Knowledge is power

[ARC150]

Knowledge is power.

This well-known quote from sir Francis Bacon implies (IMHO) the idea that the strength of knowledge must be tempered, for it is a mighty instrument that has the power to both discern and distort.

In light of that, I urge you to check out EPIC.

The above link directs you to a page that links to "2014" and the follow-up "2015;" these are mostly the same piece, but each are worth viewing.

Disclaimer: This has been out for awhile, so if this is old news to you (or, more to the point, old news to this forum's postings), I apologize.

That said, I think this one of the better expositional soothsayings to come across the -net in awhile.

I am not interested in opinions regarding the possibility of such an outcome, but rather, your thoughts on whether the imparting of knowledge needs to be regulated.

 

[Nile577]

Bacon is both a hero and a villain to me. I admire his syncretic treatment of Christianity and Humanism in that he instigated a paradigm through which one is free to explore existence without allegations of blasphemy (in The Advancement of Learning he rather sneakily passes scientific enquiry off as a means to further understand the glory of God’s world, playing ass-kissing sycophant to the king in order to do so). I also admire his collectivist, Renaissance view of human knowledge (see Novum Organum). However, I think he falls into the error of all Humanist thought in that he takes no account of context, assuming all true knowledge is desirable and attempting to create a knew asceticism in which one forswears his life to its furtherance.

(Bacon was an MP for my home town actually. He features on a stained glass window in the reading room of the local library, glaring across at Wolsey on the other wall. I have gazed at him, smug, bearded bastard that he is, at various points of philosophical bewilderment across the past five years. His Englishness is testified by the fact that he was discredited for allegedly sodomizing a stable boy. Boo. He died after catching a chill trying to test out refrigeration)

I favour the existence of archive knowledge as a means to facilitate praxis. The internet, however, has dubious veracity and an tendency to drown what is relevant in populist sentiment or ego-drama (see Wikipedia).

I think a fetishisation of knowledge for its own sake is a further example of the will-to-will scientific gestalt that led to the Death of God. Through knowledge, we have questioned the cultural idealism of Religion and gazed once more at the hard wisdom of Silenus: that it would have been better for man if he didn’t exist. To loosely quote Nietzsche: "I am wise enough to know that there are some things I don't want to know." Some truths are best left occulted or understood through aesthetics.

As an idealist, I hold that there are certain existential truths to life. Praxis in accordance to these ideals is essential. The value of knowledge is only revealed in context. To quote a dearly missed adversary: all else is wanking.

 

[speed]

Knowledge is power.

This well-known quote from sir Francis Bacon implies (IMHO) the idea that the strength of knowledge must be tempered, for it is a mighty instrument that has the power to both discern and distort.

In light of that, I urge you to check out EPIC.

The above link directs you to a page that links to "2014" and the follow-up "2015;" these are mostly the same piece, but each are worth viewing.

Disclaimer: This has been out for awhile, so if this is old news to you (or, more to the point, old news to this forum's postings), I apologize.

That said, I think this one of the better expositional soothsayings to come across the -net in awhile.

I am not interested in opinions regarding the possibility of such an outcome, but rather, your thoughts on whether the imparting of knowledge needs to be regulated.

This is rather interesting. Essentially the movie claims the media as we know it, will be replaced by regular citizens, as the technology to do so is out there, and its only a mtter of time before this happens.

It seems to already be happening. If one wishes to see whats really going on in Lebanon, one goes to youtube, or a Lebanese/Israeli blog.

I think this is a good thing in many respects, as we all know the Media has become merely a tool of the corporations--or at the very least, a money making advertising machine, bent on providing entertainment not news. And obviously, it is obvious to me there is a serious media bias. It used to be liberal, but in the last ten years, it seems mostly conservative. The conflict in Iraq and Lebanon are perfect examples of the American people not being shown or told the truth. One has to put on a foreign station.

Yet at the same time, whats to prevent all of this power from essentially making knowledge of at least current events, useless? If there are so many people and views, and non of them have to be objective--well then jesus, we're living in a totally postmodern, almost history-less age. And thats a scary thought.

 

[Frank the tank]

knowledge however and wisdom are two different things

 

[Norsemaiden]

knowledge however and wisdom are two different things

That's true, but the link is a strong one. Many people undoubtedly have a lot of knowledge and little wisdom, but then those who avoid knowledge for whatever reason are likely to have the least wisdom.

 

[honnov999]

do you know the theory that francis bacon was william shakespeare?

