yourself?

 

[Thief]

and Man has a drive ....curiosity
seeking to know

even if death is the pending result

 

[icehorse]

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Seems like this is really a question of semantics. Is the pursuit of hedonism a variation on "control"? If so, then I'd agree, but in that case I'd say you're defining "control" in an unusual way.

More concretely, all mammals, and some birds have an innate "play drive". We seek out opportunities to play - even adult mammals do. And play is INTRINSICALLY motivating. It is it's own reward. out in the wild, young mammals at play are often learning survival skills through play, but not always. Often they play just for the sheer joy of playing. And humans of course put a LOT of energy into playing, and it would be a stretch to say it's about control.

When I'm playing Go, I'm gaining knowledge. Go will be more fun the more knowledge I have about it. Video gamers can say the same thing, their growing knowledge will make gaming more fun.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What we call "knowledge" is really just control. The more we "know" of our environment, ourselves, and each other, the better we are at controlling their affect on us. Which is WHY we "seek knowledge". What we're really seeking is greater control.

So, ... what we so often refer to as "truth", is really just relative functionality. If an idea of something "works" for us (gives us control over our environment), we accept it as being "true". If it doesn't "work" for us, we consider it "false".

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

I agree. You just have to look at that we don't need the words as such. They are short cuts for what in the end matters to humans, namely power, prestige and resources.
Of course there is more to life that power, prestige and resources, but that is another debate.

 

[Thief]

then we consider the sociopath.....

control

self seeking
self centered
self serving

control

 

[Brickjectivity]

What we call "knowledge" is really just control. The more we "know" of our environment, ourselves, and each other, the better we are at controlling their affect on us. Which is WHY we "seek knowledge". What we're really seeking is greater control.

So, ... what we so often refer to as "truth", is really just relative functionality. If an idea of something "works" for us (gives us control over our environment), we accept it as being "true". If it doesn't "work" for us, we consider it "false".

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

Its true that control is one major desire, but people vary. In my case it is usually true that seeking knowledge is related to my search for control, but there is another case. The pleasure of learning can link to that reward mechanism in our brains which can overcome the resistance that we have against work. People can hunger to learn. An example is that some people love music and ever increasingly different kinds of music. Music doesn't control anything, but some people just cannot get enough.

I think its related to the innate beauty of knowledge which can be satisfying, and anything knowledge-like or which is a new experience rewards us with pleasure. People deeply value beauty and hunger for variation, and they can develop that hunger. Hunger is a deeper desire than desire to control, so it can be stronger. Its simpler and more direct and can override the desire to control.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't agree at all. I certainly don't seek knowledge for "control" in many instances (usually it's curiosity and awe). Never mind the fact that any "control" knowledge gives you is a two-way street. What you know controls you too.

 

[Tambourine]

That's one possible definition of the term, yes.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What we call "knowledge" is really just control. The more we "know" of our environment, ourselves, and each other, the better we are at controlling their affect on us. Which is WHY we "seek knowledge". What we're really seeking is greater control.

So, ... what we so often refer to as "truth", is really just relative functionality. If an idea of something "works" for us (gives us control over our environment), we accept it as being "true". If it doesn't "work" for us, we consider it "false".

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

I certainly agree that the more knowledge we have about how our environment works the greater potential we have for controlling said environment. I'd say that being able to control our environment is a major reason why people seek knowledge, but it's not the only reason why we seek it.

But I don't know what you mean by it's not about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is'. The more knowledge we gain about what works and what doesn't work, the greater our understand of 'what is' becomes. Can you provide an example of some knowledge that helps to give us more control over our environment that isn't actually true?

 

[PureX]

Seems like this is really a question of semantics. Is the pursuit of hedonism a variation on "control"? If so, then I'd agree, but in that case I'd say you're defining "control" in an unusual way.

Hedonism is a philosophical motive for our wanting control (personal pleasure). One of several.

More concretely, all mammals, and some birds have an innate "play drive". We seek out opportunities to play - even adult mammals do. And play is INTRINSICALLY motivating. It is it's own reward. out in the wild, young mammals at play are often learning survival skills through play, but not always. Often they play just for the sheer joy of playing. And humans of course put a LOT of energy into playing, and it would be a stretch to say it's about control.

Play releases chemical reactions in our brain that give us pleasure. An evolutionary trait that increases our interactions with each other, and with our environment that then increases our "knowledge" (control) of these.

When I'm playing Go, I'm gaining knowledge. Go will be more fun the more knowledge I have about it. Video gamers can say the same thing, their growing knowledge will make gaming more fun.

These things are "fun" because we are biologically programmed to seek control of our environment. And that's exactly what we're trying to do when we 'play games'.

 

[Thief]

'play games'.

and .....chess

is a form of knowledge?

let us not confuse learned response to....knowledge

 

[PureX]

I certainly agree that the more knowledge we have about how our environment works the greater potential we have for controlling said environment. I'd say that being able to control our environment is a major reason why people seek knowledge, but it's not the only reason why we seek it.

