We cannot understand understanding

[Peter_Plato]

I have no idea how John is related to this topic. Do you mind to elaborate?

I think we need a higher order process (some type of supreme understanding) to understand understanding. I have no idea how to define a higher order process.

We can of course reflect if that is what you mean with mirror. But we need a tool to break down our understanding in pieces and then figure out how we understand (reductive method). Perhaps understanding is an a collective phenomena so we cannot use the reductive approach to comprehend it.

Did you read John?

 

[STT]

Did you read John?

Yes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes.

Have you read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave from The Republic Book VII?

web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf

What do you think Socrates means when he says…

"What do you think? From the beginning people like this have never managed, whether on their own or with the help by others, to see anything besides the shadows that are [continually] projected on the wall opposite them by the glow of the fire. "

Don’t you think Socrates is talking about the same shadowy darkness that John was also referring to when he wrote…

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…

9 ***The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ***11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

 

[STT]

Have you read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave from The Republic Book VII?

web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf

What do you think Socrates means when he says…

"What do you think? From the beginning people like this have never managed, whether on their own or with the help by others, to see anything besides the shadows that are [continually] projected on the wall opposite them by the glow of the fire. "

Yes, I read that and understood it. I however cannot have a grasp of how that could be related to our lives. Maybe, his notion about people’s freedom is about life after death. I don’t know. What do you think?

Don’t you think Socrates is talking about the same shadowy darkness that John was also referring to when he wrote…

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…

I thought that the first verse is related to creation. I have no idea whether the light here is related to the light in Plato’s Allegory. What do you think?

9 ***The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ***11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

I have no idea how this part is related to the the rest of your discussion.

To be honest I have no idea how what you say is related to the topic of this thread. Could you please elaborate instead of giving tips?

 

[ynotzap]

This is a sort of hard argument for me to finalize so I start with an initial version hoping that with your help we can finalize it.

So first the definition of understanding: Understanding is a psychological process which allows us to comprehend the relation between concepts in reality

And here is the argument:

1. For understanding understanding we need a psychological process which allows us to understand understanding
2. This process however cannot be the psychological process of understanding itself because a process cannot possibly digest itself
3. This means that we cannot understand understanding

Understanding is the power of knowing, immediate, certain undemonstrated knowledge, the antonym is science which can be demonstrated. To understand the power of knowing, one of the powers of the soul, we discover that we can abstract concepts, natures of things from the objective real world, By doing so we gain knowledge. Knowledge is not a physical thing, but a non-physical thing (spiritual), in a human being. Knowledge, is any act whether of sensation, imagination, apprehension, reasoning in which there is an intentional union of knower with the known

We can know spiritual realities, because we have a spiritual power called the intellect. We know that we know, a spiritual operation. Empirical science can not explain it because it isn’t physical. The act of understanding in a human is united as a co-principle with the functions of the brain in our present mode of existence, at death the brain will cease, but the intellect will still exist. The act of knowing that we know, the power of reflection ,can not be performed by anything strictly physical. just as a concept, or idea can not be demonstrated physically.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I read that and understood it. I however cannot have a grasp of how that could be related to our lives. Maybe, his notion about people’s freedom is about life after death. I don’t know. What do you think?

I thought that the first verse is related to creation. I have no idea whether the light here is related to the light in Plato’s Allegory. What do you think?

I have no idea how this part is related to the the rest of your discussion.

To be honest I have no idea how what you say is related to the topic of this thread. Could you please elaborate instead of giving tips?

Let me put it this way:

We do not exist or subsist within ourselves – we exist within a larger reality. The way that we understand that reality is not entirely dependent upon our own initiative.

If we assume that larger reality is dead, purposeless matter, then we harbour the underlying assumption that the larger reality cannot do anything to make itself known or understood to us. That, however, is a mistaken presumption.

What if that larger reality is Life Itself, Truth Itself and the source of who and what we ourselves are? That would mean who we are and how we are to understand all of reality is not dependent upon ourselves alone. The onus may be upon us to try to understand the larger reality (that would be the ‘turning around’ from gazing at the shadowy wall in Plato’s allegory.) but the ‘coming to know the reality’ may be a two-way process. Living Reality revealing itself to us and we growing in our understanding accordingly. The ‘growing’ would be a crucial aspect of understanding because if we constantly doubt what we know (radical skepticism) then our growing in understanding is undermined from the get-go.

