Do We Need Faith?

[QuestioningMind]

There are realities that apply to us all, and I don't advocate for just arbitralily believeing what is convenient for you. However, you will agree, I think that there are honest differnece of opinion, and it will always be that way. I believe in unity in diversity. If someone has an opinion that is not harmful, then why stridently get worked up over that opinion? Believing that climate change is a hoax is a harmful opinion because then the problem will not be addressed as it should be.

No. The "inner evidence" has to be consistent with the "outer evidence".

Believing that climate change is a hoax is a harmful opinion because then the problem will not be addressed as it should be.

But the only reason people can believe that climate change is a hoax is by listening to that 'inner evidence' that conveniently matches up with what they WANT to be true. The only evidence anyone should be looking at is the outer evidence, because CLEARLY 'inner evidence' is NOT reliable. People can convince themselves of absolutely any ridiculous claim by listening to that magical 'inner evidence'.

 

[gnostic]

Religions are practiced. So is science. And both can become the way an individual chooses to relate himself to the world.

Practiced?

You seemed to be forgetting that people who “practice” some sorts of “science”, are expert in their fields.

Being a scientist is a job and career, where one learn (education), gain qualification, obtain experiences in related field that are related to his or qualification, and the scientist get paid for his or her work.

Scientists worked in their specific fields, just as chef, baker, salesperson, journalist, accountant, musician, lawyer, bricklayer, plumber, hairdresser, etc, do their non-scientific works because it is their jobs.

For most, joining a religion is only matter of following their respective religion, only because of their personal beliefs, they don’t get paid for their beliefs, so there are no practice, not unless they become clergy-person (eg priest, missionary, etc). Most people who follow and believe, don’t become “clergy”.

For being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wicca, etc, as well as being atheist, agnostic, etc, “for most” they just believe as they will and follow what they follow, but it isn’t their jobs. Most people who are one of these above, have jobs outside the religions they follow.

So being a scientist and being a believer of religion are not the same things.

People get paid for being “practiced” scientists, you don’t get paid for whatever you, PureX, personally believe in.

I don’t know what you do for living or what education and qualifications you have. But for many, being believers are not qualified works, so really you are not practicing whatever religion you believe in.

 

[sun rise]

Pleasure seeking is good and is meaningful.

I there is zero chance of convincing you that your belief is wrong but ao long as it suits you...

I have nothing against a bit of pleasure - I enjoy a really good massage for example.

What I was referring to were the small number of people who only care about pleasure and ignore all responsibilities, honor, honesty and the.

 

[cladking]

So you keep claiming, but I've yet to see which dicta of science you are calling incorrect or disordered, why you consider them that, or what undesirable consequence results. Without that, and considering that I disagree, why would I change my opinion to something closer to yours? You'll need sound arguments to do that. You'll need to show others why you are correct, not merely claim it.

I've listed most of them many times and nobody could see them. Why would another time matter? Will anyone take off their blinders and look.

We could talk about each one if anybody can see them.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You twice implied everything is known except the origin of life (homo omnisciencis) even after I challenged the assertion.

I have said repeatedly that there is much we don’t know:

I never said we know everything.

but I’ll gladly agree there’s tons of stuff we don’t know.

And once again nobody (especially myself) ever said “we know everything”.

Let me state it again:
We unequivocally DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING!
Were you paying attention this time?

I hereby officially reaffirm:
THERE IS LOTS WE DON’T KNOW.
How about that time?

We know nothing at all. We don't even know the basis of life or how it works because we don't even have a working definition for "consciousness". Anyone who believes we know everything about cosmology or any other subject simply is remarkably wrong. If we know anything we could make predictions and experts would agree on events.

Of course you mean “We know nothing at all”
as hyperbole, surely.
The fact we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing.
There’s lots of things in between those 2 statements.

From post #194:

That being said;
We’ve come a long way since the emergence of logical thought and the scientific method.

Far further and far faster than when we were stuck in the quagmire of when superstitious mindsets and religious dogmas ruled the day, and accepting “God did it” as the final say.

The “God of the gaps” argument is an “argument from ignorance fallacy” where in one assumes that any “gap” (lack of solid scientific evidence) means “God did it” because science doesn’t show otherwise.