 

[judas69]

Just as studying the works of a great artist will not make you a great artist, studying the words or actions of the wise will not make you wise. If wisdom was just a matter of knowledge, you'd have no trouble teaching it.

Certain people will gain wisdom from similar life experiences that others will not. Therefore, as I see it, it is much more intimately connected with experience and certain innate, intuitive qualities you either have or don't, than just experience or knowledge in and of itself.

 

[entanglement]

Just as studying the works of a great artist will not make you a great artist, studying the words or actions of the wise will not make you wise. If wisdom was just a matter of knowledge, you'd have no trouble teaching it.

People with some 'wisdom' actually learn their way through life through observation. We do that right from day1.. learning through what we hear and see.. the most default, natural and automatic technique of learning. Studying the works of somebody does make your capability in his/her field an inch or two higher. For example, there are professional singers out there who've had no vocal training all their life. The only mode of their learning was hearing others sing.

 

[judas69]

For example, there are professional singers out there who've had no vocal training all their life. The only mode of their learning was hearing others sing.

What you're seeing is the result of natural talent, not directly that of listening (observing). The vast majority of people require lessons.

Beethoven is a perfect example of what a naturally gifted individual, even in the face of limitation, can produce. I don't care how long you put an average child infront of the stereo, and how much money you pay in guitar lessons; what he lacks in natural talent will never be made up by passion, practice or discipline.

The same goes with mathematics, creative writing, other fields of study ..and of course, intelligence.

 

[entanglement]

What you're seeing is the result of natural talent, not directly that of listening (observing). The vast majority of people require lessons.

Beethoven is a perfect example of what a naturally gifted individual, even in the face of limitation, can produce. I don't care how long you put an average child infront of the stereo, and how much money you pay in guitar lessons; what he lacks in natural talent will never be made up by passion, practice or discipline.

The same goes with mathematics, creative writing, other fields of study ..and of course, intelligence.

Learning through observation is not a matter of talent.

 

[speed]

I think there's truth in both of your statements, Judas and Aarohi. I dont know if its possible to get really good at something--to not make mistakes--without experience, no matter how much of genius you are (I suppose if one is autistic or a savant with numbers/language, but this is part of the condition). And that being said, one has to have some innate talent to be really really good at something. But, if one looks back on all those who are considered geniuses, they didnt cultivate and become genius in a vacuum. They used the knowledge of their predesscors, their experience, and their unique talent to set them apart. What would Leonardo paint if Giotto and others hadnt figured out perspective etc? Shakespeare based most of his plays on either earlier plays, or ancient texts. It goes on and on, in every field, especially science. Sure, there are alot of Eureka moments, but they still required familarity and knowledge of not only ones experiences, but the knowledge of others.

 

[judas69]

What you're seeing is the result of natural talent, not directly that of listening (observing).

I'm not saying observation isn't part of the equation, I'm saying there is something more in genius, in the same way I feel there's something more, something unteachable and unlearnable, in the wise.

ability = practice, giving rise to flexibility, dexterity, speed etc
knowledge = learned skill/technique via observation, that taught via books etc

average musician = ability + knowledge
musical genius = intuitiveness + ability + knowledge

In otherwords I'm saying in a very general way, you can't manufacturer wisdom in the same way you can't manufacturer a child prodigy. The average musician can only mimic the genius.

 

[speed]

I'm not saying observation isn't part of the equation, I'm saying there is something more in genius, in the same way I feel there's something more, something unteachable and unlearnable, in the wise.

ability = practice, giving rise to flexibility, dexterity, speed etc
knowledge = learned skill/technique via observation, that taught via books etc

average musician = ability + knowledge
musical genius = intuitiveness + ability + knowledge

In otherwords I'm saying in a very general way, you can't manufacturer wisdom in the same way you can't manufacturer a child prodigy. The average musician can only mimic the genius.

I dont think anyone questions this.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm not saying observation isn't part of the equation, I'm saying there is something more in genius, in the same way I feel there's something more, something unteachable and unlearnable, in the wise.

ability = practice, giving rise to flexibility, dexterity, speed etc
knowledge = learned skill/technique via observation, that taught via books etc

average musician = ability + knowledge
musical genius = intuitiveness + ability + knowledge

In otherwords I'm saying in a very general way, you can't manufacturer wisdom in the same way you can't manufacturer a child prodigy. The average musician can only mimic the genius.

I don't think this way at all. I think anyone can hear and play the music in their head given enought patience and practice. The unconscious part of the mind is much more complex then the conscious mind and as such, people can reach into that vast pool of potential and bring back amazing results if one is only taught how to do so.