If the “how do we know for sure” is not dependent upon our own ability but – at least in part – upon reality itself, then we have a “mirror” (reality itself) from which we can assess what we know and our capacity to know that we know.

The challenge would be to continue looking at and for the truth – looking at the bright sun itself which casts the shadows on the wall of the cave – our way of seeing reality that is entirely dependent upon our own initiative. It is far easier to turn back and look at the Platonic shadows (our own ideas about reality cast on the wall) rather than turning to continually face the full truth of what we do and don’t know. The shadows, since they are our own ideas, are far easier to accept and hold because they are more comfortable to us because they are our own than is the full bright light of truth itself.

When John writes…

The true light that gives light to everyone … was in the world… the world did not recognize him…

…he doesn’t only mean the world did not ‘recognize’ the light in the sense of it being recognized as something familiar, John also means the world does not acknowledge the light – the world doesn’t give the light the time of day, so to speak; it doesn’t turn and look at the light sufficiently to adjust its eyes to it and see it for what it is, a la Plato’s cave.

 

[STT]

Understanding is the power of knowing, immediate, certain undemonstrated knowledge, the antonym is science which can be demonstrated.

I am happier with my definition of understanding: Understanding is a psychological state (the state is the result of a process) which allows us to comprehend the relation between concepts. Do you have any problem with that?

To understand the power of knowing, one of the powers of the soul,** we discover that we can abstract concepts, natures of things from the objective real world**.

I have three objections here. First, we are not talking about soul here and I don’t think that understanding is a power of soul but brain. We know that people with brain injury lose the power of understanding. Second, I already provide an argument for understanding understanding and I want to know whether you have any objection to that. Third, human being is capable of understanding thoughts which has no relation with objective reality and that is against your argument that you made (bold part).

By doing so we gain knowledge. Knowledge is not a physical thing, but a non-physical thing (spiritual), in a human being.

I disagree. We know that we need form to keep knowledge (what we gain as a part of truth), whether it is written in a book or brain. So to my understanding, knowledge is not spiritual. The truth is however objective to my humble opinion is neither physical or spiritual.

Knowledge, is any act whether of sensation, imagination, apprehension, reasoning in which there is an intentional union of knower with the known.

I am sorry, but I don’t understand what you are talking about.

We can know spiritual realities, because we have a spiritual power called the intellect.

This is a huge claim. We as human being have certain capacity to understand things. Whether we are cognitively open to understand spiritual realities is subject of approval. Moreover, you mentioned that we can grasp knowledge only by interacting with physical world, then how we could understand spiritual world without any direct experience of it.

We know that we know, a spiritual operation. Empirical science can not explain it because it isn’t physical.

I am sorry but you are making a claim without support. Do you have any argument which show that the capacity to know things in general is a spiritual and not a physical operation?

The act of understanding in a human is united as a co-principle with the functions of the brain in our present mode of existence, at death the brain will cease, but the intellect will still exist.

I have no idea what intellect as a spiritual power is. I don’t understand how such a cooperation between brain and soul could lead to understanding. To me understanding understanding is logically impossible unless you could show that my argument is wrong. For now you are just claiming an idea without any support.

The act of knowing that we know, the power of reflection ,can not be performed by anything strictly physical. just as a concept, or idea can not be demonstrated physically.

I am sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[petra22]

I believe that the definition is faulty. Why must an idea be in the realm of reality to be understood? Where does this leave theoretical physics? How does this address any concept of the imagination? Circular reasoning in requiring understanding to understand understanding.

Rather than understanding, why not address belief? W.C. Fields believed that he would have another drink, while I believe that I will take Tylenol for my developing headache.

:aok:

 

[STT]

We do not exist or subsist within ourselves – we exist within a larger reality. The way that we understand that reality is not entirely dependent upon our own initiative.

I agree.

If we assume that larger reality is dead, purposeless matter, then we harbour the underlying assumption that the larger reality cannot do anything to make itself known or understood to us. That, however, is a mistaken presumption.

I think we cannot understand dead reality if it exists since we cannot possibly have any interaction with it hence I think that the reality that we are dealing with is alive. This of course depends on how do you define dead (without response) and alive (with response).