Science as shown over and over again, that things once thought to be things “God did” happen naturally and we understand the “mechanics” of how they work and no god is needed.

From post #148:

As to how life arose/arises…. science is working on it.
One of the last gaps for God to hide in, for the moment.

Note the verbiage:
“ONE OF THE LAST GAPS” for God to hide in.
Which is NOT the same as “THE LAST GAP”

In post #152 After quoting me from #148:

As to how life arose/arises…. science is working on it.
One of the last gaps for God to hide in, for the moment.

You reply:

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't even comment when I said we know the tiniest fraction of everything that exists and now you just blithely state that the origin of life is the only thing we don't know!!!!!!! I guess this rules out that we'll have a debate.

I determined the “when I said we know the tiniest fraction of everything that exists” was in reference in a post you were having with @gnostic in
post #138, namely:

Let me break this to you gently. We know less that 10 ^ -1.000.000.000 of everything there is to know. We may no less than 1% (even far less) about fundamental forces and processes. Our species is blinded by its knowledge.

Which I then addressed including:

I’m afraid I can’t accept your numbers due to dubious provenance, but I’ll gladly agree there’s tons of stuff we don’t know.
And often when we learn new things, we discover more things we were not aware of and uncover new mysteries to attempt to solve.

You’ll note, this is one of the many instances that I freely admitted NOT knowing everything.

The fact that you misconstrue
“ONE OF THE LAST GAPS”
as “THE ONLY THING WE DON’T KNOW”
is a reading comprehension breakdown on your part.
“One of the last gaps for God to hide in”
does not imply
“Everything is known except the origin of life”

What “one of the last gaps for God to hide in”
implies (as explained in post #194):
That many things once assumed to be something “God did” has been shown by science to not involve a god and have been explained how they happen through natural means, and that quite probably the same will happen with the origin of life on earth.

It does NOT imply that science has figured everything thing out…and the only thing left is the origin of life.

If you can’t understand this….then again I’m sorry.

 

[Truthseeker]

Following his consolidation of power Stalin reopened the seminaries and opened over 20,000 churches, he donated millions of rubles of his own personal wealth to the church, he was known as the only christian in the Kremlin. His daughter told of how he kept a christian library at home. At his funeral not 1, not 2 but 3 archbishop's officiated. This does not sound to me like the life of a atheist.

Sorry, the link you posted just does not fit the known history. Much revisionist history is written long after his death by westerner's who need to feed red meat to their hungry western audience.

Do you have a link to substantiate what you said here? Meanwhile:

Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia

Death toll
With a high number of excess deaths occurring under his rule, Stalin has been labelled "one of the most notorious figures in history."[878] These deaths occurred as a result of collectivisation, famine, terror campaigns, disease, war and mortality rates in the Gulag. As the majority of excess deaths under Stalin were not direct killings, the exact number of victims of Stalinism is difficult to calculate due to lack of consensus among scholars on which deaths can be attributed to the regime.[909] Stalin has also been accused of genocide in the cases of forced population transfer of ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union and the famine in Ukraine.[910][911]
Official records reveal 799,455 documented executions in the Soviet Union between 1921 and 1953; 681,692 of these were carried out between 1937 and 1938, the years of the Great Purge.[912] According to Michael Ellman, the best modern estimate for the number of repression deaths during the Great Purge is 950,000–1.2 million, which includes executions, deaths in detention, or soon after their release.[913] In addition, while archival data shows that 1,053,829 perished in the Gulag from 1934 to 1953,[914] the current historical consensus is that of the 18 million people who passed through the Gulag system from 1930 to 1953, between 1.5 and 1.7 million died as a result of their incarceration.[915] Historian and archival researcher Stephen G. Wheatcroft and Michael Ellman attribute roughly 3 million deaths to the Stalinist regime, including executions and deaths from criminal negligence.[916] Wheatcroft and historian R. W. Davies estimate famine deaths at 5.5–6.5 million[917] while scholar Steven Rosefielde gives a number of 8.7 million.[918]
In 2011, historian Timothy D. Snyder in 2011 summarised modern data made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s and states that Stalin's regime was responsible for 9 million deaths, with 6 million of these being deliberate killings. He further states the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives.[919]