But I don't know what you mean by it's not about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is'. The more knowledge we gain about what works and what doesn't work, the greater our understand of 'what is' becomes.

Does it? Does knowing how some system functions really tell us anything about where it came from or why it exists? I don't see that it does.

Can you provide an example of some knowledge that helps to give us more control over our environment that isn't actually true?

That's a trick question. "True" refers to that which functions relative to our experience and understanding of existence, i.e.: that which increases our control. You're asking for a tall example of short.

 

[icehorse]

Play releases chemical reactions in our brain that give us pleasure. An evolutionary trait that increases our interactions with each other, and with our environment that then increases our "knowledge" (control) of these.

So it's back to my original thought which is this is just about semantics. I suppose you can define "control" to be so all-encompassing and while it's not wrong per se, it doesn't seem to allow for important nuance and distinctions.

 

[PureX]

So it's back to my original thought which is this is just about semantics. I suppose you can define "control" to be so all-encompassing and while it's not wrong per se, it doesn't seem to allow for important nuance and distinctions.

What it's not allowing is an actual comprehensive understanding of 'what is'. All it's about is what works (for us).

 

[QuestioningMind]

Does it? Does knowing how some system functions really tell us anything about where it came from or why it exists? I don't see that it does.
That's a trick question. "True" refers to that which functions relative to our experience and understanding of existence, i.e.: that which increases our control. You're asking for a tall example of short.

Does it? Does knowing how some system functions really tell us anything about where it came from or why it exists? I don't see that it does.

Of course it does and if you don't see it that means you must not be looking. For instance, back in the days when we had little to no knowledge about volcanoes ignorant human beings imagined that they erupted because some volcano god was upset. Today, now that we've gained knowledge about geology we understand that a volcano is nothing more than a nature product of internal geological processes. We know precisely where it came from and why it exists.

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

So give me an example of something that it 'true' (i.e. all about functional control) that is NOT 'what is'?

 

[Tambourine]

What it's not allowing is an actual comprehensive understanding of 'what is'. All it's about is what works (for us).

And unmoved within the limits of great bonds
it is unbeginning unending, since generation and destruction
have wandered quite far away, and genuine conviction has expelled them.
And remaining the same, in the same place, and on its own it rests,
and thus steadfast right there it remains; for powerful Necessity
holds it in the bonds of a limit, which encloses it all around,
wherefore it is right that What Is be not unfulfilled; for it is not lacking: if it were, it would lack everything.

But since there is a furthest limit, it is perfected
from every side, like the bulk of a well-rounded globe,
from the middle equal every way: for that it be neither any greater
nor any smaller in this place or in that is necessary;
for neither is there non-being, which would stop it reaching
to its like, nor is What Is such that it might be more than What Is
here and less there. Since it is all inviolate,
for it is equal to itself from every side, it extends uniformly in limits.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

 

[PureX]

Does it? Does knowing how some system functions really tell us anything about where it came from or why it exists? I don't see that it does.

Of course it does and if you don't see it that means you must not be looking. For instance, back in the days when we had little to no knowledge about volcanoes ignorant human beings imagined that they erupted because some volcano god was upset. Today, now that we've gained knowledge about geology we understand that a volcano is nothing more than a nature product of internal geological processes. We know precisely where it came from and why it exists.

Actually no, we don't. All we know is how it happened within it's physical context. Yet that tells us nothing about the origin or purpose of that physical context. It's like a line of dominoes. We think because this domino knocks that domino over, and that domino knock the next one over, that we then understand what's happening. And yet we know nothing at all about how the dominoes got there, why they are spaced as they are, or what the eventual outcome of their actions will be.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Actually no, we don't. All we know is how it happened within it's physical context. Yet that tells us nothing about the origin or purpose of that physical context. It's like a line of dominoes. We think because this domino knocks that domino over, and that domino knock the next one over, that we then understand what's happening. And yet we know nothing at all about how the dominoes got there, why they are spaced as they are, or what the eventual outcome of their actions will be.

All we know is how it happened within it's physical context. Yet that tells us nothing about the origin or purpose of that physical context.

Please provide evidence that a volcano must have a purpose beyond venting pressure from the Earth's core. I'd also love to see what evidence you have that a volcano (or anything else for that matter) exists in any context other than the physical.

 

[Tambourine]

Actually no, we don't. All we know is how it happened within it's physical context. Yet that tells us nothing about the origin or purpose of that physical context. It's like a line of dominoes. We think because this domino knocks that domino over, and that domino knock the next one over, that we then understand what's happening. And yet we know nothing at all about how the dominoes got there, why they are spaced as they are, or what the eventual outcome of their actions will be.

Why do you assume that physical things must have a purpose, though?