What is mistaken presumption?

What if that larger reality is Life Itself, Truth Itself and the source of who and what we ourselves are? That would mean who we are and how we are to understand all of reality is not dependent upon ourselves alone.

I agree.

The onus may be upon us to try to understand the larger reality (that would be the ‘turning around’ from gazing at the shadowy wall in Plato’s allegory.) but the ‘coming to know the reality’ may be a two-way process. Living Reality revealing itself to us and we growing in our understanding accordingly. The ‘growing’ would be a crucial aspect of understanding because if we constantly doubt what we know (radical skepticism) then our growing in understanding is undermined from the get-go.

I agree.

If the “how do we know for sure” is not dependent upon our own ability but – at least in part – upon reality itself, then we have a “mirror” (reality itself) from which we can assess what we know and our capacity to know that we know.

I agree. I however don’t understand how we could possibly understand reality if we are offspring of it. The whole is larger than its parts (us for example) and parts are interconnected. So to me, we cannot understand how understanding reality could possibly help us to understand our understanding since the reality is made of interwine parts and reality is bigger than us. In simple word, we cannot understand reality to my humble opinion unless we are developed enough intellectually and unless we partially know some ingredients that reality is made of.

To me only God as a per-request to be the creator knows what mind is. Hence to me we cannot understand what mind is unless we have the capacity to become God. Understanding is an inseparable faculty of mind so we cannot understand understanding either. By inseparable I mean that it could not be studied separately.

The challenge would be to continue looking at and for the truth – looking at the bright sun itself which casts the shadows on the wall of the cave – our way of seeing reality that is entirely dependent upon our own initiative. It is far easier to turn back and look at the Platonic shadows (our own ideas about reality cast on the wall) rather than turning to continually face the full truth of what we do and don’t know. The shadows, since they are our own ideas, are far easier to accept and hold because they are more comfortable to us because they are our own than is the full bright light of truth itself.

To be hones I think that finding the objective truth is extremely difficult if it is not impossible. By objective truth I mean the truth that everything is derived from, including the truth that we are observing on the surface, what we are dealing with. To me it is not obvious that we conclude that we anyhow have access to objective truth.

Needless to say that I don’t understand yet that how your comment could possibly shade light to the topic of this thread.

When John writes…

The true light that gives light to everyone … was in the world… the world did not recognize him…

…he doesn’t only mean the world did not ‘recognize’ the light in the sense of it being recognized as something familiar, John also means the world does not acknowledge the light – the world doesn’t give the light the time of day, so to speak; it doesn’t turn and look at the light sufficiently to adjust its eyes to it and see it for what it is, a la Plato’s cave.

I see. I however don’t understand how mirror and light could be related to the topic of this thread.

By the way, do you have any problem with the argument presented in OP?

 

[ynotzap]

This is a sort of hard argument for me to finalize so I start with an initial version hoping that with your help we can finalize it.

So first the definition of understanding: Understanding is a psychological process which allows us to comprehend the relation between concepts in reality

And here is the argument:

STT:

1. For understanding understanding we need a psychological process which allows us to understand understanding

The word psychological literally means "the study of the soul. It appears you do not have sufficient knowledge of the soul, or its existence, true?

STT:

1. This process however cannot be the psychological process of understanding itself because a process cannot possibly digest itself

If understanding is not the result of the activity of the soul through it’s power of knowing, then what do you call the “psychological process”? Explain what you mean that a process can not digest itself.and why?

STT:

1. This means that we cannot understand understanding

Your opinion based on your logic, St. Thomas would disagree with you, and so would any scholastic metaphysician

 

[STT]

The word psychological literally means "the study of the soul. It appears you do not have sufficient knowledge of the soul, or its existence, true?

The word psychology use to mean the study of soul but not anymore. Psychology is scientific branch of study these days.

If understanding is not the result of the activity of the soul through it’s power of knowing, then what do you call the “psychological process”? Explain what you mean that a process can not digest itself.and why?

I meant the brain process by psychological process.

Your opinion based on your logic, St. Thomas would disagree with you, and so would any scholastic metaphysician

How do you know that St. Thomas would disagree with me? Do you have any objection to my argument?