Religion
In recent years, Stalin has become a popular saint in Russia. Stalin has been viewed favourably by various priests and officials of the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, Yevstafy Zhakov, a pastor of St. Olga Strel'na near St. Petersburg, who caused uproar after he hung a portrait of Stalin among sacred images stated: "I remember him on appropriate occasions, the day of his birthday, his death and that of Victory. He was a true believer".[949] There have also been requests by communist officials to canonize Stalin as an official saint, although these requests were never implemented.[950]

I'm not sure what to make of this latter part. A person can say appropriate things for propaganda purposes. He certainly didn't act like what I would consider a true Christian. If he was a Christian, it was distorted Christianity.

 

[Truthseeker]

But the only reason people can believe that climate change is a hoax is by listening to that 'inner evidence' that conveniently matches up with what they WANT to be true. The only evidence anyone should be looking at is the outer evidence, because CLEARLY 'inner evidence' is NOT reliable. People can convince themselves of absolutely any ridiculous claim by listening to that magical 'inner evidence'.

If someone has what they call inner evidence that contradicts this outer evidence, it must be discarded. The inner evidence must be consistent with outer evidence. The Baha'i Faith says that any belief that contradicts science must be rejected. The "creationists" have come up with bogus "evidence" that starts with a literal belief in Genesis. They use that understanding, then look for holes in evolution to justify their belief. You can't assume that your "inner conviction" is true, and use that to distort the scientific picture.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Do you really expect me to go back and find what you said and what you overlooked?

Yes, if you are going to accuse me of making statements that I have not made, show me the quotes.

You have on more than one occasion portrayed sentiments and words that I have never used.

Some of which may be your confusing part of the dialogue between the two of us with dialogue your engaged in with other people.
If that’s the case it’s forgivable.
Posting the quote may help you determine this.

Some of which is apparently poor reading comprehension on your part.
I choose the words I use carefully, and I mean the words I say.
If you’re not certain of precisely what I mean, ask me to clarify: don’t assume it’s anything other than what I say.

In case you failed to notice, I’m not expecting you to do anything I don’t do myself.

If I claim you said something, I include the actual quote with it. Often, I use the pasted quote itself as the claim….no ambiguity or misrepresentation of what was said.
I don’t believe it to be unreasonable to ask the same in return.

As example, you said:

If I said such a thing I misspoke. It's more likely you simply took the wrong meaning.

After quoting me saying:

Remember when you said you understand how science works?……

The full quote from post #233:

Remember when you said you understand how science works?……
Here is more evidence to the contrary:

Obviously science isn’t involved in any of this nonsense.
I’m sorry you just can’t understand that.

In post #148 I said:

Sad to see you equate science and math to
“parlor tricks”.
Is it because your jealous your God can’t even manage that?

Which you quoted in post #152 and replied:

I tend to think it's because I know how they work. I also know that if you understand theory then invention just "arises in your mind like a lily from the Nile". Math shows a simple manipulation of logic can create great complexity. Who could imagine that 2 + 2 could lead to such grandeur despite the fact there aren't two of anything at all in existence because no two things are identical. Math is quantified logic manifested as an abstraction (yes, you heard it here first).

If God exists I have no doubt He is further manifestation of logic or the origin of logic and reality.

Even the invention of hypothesis and experiment have many aspects of being a parlour trick but it's really technology that is on autopilot. New experiment leads many to the same creation.

In ancient science the process was described as "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation". Reductionistic science tends to hide its metaphysics from most practitioners. In part because anomalies cause dissonance and discomfort but mostly because it is based on simple axioms and experimental interpretation is is always paradigmatical. We don't even know if we don't understand how it works. Many people believe science works on "intelligence" but I seriously doubt there exists a referent for this word.

Yes! Technology arises like magic. It arises in individuals which are the basis of all life, all thought, and all creation (unless there are Gods).

So, did you misspeak?
Did I take the wrong meaning?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The time that is being referred to in the quote is the time before the modern age of science, the ages that preceded the new age we are living in. I think the quote is saying that in the previous ages people believed that there was an inherent conflict between science and religion, but in those ages religion and science were far from adequate.

I’m still curious though….
Would you say that since that time, the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?

