All knowledge already exists...

[GGman]

All knowledge already exists... do you think this is true or false? Now you may wonder why I'm asking this. Really I'm just trying to get an idea of how intelligent the people here really are.

[Dan Rowden]

This would depend on how "knowledge" is being defined.

[GGman]

This would depend on how "knowledge" is being defined.

If you have to ask then you don't know. Consider basic navigation in the world - how is it possible for you to dodge cars in traffic?

[mental vagrant]

You know what you know, this you can only know untill you realise somthing new. Through this perspective it is realisation of a greater part of which you have become a more pervading constituent. You are the Universe and the Universe is you.

Is this near the analogy you'd thought?

[Dan Rowden]

This would depend on how "knowledge" is being defined.

If you have to ask then you don't know. Consider basic navigation in the world - how is it possible for you to dodge cars in traffic?

I wasn't asking, I was telling - your question is utterly dependent on how knowledge is being defined and whether your definition confines itself to the logical or includes the empirical. Your follow-up "example" question does not clarify this in any way.

[Bobo]

False.

[mental vagrant]

I certainly agree with Bobo, based upon the dictionary's term. Perhaps the thread starter will elaborate, and define it's thinking.

[Dan Rowden]

It's a good idea to know what dictionaries are and do before attempting to do philosophy from them.

[GGman]

I give you all some clues, other life forms need to function and they don't require human concepts, philosophical arguments or dictionaries but their ability to survive depends on being able to know things. Now I think that is a general enough conception that everyone can agree on since survival depends on it.

Now I know you want 'definitions' but I'll ask another question instead: Do you need one given that other forms of life don't need to cognize knowledge consciously or in human terms? Consider an organisms survival for instance. This would seem to be empirical evidence that knowledge lies beyond the need for human definitions since other forms of life are able to use it just fine to survive.

When I speak about knowledge I mean information/truth/etc. Truth isn't limited to human beings or human conceptions. I think we should at least agree that this is true.

[mental vagrant]

Lexicography is the assignment of symbolism to an abstraction often using etymological expansionism. Presumably people chose to agree upon such terminology over time based upon seemingly "mutual" or at least similar experience and from growth deeper abstraction arises. The sum reaction of genetics to environment recorded. I'm often presented with a dilema pertaining to pragmatic language, it's necessary for language to evolve (assuming culture and intelligence are..) but can damage meaning; i often think language i have can't expression the morphs of my mind. In essence im saying that though not without it's merits the dictionary is a list of flawed parameters with which to reason, but that is true of all language. Ultimately a potential scalar matric of inverse entropy. Whether the dictionary is usefull depends on whether we can communicate an agreeable standard of the particular's composition.

What are your personal reflections of this Dan?

[mental vagrant]

GGMan, my first enquiry suggested such. The Universe IS maths. We can only reflect in our evolved (path) way our reaction to what IS. None the less we exist, we have terms allowing us to differentiate between things, which are ultimately images of imaginings. Hence the importance of definition allows us to expand your thought as much as we can over the internet, by expanding it, between us we can attempt to infer by differentiation to a more accurate measurement. The topic is a riddle whether you like it or not; though i thought it was a creation of intent.

[Dan Rowden]

Why do I feel like an old friend is back?

[mental vagrant]

I'm new. I've perused the forum a couple of times in the past, but recently signed up.

[jufa]

Knowledge is indefinable. Intelligence does not define knowledge. All knowledge is founded upon awareness. Awareness is not dictated by being consciously cognizant. Yet Consciousness is what dictates awareness. Knowledge is therefore subjective to individual objective visions of perception. Consciousness incorporates all which is known within the universe. Man is only cognizant of what he is aware of which is not even a fragment of what is. When one can define logic for existence, one can define knowledge.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[mental vagrant]

jufa i think we are speaking of the same 'process' (for lack of a more appropriate term).

[Pam Seeback]

GGMan, my first enquiry suggested such. The Universe IS maths. We can only reflect in our evolved (path) way our reaction to what IS. None the less we exist, we have terms allowing us to differentiate between things, which are ultimately images of imaginings. Hence the importance of definition allows us to expand your thought as much as we can over the internet, by expanding it, between us we can attempt to infer by differentiation to a more accurate measurement. The topic is a riddle whether you like it or not; though i thought it was a creation of intent.

It is true that differentiating between things is images of imaginings, which, by definition, is of a realm of thinking that is not real.