By the way, I would be glad to know your response to post #27. I am waiting for it.

 

[petra22]

Let me put it this way:

We do not exist or subsist within ourselves – we exist within a larger reality. The way that we understand that reality is not entirely dependent upon our own initiative.

If we assume that larger reality is dead, purposeless matter, then we harbour the underlying assumption that the larger reality cannot do anything to make itself known or understood to us. That, however, is a mistaken presumption.

What if that larger reality is Life Itself, Truth Itself and the source of who and what we ourselves are? That would mean who we are and how we are to understand all of reality is not dependent upon ourselves alone. The onus may be upon us to try to understand the larger reality (that would be the ‘turning around’ from gazing at the shadowy wall in Plato’s allegory.) but the ‘coming to know the reality’ may be a two-way process. Living Reality revealing itself to us and we growing in our understanding accordingly. The ‘growing’ would be a crucial aspect of understanding because if we constantly doubt what we know (radical skepticism) then our growing in understanding is undermined from the get-go.

If the “how do we know for sure” is not dependent upon our own ability but – at least in part – upon reality itself, then we have a “mirror” (reality itself) from which we can assess what we know and our capacity to know that we know.

The challenge would be to continue looking at and for the truth – looking at the bright sun itself which casts the shadows on the wall of the cave – our way of seeing reality that is entirely dependent upon our own initiative. It is far easier to turn back and look at the Platonic shadows (our own ideas about reality cast on the wall) rather than turning to continually face the full truth of what we do and don’t know. The shadows, since they are our own ideas, are far easier to accept and hold because they are more comfortable to us because they are our own than is the full bright light of truth itself.

When John writes…

The true light that gives light to everyone … was in the world… the world did not recognize him…

…he doesn’t only mean the world did not ‘recognize’ the light in the sense of it being recognized as something familiar, John also means the world does not acknowledge the light – the world doesn’t give the light the time of day, so to speak; it doesn’t turn and look at the light sufficiently to adjust its eyes to it and see it for what it is, a la Plato’s cave.

THIS spoke to my understanding! Thank you!

:newidea:

 

[ynotzap]

I am happier with my definition of understanding: Understanding is a psychological state (the state is the result of a process) which allows us to comprehend the relation between concepts. Do you have any problem with that?

I am glad you are happier with your definition, but I have a problem when you don’t seem to understand what a psychological state is, and I’m not clear you understand what the nature of a concept is, or how we attain it. You don’t know of the existence of the human soul, or it’s powers. Understanding is knowing the truth regarding the object contemplated.

STT:

I have three objections here. First, we are not talking about soul here and I don’t think that understanding is a power of soul but brain. We know that people with brain injury lose the power of understanding. Second, I already provide an argument for understanding understanding and I want to know whether you have any objection to that. Third, human being is capable of understanding thoughts which has no relation with objective reality and that is against your argument that you made (bold part).

Whether you agree or not, anytime you talk about psychology or knowledge, you are talking about the soul of man, a rational soul. The brain is the physical medium, or organ that the soul uses to acquire contact with the real objective world, the physical world. You don’t understand what is meant by the body and the soul being co-principles, they constitute the nature of man He is not just an animal, but a rational animal, a homo-sapien

The soul is the animating principle of the body, and makes it what it is, the form. People with brain injury, because the medium has been damaged does not mean the person has lost the power to know, or understand. It is because the soul is extrinsically dependent on the brain in our present mode of existence Repair the brain, and the power becomes active again because it never was really gone. Sleep is a good example, or a coma.

Humans can have thoughts that are called “subjective” vs "objective. The source of subjective thoughts are from the mind of man which may or may not be in contact with the real world such as fiction. There is not fiction without non-fiction. Objective thoughts are thoughts that come from the real physical world. Subjectiive thoughts are only true if they are back up by experience of the real world, not just the mind

STT:

I disagree. We know that we need form to keep knowledge (what we gain as a part of truth), whether it is written in a book or brain. So to my understanding, knowledge is not spiritual. The truth is however objective to my humble opinion is neither physical or spiritual.