Baha'is believe that any religious belief that contradicts science is necessarily false.

You won’t get an argument from me there.

My belief is based upon evidence, not proof. Evidence is not the same as proof.

My suspicion is that where we may disagree,
is what evidence is sufficient.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

It's far more accurate to simply repeat the definition of metaphysics again, "the basis of science including its definitions, axioms, and experiments".

Pray tell, where did you come across that “definition”?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Perhaps a better name for modern humans would be "homo circulus ratiocinatiocis" (circularly reasoning man).

I've come up with many of these but like all words none truly captures the essence of the referent.

I like "homo omnisciencis" because it rolls off the tongue.

I’d go with “pan narrans” (storytelling chimpanzee) a la Terry Pratchett’s “The Globe (The Science of Discworld #2)
Especially around here.

 

[ChristineM]

]

Religion
In recent years, Stalin has become a popular saint in Russia. Stalin has been viewed favourably by various priests and officials of the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, Yevstafy Zhakov, a pastor of St. Olga Strel'na near St. Petersburg, who caused uproar after he hung a portrait of Stalin among sacred images stated: "I remember him on appropriate occasions, the day of his birthday, his death and that of Victory. He was a true believer".[949] There have also been requests by communist officials to canonize Stalin as an official saint, although these requests were never implemented.[950]

I'm not sure what to make of this latter part. A person can say appropriate things for propaganda purposes. He certainly didn't act like what I would consider a true Christian. If he was a Christian, it was distorted Christianity.

I never said he was a saint though apparently some think he was.

And a person can say appropriate things because they mean it.

There are Christians who consider their country more than their faith. This is prevalent in the US at the moment, difference is in the US they are attempting to mould the country to fit their faith, not the people.

I believe what you saw in stalin was extreme nationalism.

 

[cladking]

Of course you mean “We know nothing at all”
as hyperbole, surely.
The fact we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing.
There’s lots of things in between those 2 statements.

I think this best highlights the crux of the problem in our "communication". It is a very common problem especially when believers in science confront anyone they believe believes in religion; they won't parse their sentences as intended. Many arguments, if they ever get that far, devolve into semantics. Compared to everything there is to know we know virtually nothing at all. Compared to everything man knew 100 years ago we know millions of times more. And centuries ago man knew millions of times more than any other species.

This highlights several things such as a simple and obvious truth that believers in science refuse to see that knowledge by itself has little ability to give one power. Only in Hollywood does knowing some little thing or little trick give one power. In real life knowledge requires understanding so it can be extrapolated to new situations. But even with understanding one might not be able to use the knowledge and not necessarily use it to create.

No matter how many times I say this believers in science can't see it but we can't see reality directly. We see what we believe instead. Our eyes work all the time but when they are focused on what we can't comprehend we don't even know it because there's always something that is in agreement with what we believe. We don't normally see anomalies. Most of reality is hidden from us most of the time. Only that to which visceral knowledge applies is seen directly. The rest has to be interpreted. Even words are parsed and most people are parsing the words of those they perceive as being religious to reflect the "nonsense" they believe is religion. Do you'll see "God" in every sentence in this post. You'll see religious nonsense everywhere and it goes right along with beliefs in science.

Yes, I "know" how science works and many of my attackers do not. But the word "know" has many meanings and every time I use any word, every time anyone uses any word, the meaning is not fixed. Modern language requires a complete thought, a sentence, and every sentence must be parsed. Nobody can know all of science and nobody can know all of metaphysics (how science works) without knowing all of science. My understanding of science is both dated and highly incomplete. To the degree I "know" science, I know how it works. Indeed, knowing three metaphysics gives me a unique perspective on its nature. Instead of people trying to understand each other and discussing the meaning and the underlying premises, they are just parsing sentences into utter nonsense and attacking the nonsense. Back in my day this was called taking things out of context and was a common tactic by politicians, advertisers, and many professional liars.

Almost all of reality lies between what we know and all of reality. I know no other way to communicate this. "Communication" is always a two way street and many people do not want to try to communicate so instead they play word games and lecture.

Someone should ask NASA what percentage of new threats they find compared to amateurs. Frankly I don't so much care and did not know they had ever started looking for them. But, as I said, it makes sense they did start looking in light of the fact we landed on one of them back in 2014. I consider this a non issue that primarily highlights the difference in our ages and experience.