I put forward that expansion does not happen in the unreal field of definition attachment [the causal realm of imaginings], but rather, within the realm of awareness foundation or source, in proportion to the number of attached causes that have been dissolved/transcended.

[mental vagrant]

Not holistically no. Mabey imagings are possible? I like that you identify experience of sense, how can we differentiate imagination (traditional) from perception, technically?

[mental vagrant]

GGMan, my first enquiry suggested such. The Universe IS maths. We can only reflect in our evolved (path) way our reaction to what IS. None the less we exist, we have terms allowing us to differentiate between things, which are ultimately images of imaginings. Hence the importance of definition allows us to expand your thought as much as we can over the internet, by expanding it, between us we can attempt to infer by differentiation to a more accurate measurement. The topic is a riddle whether you like it or not; though i thought it was a creation of intent.

It is true that differentiating between things is images of imaginings, which, by definition, is of a realm of thinking that is not real.

I put forward that expansion does not happen in the unreal field of definition attachment [the causal realm of imaginings], but rather, within the realm of awareness foundation or source, in proportion to the number of attached causes that have been dissolved/transcended.

Yet definition attachment is a function of awareness, i think definitions build awareness in turn with the inverse being additionally true. Don't forget memory is this expansion of which i speak.

It is true that differentiating between things is images of imaginings, which, by definition, is of a realm of thinking that is not real.

Use the real to define the real unreal. I await an answer.

[Pam Seeback]

Use the real to define the real unreal. I await an answer.

I did not say that the real defined the unreal.

[mental vagrant]

I'm saying so, and asking you to clarify why you think we cannot.

[Pam Seeback]

The Universe IS maths.

If by maths you mean the universe is an expression of ordered laws and principles, I agree.

We can only reflect in our evolved (path) way our reaction to what IS.

I say we, being creatures of sense attachment do not react to what IS, but only to what WAS.

None the less we exist, we have terms allowing us to differentiate between things, which are ultimately images of imaginings.

If the terms we use that allow us to differentiate between things are images of imaginings [projections of a projection], they are unreal, are they not? Which means that your statement

Hence the importance of definition allows us to expand your thought as much as we can over the internet, by expanding it, between us we can attempt to infer by differentiation to a more accurate measurement.

is true. We can indeed only attain to a "more accurate measurement" and never to an absolute understanding between two or more individuals. Hence, the existence of suffering of every being of sense awareness.

I say the real does not define the unreal because the real, being every law and principle and pattern that it is, is the infinity of Itself. No shadow of sense attachment. In other words, the man of sense defines God but God the spirit does not define the man of sense.

[mental vagrant]

You are agreeing with me, can we agree on that?

Intangible elements refrain us from unreal comprehension, real understanding is though connected to the unreal as it consequentially must be a function of it 'somehow'. Otherwise we enter the territory of the dualist, where separation of corporeal and 'corporeal in some sense' (absolute nature), are of no discernable knowledge. We can't know whether we know, though we know we don't.

Images of sense are by definition hyper-real, real/unreal we talk of layers of embedding.

As for unified theories, plop there it is. Can be expressed with a 'slap up side 'Yo head punk!'.

[Pam Seeback]

You are agreeing with me, can we agree on that?

So far, so good. :-)

Intangible elements refrain us from unreal comprehension, real understanding is though connected to the unreal as it consequentially must be a function of it 'somehow'. Otherwise we enter the territory of the dualist, where separation of corporeal and 'corporeal in some sense' (absolute nature), are of no discernable knowledge. We can't know whether we know, though we know we don't.

Wisdom reveals that dualism is a lie, that there is only the "I am", expressed individually via each of It's life expressions. In expanding upon this thought, a man who has this wisdom is the thinking God of himself, which means he takes full responsibility for the affects of the effects he has attached to his "I am." Are we still in agreement?

[mental vagrant]

Quite possibly, i need to see where you intend to take this. The bigger the picture the better.

[Pam Seeback]

The biggest picture I can give you of the I am is that of being so still of mind that the spirit of the law of the Spirit of life moves and expands within one's consciousness without encountering a hint of resistance. The purest example I can give you of such an individual was Jesus, who was so purified of his affects that he could walk on water and heal another of their affects simply by way of his presence/word.

An individual is purified of his affects according to the depth of his wisdom of the law of the Spirit of life. An individual who is purified of his attachments to a high degree loves himself completely, trusts himself completely and is unaffected by the opinions others may have of him, good or bad. Such an individual knows himself not by definition but by his walk in the spirit of his word, moment by moment by moment.