If knowledge, rational knowledge is not spiritual, then what is it? Has anyone discovered knowledge as a physical thing, is not knowledge a collection of concepts regarding things experienced? AS I stated, is an idea, or concept demonstratable physically? Is not objective knowledge truth. Truth is not spiritual? Is not reality truth? Is not the world outside our senses real? It exists, and if it exists is it not true? You leave a lot of questions unanswered when answers do exist in conformity with objective reality and not just subjective reasoning.

STT:

This is a huge claim. We as human being have certain capacity to understand things. Whether we are cognitively open to understand spiritual realities is subject of approval. Moreover, you mentioned that we can grasp knowledge only by interacting with physical world, then how we could understand spiritual world without any direct experience of it.

Spiritual realities are not sensed, but understood by the intelligence of man, (using his intellect which is spiritual, a reality you are not familiar with as so many others) We can not physically demonstrate spiritual realities, but we can understand them given enough truth.

STT:

I am sorry but you are making a claim without support. Do you have any argument which show that the capacity to know things in general is a spiritual and not a physical operation?

There is much support if you familiarize yourself with the teachings of St. Thomas, and Aristotle, found in the Summa Theologica, or a shorter version Summa of the Summa, by author Peter Kreeft I Consider how a child comes to know. He through the senses comes into contact with the outside physical world. As he matures he learns beyond what he senses through reasoning and thought, and physical and mental experiences. knowledge starts with our senses, but continues on through our mental life, which is not physical even though as I stated, is dependent on the physical is our present state of existence, which will change at physical death. (man’s intelligence (a spiritual power) is extrinically dependent of the physical as long and the soul is united to the body. The nature of knowledge, and reasoning are clues to the spiritual nature of the soul, the power to know, and to will. It makes for the distinct difference between animals and humans

STT:

I have no idea what intellect as a spiritual power is. I don’t understand how such a cooperation between brain and soul could lead to understanding. To me understanding understanding is logically impossible unless you could show that my argument is wrong. For now you are just claiming an idea without any support.

I have much support as I mentioned, from the Catholic Christian Church and it’s teachers. I don’t expect you to understand since this information is not sufficiently known by you. Follow through with my suggestions

 

[STT]

I am glad you are happier with your definition, but I have a problem when you don’t seem to understand what a psychological state is, and I’m not clear you understand what the nature of a concept is, or how we attain it.

How do we understand what the nature of a concept is? I don’t think if anybody knows. I would be happy to hear it from you if you know. All I know is that the objective truth is an exhaustive set of concepts.

You don’t know of the existence of the human soul, or it’s powers.

I read a lot about that but I couldn’t figure out what is the use of defining the soul. You define soul as a substance in dualism and give it some attributes like intellect. So in your opinion the problem is solved. I however don’t think that can help us to overcome our ignorance on the topic.

Understanding is knowing the truth regarding the object contemplated.

I am sorry but you are not offering any definition. You are just repeating yourself.

Whether you agree or not, anytime you talk about psychology or knowledge, you are talking about the soul of man, a rational soul. The brain is the physical medium, or organ that the soul uses to acquire contact with the real objective world, the physical world.

Brain is not a physical medium for only sensory system. It store knowledge, it process information to construct knowledge, etc. There are scientific facts which show that the people with brain damage lose memory or lack the ability to build new memory etc.

You don’t understand what is meant by the body and the soul being co-principles, they constitute the nature of man He is not just an animal, but a rational animal, a homo-sapien

I don’t think that it is constructive to keep telling people that they don’t understand things. I know about dualism but it has tons of problem.

The soul is the animating principle of the body, and makes it what it is, the form. People with brain injury, because the medium has been damaged does not mean the person has lost the power to know, or understand. It is because the soul is extrinsically dependent on the brain in our present mode of existence Repair the brain, and the power becomes active again because it never was really gone. Sleep is a good example, or a coma.

What brain as a medium does when it comes to understanding?

Humans can have thoughts that are called “subjective” vs "objective. The source of subjective thoughts are from the mind of man which may or may not be in contact with the real world such as fiction. There is not fiction without non-fiction. Objective thoughts are thoughts that come from the real physical world. Subjectiive thoughts are only true if they are back up by experience of the real world, not just the mind

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[STT]

The rest…

If knowledge, rational knowledge is not spiritual, then what is it?

This is already explained in my comment. Spiritual entities are formless. We keep knowledge in our brain since it required form to be stored.