 

[cladking]

Pray tell, where did you come across that “definition”?

All definitions are a paraphrase of something. No modern word has a fixed meaning.

It is a paraphrase of the unabridged 1952 Funk and Wagnalls.

In Ancient Language every word had a fixed meaning so it can not be translated into any existing language. This is why the holy books are difficult to understand. They are attempts at translating the unparseable and untranslatable or they are paraphrases and interpretations of attempts at translation.

 

[cladking]

I’d go with “pan narrans” (storytelling chimpanzee) a la Terry Pratchett’s “The Globe (The Science of Discworld #2)
Especially around here.

A quick google suggests homo pan narrans might well be appropriate and accurate. It's well after my time, though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've listed most of them many times and nobody could see them. Why would another time matter? Will anyone take off their blinders and look. We could talk about each one if anybody can see them.

I had written, "I've yet to see which dicta of science you are calling incorrect or disordered, why you consider them that, or what undesirable consequence results. Without that, and considering that I disagree, why would I change my opinion to something closer to yours? You'll need sound arguments to do that. You'll need to show others why you are correct, not merely claim it."

Even if I hadn't been following the thread, even if all I had read of it was just your one comment above, I would suspect that you are not explaining things as well as you think you are. The alternative to your words not being as comprehensible as you imagine is that every one of the clearly articulate and intelligent people with whom you are conversing have reading comprehensions problems limited to your prose, or as you think. Admittedly, both are logically possible, but one hypothesis is far more parsimonious. And this is before even looking at the actual text in question.

I know that you're a critic of science in some sense, but I'm not clear about your thoughts there, either. Nor can I name a single element of science or the scientific method that you have identified a flaw in, nor what undesirable outcome. You seem to conflate science and how government and industry use it, conflating the failures of greed and capitalism with the successes of the scientific community in describing reality.

This highlights several things such as a simple and obvious truth that believers in science refuse to see that knowledge by itself has little ability to give one power.

You're not clear on what you mean by knowledge.

In real life knowledge requires understanding so it can be extrapolated to new situations. But even with understanding one might not be able to use the knowledge and not necessarily use it to create.

You seem to be saying that knowledge requires knowledge, since understanding is a kind of knowledge. For me, knowledge is the collection of demonstrably correct ideas one possesses. This includes simple facts as well as the generalizations (inductions) derived from them that connect multiple facts and allow one to predict outcomes. Now compare that with your words. I would have written them, "In life, we require knowledge, that is, ideas that help us make good decisions in familiar and new situations so as to navigate life optimally."

Almost all of reality lies between what we know and all of reality. I know no other way to communicate this.

What you have written is vague. You seem to be conflating reality with knowledge of it. And you seem to be placing too much emphasis in whatever may lie outside of consciousness and not enough on the subjective experience of at as rendered by the brain in the theater of consciousness. We experience the mind directly. That's where we live. Whatever goes on outside of the mind is only relevant if it impacts or has the potential to impact experience. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter what's going on out there as long as we can successfully manage future experience with the knowledge derived from prior experience (learning).

Once again, please look at what you have written and what I have written, which attempts to frame reality and our knowledge of it in what I feel is a clear description, one you can agree or disagree with. I can't do that with your comment, because I don't know what it means, so I don't know whether I agree with whatever you were thinking when you wrote those words. Maybe you were trying to say something similar. Maybe you weren't. It's too vague. It's poetry. It could be song lyrics. Put your words above to the tune that these come from: "If you get caught between the Moon and New York City" It's vague imagery. When we want to be understood clearly, we resort to prose, as in a recipe, or directions to somewhere, or a will. Poetry just won't do there.

 

[cladking]

Without that, and considering that I disagree, why would I change my opinion to something closer to yours?

I don't want anyone to agree with me about anything at all. I want to debate and discuss science and religion and especially about the similarities between them. Maybe you could convince me. Other than a few simple axioms derived from modern science, ancient science, and experience you could convince me of anything at all with evidence and reason. One of these axioms I've had for many years and the anomaly we call the Great Pyramid is what started me down this specific path. It is believed that the builders were empowered by superstition; that they were made strong and wise through their beliefs allowing them to create this. I've believed since I was a very young child that all beliefs are detrimental and no belief can create. Therefore G1 is an anomaly to the scientific theory that "they mustta used ramps".