Ask the genius musician how they play the way they do, then you will understand the process of doing so yourself.

 

[judas69]

Ask the genius musician how they play the way they do, then you will understand the process of doing so yourself.

It's pretty clear to me that no matter how many questions I ask a genius chess player for example, I will never find out "the secret of his genius". Even if I could, and it was something that he could reduce, verbalize and relate to me, I still have the problem of integrating it into my own limited framework.

You brought up the subconscious. Well, 99.9% of what occurs at that level is unbeknownst to the individual himself. If genius resides there, you would think even the genius himself could not explain how he does what he does, and this appears to be the case. So many great muscians feel they are more of a channel in the process. "The music wrote itself", as it were.

 

[Silver Incubus]

It's pretty clear to me that no matter how many questions I ask a genius chess player for example, I will never find out "the secret of his genius". Even if I could, and it was something that he could reduce, verbalize and relate to me, I still have the problem of integrating it into my own limited framework.

You brought up the subconscious. Well, 99.9% of what occurs at that level is unbeknownst to the individual himself. If genius resides there, you would think even the genius himself could not explain how he does what he does, and this appears to be the case. So many great muscians feel they are more of a channel in the process. "The music wrote itself", as it were.

I do think that the zone, is very much a very deep trance state where they are no longer thinking about playing the music, it simply will just play, and someone who is practiced and well versed in that talent will bring all that bodily knowledge to the power of the unconcious mind. This channels that creative force that lies with the vast pathways of the mind.

Unknown to those who haven't experienced the power displayed in deep trance, the unconscious mind can remember every detail of every day of your life. This suggests, in a mathematical way, you could improve your talents by utilizing those memories of success and increasing their impact on your memory (say kinesthetic memory for musicians) you would improve by leaps an bounds in how accurately you play..

Also, you can communicate much more accuately while in deep trance. So these genius' know how to oranized their information processing to be so specific that they gain the desired outcome. This comes out through the talents using things like hallucinations to create freely what they want to.
Visual Artists can hallucinate the picture in their head on the canvas, musicians play or write the music they hallucinate in their head. Writers orgainize symbols and moments to words.

 

[judas69]

Well, your unconscious mind does not remember "every detail of every day of your life" as you claim, unless of course you're alluding to something non-physical (whatever that means).

Assuming you're not, you may "feel" it does or want to believe this is the case for whatever reason, when in reality (1) the human brain is greatly limited (many have proposed the average brain can store roughly 600gig) and (2) the amount of information we obtain and process throughout the day is utterly staggering.

I think the rest of what you've said, in a very general sense, is probably more likely the case than not.

 

[entanglement]

... in reality (1) the human brain is greatly limited (many have proposed the average brain can store roughly 600gig)

Sources please?

Well, your unconscious mind does not remember "every detail of every day of your life" as you claim, unless of course you're alluding to something non-physical (whatever that means).

I personally believe that there is a space or place inside the human brain where information keeps on piling up one on top the other. Its the recalling ability that defines a person's memory and from that, his intelligence. We have all seen several instances of people being made to 'think back into time' and 'remember' the minutest of details of their day-to-day life through hypnosis.

It must mean that all of it must get recorded somewhere in there.. its only a matter of recallability... and the sub-concious 'trance' state Silver Incubus was talking about does just that. It shuts down the rest of the functions your mind and body is performing to focus on just one thing - the task-in-hand, hence greatly improving the efficiency at it.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well, your unconscious mind does not remember "every detail of every day of your life" as you claim, unless of course you're alluding to something non-physical (whatever that means).

Assuming you're not, you may "feel" it does or want to believe this is the case for whatever reason, when in reality (1) the human brain is greatly limited (many have proposed the average brain can store roughly 600gig) and (2) the amount of information we obtain and process throughout the day is utterly staggering.

I think the rest of what you've said, in a very general sense, is probably more likely the case than not.

If I was to hypnotize you and put you into a deep trance, I could get you to remember the first day of school, and get you to tell me what your teacher was wearing on that day, the people in your class, the first book your read etc. Just because your conscious mind cannot recall things of tihs level, you unconscoious mind can. In deep trance phenomenon one can remove the sensation of pain, and many other very useful things. I have been doing research and experiements in the field of hypnosis and I can tell you first hand what is possible through hypnosis.

 

[Demiurge]

Frankly, I do not believe you. Present evidence, please.