Has anyone discovered knowledge as a physical thing, is not knowledge a collection of concepts regarding things experienced?

Knowledge is the processed information which can be understood by a intellectual being.

AS I stated, is an idea, or concept demonstratable physically?

Creating an idea is a subconscious activity.

Is not objective knowledge truth.

Only the truth could be objective. Knowledge is subjective.

Truth is not spiritual?

Of course not. Truth is not stuff so it cannot be physical or spiritual.

Is not reality truth?

No, we know well that truth is not reflected in reality.

Is not the world outside our senses real?

What do you mean with real? Reality is real if it does not have a sustainer otherwise is mere illusion.

You leave a lot of questions unanswered when answers do exist in conformity with objective reality and not just subjective reasoning.

I think I answer them all.

Spiritual realities are not sensed, but understood by the intelligence of man, (using his intellect which is spiritual, a reality you are not familiar with as so many others) We can not physically demonstrate spiritual realities, but we can understand them given enough truth.

So you agree that we can only understand spiritual world given enough truth? What truth we have been given?

There is much support if you familiarize yourself with the teachings of St. Thomas, and Aristotle, found in the Summa Theologica, or a shorter version Summa of the Summa, by author Peter Kreeft I Consider how a child comes to know. He through the senses comes into contact with the outside physical world. As he matures he learns beyond what he senses through reasoning and thought, and physical and mental experiences. knowledge starts with our senses, but continues on through our mental life, which is not physical even though as I stated, is dependent on the physical is our present state of existence, which will change at physical death. (man’s intelligence (a spiritual power) is extrinically dependent of the physical as long and the soul is united to the body. The nature of knowledge, and reasoning are clues to the spiritual nature of the soul, the power to know, and to will. It makes for the distinct difference between animals and humans.

I think the difference between animal and human is merely due to their brains difference.

I have much support as I mentioned, from the Catholic Christian Church and it’s teachers. I don’t expect you to understand since this information is not sufficiently known by you. Follow through with my suggestions

You haven’t show anything yet.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Only the truth could be objective. Knowledge is subjective.

How do you know that the truth is objective when you claim knowledge of everything is subjective?

Of course not. Truth is not stuff so it cannot be physical or spiritual.

If truth is “not stuff” then how can it be known as “objective” by “stuff” – i.e., merely due to … brainy “stuff.”

No, we know well that truth is not reflected in reality.

Ah, but what we “know well” is only “subjective” so how can you be sure that “truth is not reflected in reality?” If truth is “objective” and what we can know is subjective, how can we objectively “know” where truth is reflected and whether what we think is reality really is reality?

You got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do to justify your claimin’.

What do you mean with real? Reality is real if it does not have a sustainer otherwise is mere illusion.

How do you know anything about reality needing a “sustainer” if what you know is merely subjective and illusory?

I think I answer them all.

I think you answered none of them.

So you agree that we can only understand spiritual world given enough truth? What truth we have been given?

You have to answer where we can possibly access “enough” of the “truth” if all we can know is merely subjective?

I think the difference between animal and human is merely due to their brains difference.

This would be subjective claim of yours – not even at the level of knowing, since you only thing it – and, therefore, not objective reality. Why should we accept it is reality?

You haven’t show anything yet.

What is there that can be shown if all possibility of knowing, according to you, is merely subjective and not objective?

You are the one who needs to traverse the divide between subjective and objective, in your own thinking, before anyone can possibly convince you about what can be shown to be objectively true.

The problem isn’t with the attempts by others to do show anything, the problem is with the inherent epistemic problem with knowing that you have – that all KNOWING, for you, is subjective, while all TRUTH is objective and never the twain shall meet.

You need to explain how to bridge the artificial divide between knowing and truth that you insist exists before anyone can convince you about anything regarding the objective truth.

While you insist the truth is objective, in theory, there is no way for you to know the objective truth if you insist that knowing is always and merely subjective and never objective, even in principle.

What you have to prove is why we couldn’t possibly subjectively know what is objectively the truth. You haven’t done that, have you?

How can anyone teach you to run when you keep tripping
over your own mismatched and uncoordinated feet? :hey_bud:

 

[STT]

How do you know that the truth is objective when you claim knowledge of everything is subjective?

