Knowledge and Such

[DreadFish]

So, the other day, I was talking to a friend on the internet. He had posted a riddle and I, after having tried to figure it out, consulted the internet . So, I found the answer, it made sense, I posted it and jokingly claimed to have figured it out. After congratulations, I jokingly said that I was glad that I decided to expand my mind to include the internet (obviously hinting that I looked there for the answer).

SO... This lead me to an interesting thought that I wanted to discuss further. I guess I am approaching this from a less dualistic view, but, what is the difference between accessing knowledge from an internal source (like the brain, for example) as opposed to accessing knowledge from an external source (the interwebs)? On one hand, one may claim that they know it if they access it in their brains, but maybe it's not so different. Whether accessing knowledge in ones brain or externally, we still have trouble finding what we want sometimes. Other times, it's just a matter of thought association, both internal and external, to reach the piece of knowledge we want to pick up.


So, any thoughts on this? Of course, im approaching this from a more non-dual perspective. If something shows up in your field of awareness, how different is it if it shows up internally or externally? You become aware of it either way.


Cheers

 

[sandandfoam]

There is an emerging view that human consciousness is inherently social. I wholly agree with that view.

 

[DreadFish]

There is an emerging view that human consciousness is inherently social. I wholly agree with that view.

EDIT: Nvm, my reply made no sense after I posted it and read it

 

[Skwim]

the difference between accessing knowledge from an internal source (like the brain, for example) as opposed to accessing knowledge from an external source (the interwebs)?"

"Knowledge" from an external source---not simply gained from an external source---would simply be information. Once this information has been transferred to the mind it becomes knowledge. Internal knowledge would be information one arrives at by mental processing, e.g. coming to the conclusion that there's a relationship between the density of an object and its mass and volume. Of course the mind needs external information with which to do such processing, but the end result of the processing, d = m/v, is the same: knowledge. Knowledge that's really no different than that gained solely from external sources. Knowing something is just knowing it, regardless of how it's gained.

 

[Quintessence]

SO... This lead me to an interesting thought that I wanted to discuss further. I guess I am approaching this from a less dualistic view, but, what is the difference between accessing knowledge from an internal source (like the brain, for example) as opposed to accessing knowledge from an external source (the interwebs)?

I think of this in a much different manner than you did. One may categorize ways of knowing into two very different categories:

1) Knowing THAT (factual knowledge)
2) Knowing HOW (experiential knowledge)

You consulting the internet is an application knowing HOW. You know a process or a method that you can use towards some particular ends. If you had known the answer without additional assistance, that would have been an example of knowing THAT. Keep in mind these categories are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge on a specific topic/method can involve both knowing THAT and knowing HOW.

 

[elmarna]

Such great answers I am left with nothing to say!

 

[DreadFish]

OK, these answers make sense as well. Another facet to my thought that may lead me to consider this differently than others is interdependence.

So, from your answer, Quintessence, you mentioned

You consulting the internet is an application knowing HOW. You know a process or a method that you can use towards some particular ends. If you had known the answer without additional assistance, that would have been an example of knowing THAT.

So, given that it is impossible for us to do anything completely independently, there is no way that I can know an answer without additional assistance. If I didnt look up the answer now to figure it out, the knowledge I would have already had to figure it out would have come from something else in the beginning anyway.

Example; I could use a dictionary to translate, word-for-word, a sentence or statement from a different language into my own language. That would be a basic parallel to what I did with the riddle. So, I knew HOW, right? But if I already knew the language then I knew THAT. But, I gained the "knowledge" of the language from an outside source. Perhaps I learned HOW, so that I could learn THAT.

So, along those lines, either way, it appeared in my field of awareness, whether internally or externally. Perhaps I just saved that "external" knowledge to an "internal" source so as to access it easier? Like, when browsing the internet, it is all happening on the computer, but the computer can access data from either it's "internal" source (the hard drive) or the external source (the internet).

Im not able, just yet, to organize exactly what im trying to get at in a way that I coudl explain it well to others. I think part of what I am getting at is the union of internal and external experience.


Any other thoughts? And thanks for the replies!

 

[zenzero]

Friend DeadFish,

THIMK
was an IBM slogan for years. It was everywhere with IBM.
When one reads THINK, ones mind does not respond to do so as one knows what thinking is and one's mind is engaged in doing so at all times BUt when one reads THIMK then one's mind sits up to think and that is what is bringing awareness/consciousness into play in other words Thinking out of the BOX!
Likewise what are SCRIPTURES for?
yes, to consult them when required. You have done so and understood the riddle one way or the other and that is what bringing consciousness is all about.
The path is not important but reaching there is!
Best Wishes.
Love & rgds

 

[Twilight Hue]

Example; I could use a dictionary to translate, word-for-word, a sentence or statement from a different language into my own language. That would be a basic parallel to what I did with the riddle. So, I knew HOW, right? But if I already knew the language then I knew THAT. But, I gained the "knowledge" of the language from an outside source. Perhaps I learned HOW, so that I could learn THAT. -DreadFish-

Yet when you teach "THAT" someone learns "HOW". The internal and external constantly changes via dynamics. Whereby then are such determinants established and maintained?* Like a Rinzai koan, not so easy.

*I thought of a gadzillion things BTW as examples of potential external/internal sources like the dictionary, the language's inventor(s), the inventors mom, the inventors dad, the inventors kid brother that flushed his glassess down the toilet, Chuck Norris, cats, dogs, Fluffy at Hogwarts, the ego, the brain, nureal pathways, Godzilla, Cheerios cereal, light reflecting off the page of the dictionary, the sun, space, moon, stars, Jesus, Nostradamus, Miss Cleo the TV psychic, David Blaine, Plato, Pluto, Mickey, Donald, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and all folks responsible enabling me to post here. :O)