I believe that if we discussed the facts, theory, and knowns that we'd find a great deal of what is called "science" today would simply collapse because it is based on erroneous and even nonsensical assumptions. Across the board we employ assumptions that are simply wrong and definitions that don't differentiate between entirely different referents. Our paradigms are flawed because we don't understand the nature of reality (logic) or the nature of life (consciousness). We must use reductionistic science because of our nature but to understand the results we must better understand our own nature.

I would be simply ecstatic if some Egyptologist stumbled on a drawing or description of stinky footed bumpkins dragging tombs up ramps! I could pack up and go home while tweaking some of my own premises. But this is never going to happen because the pyramids were built with linear funiculars and I'm still trying to deduce just how wrong all of science must be for this to be overlooked even after it was "proven".

So here we are; discussing faith. This includes the faith of some in Peers and others in religion and how most believe there are only one or two types of faith while an infinite number is possible. I have faith that superstition kills and cause precedes effect and some here have faith that Peers are always right or that God could make a stone so large He Himself couldn't move it if He wanted to.

I have faith that man will prevail in the long run because truth whether scientific or religious resonates with humans. In the end truth will out. In the meantime I'd love to discuss it.

 

[cladking]

Even if I hadn't been following the thread, even if all I had read of it was just your one comment above, I would suspect that you are not explaining things as well as you think you are.

I'm sure you're right.

Much of the problem is the English language and much is that people won't take me literally. Part of the problem is that much of my argument lies far outside everyone's experience and must be understood as a series of interrelated abstractions. Part of the problem is I try too hard trying not to make literal errors of meaning. And a lot of the problem is that I don't express myself that well. My thinking sometimes is non continuous between sentences and then the subject is rejoined in the next. I try to address what I quote comprehensively which makes my posts overly long and people tune out.

I also change perspectives often and use different definitions of a word in the same paragraph. I try to force the reader to follow by not being overly easy to follow.

I believe many of these problems could be ameliorated if people would just try to take me literally and parse every sentence so it makes sense. If it won't make sense ask for an elaboration or attack what you parse.

I know that you're a critic of science in some sense, but I'm not clear about your thoughts there, either.

Yes! I think the scientific method is the only means our species has to come to understand reality. It is necessary and sufficient BUT it is often abused and religion is the results of ancient science so also contains "an" understanding of reality. In modern times "science" as presented by the quisling media is mostly bought and paid for science and is usually "Look and See Science". It is rare that the quisling media will cover ANYTHING related to real science but this is in part because few people will understand or be interested.

Our big difference might be that reductionistic science must be interpreted in terms of a paradigm. I believe the paradigm with which we interpret everything connected directly to life is providing a poor reflection of reality and a single perspective that s highly misleading. Even experiments that aren't directly determined by life are affected to a lesser extent because there is "usually" a living observer; the experimenter. This means we need some new definitions, tweaking of axioms, and reinterpretation of many results and experiments especially in the "soft sciences".

 

[cladking]

...the scientific method is the only means our species has to come to understand reality. It is necessary and sufficient

It is possible as well that science is not wholly sufficient as evidenced by a century stuck on the unified field theory. Perhaps ancient science could be run in tandem to help us over this hump. Perhaps problems would resolve otherwise.

 

[cladking]

You're not clear on what you mean by knowledge.

There are types of knowledge. Primarily there are two types; there is knowledge derived from language which we are taught and there is visceral knowledge. The former is extensive in modern people but is not necessarily applicable to much of anything to most individuals most of the time. It tends to be inaccessible to thought and behavior even when it is retained and we all lose a great deal of it as we age. We don't use this knowledge for perception or behavior because we build models and beliefs through which we experience reality. These models are built primarily or, sometimes, entirely on this type of knowledge. Then there is visceral (experiential) knowledge. There are various types of this including even muscle memory but this knowledge is always a part of perception. Models are even formatted in terms of visceral knowledge.

There can be no Understanding without Knowledge and there can be no Creation without Understanding. Knowledge is the foundation of Creation.