Knowledge is something we learn and accumulate. The states of knowing and learning are related to processes which allows us to subjectively experience knowledge whenever we need it or process the information to learn new thing which is comprehensible for an intelligent being. Subjective experience is involved in both recalling knowledge and learning knowledge. In short, knowledge is a mind dependent thing hence it is subjective.

Truth in another hand is objective because it is mind independent (1+1=2).

If truth is “not stuff” then how can it be known as “objective” by “stuff” – i.e., merely due to … brainy “stuff.”

This is related to OP. I simply don’t know. I already provide an argument for it. What is your opinion about it?

Ah, but what we “know well” is only “subjective” so how can you be sure that “truth is not reflected in reality?” If truth is “objective” and what we can know is subjective, how can we objectively “know” where truth is reflected and whether what we think is reality really is reality?

You got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do to justify your claimin’.

I don’t have an argument for that. The only thing that we know is that our understanding of reality is constantly subjected to change. Isn’t that a indisputable fact?

How do you know anything about reality needing a “sustainer” if what you know is merely subjective and illusory?

That is not what I said. I said that reality is illusory if it has a sustainer otherwise it is real.

I think you answered none of them.

How about now?

You have to answer where we can possibly access “enough” of the “truth” if all we can know is merely subjective?

I don’t believe that we have access to the truth. Those are my questions. I didn’t claim anything about knowing the truth.

This would be subjective claim of yours – not even at the level of knowing, since you only thing it – and, therefore, not objective reality. Why should we accept it is reality?

There are tons of scientific facts that show that our main difference between us and animal is due to our brains. You can read this for example (I just google it).

What is there that can be shown if all possibility of knowing, according to you, is merely subjective and not objective?

You are the one who needs to traverse the divide between subjective and objective, in your own thinking, before anyone can possibly convince you about what can be shown to be objectively true.

The problem isn’t with the attempts by others to do show anything, the problem is with the inherent epistemic problem with knowing that you have – that all KNOWING, for you, is subjective, while all TRUTH is objective and never the twain shall meet.

You need to explain how to bridge the artificial divide between knowing and truth that you insist exists before anyone can convince you about anything regarding the objective truth.

While you insist the truth is objective, in theory, there is no way for you to know the objective truth if you insist that knowing is always and merely subjective and never objective, even in principle.

What you have to prove is why we couldn’t possibly subjectively know what is objectively the truth. You haven’t done that, have you?

How can anyone teach you to run when you keep tripping
over your own mismatched and uncoordinated feet? :hey_bud:

I think I have covered this in my previous comments.

By the way, I think you missed my post #29.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

This is a sort of hard argument for me to finalize so I start with an initial version hoping that with your help we can finalize it.

So first the definition of understanding: Understanding is a psychological process which allows us to comprehend the relation between concepts in reality

And here is the argument:

1. For understanding understanding we need a psychological process which allows us to understand understanding
2. This process however cannot be the psychological process of understanding itself because a process cannot possibly digest itself
3. This means that we cannot understand understanding

What about a spiritual process? We see relations between concepts through the very Spirit of life that animates us. That very spirit should be able “to digest itself”, if it is the very connection to God (whom understands everything).

Maybe an altered perception would change your view on a psychological process that digests itself. Perhaps awareness of the human being that I am is the psychological process that digests itself; according to our understanding. I think that the closer we get to the I am, it perhaps becomes an objective reality.

Are you one to go down the same mental path always? Altering our perception leads to new mental pathways, inevitably to our objective self (aware of the spiritual connection-processes that belongs to our understanding.

I think you say we cannot understand understanding because you follow the same pathway of knowledge through your own head, as you probably always do (without knowing it). Be aware of what you think first then you can come to a knowledge of understanding. Try changing your mind, and your understanding in an infinitude of ways. It will all coalesce together, turning the light on inside your brain.

To say that you cannot understand something, even yourself, means that you are lacking knowledge to see the Light within, the spirit within, the body. Gain more knowledge through your senses and then you will understand; for those who seek find the spirit within themselves.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

To understand is not beyond your understanding. You must realize that you are constantly staring at your image within your mind. Your mind is reflective to your understanding, when you see your likeness you are well pleased, however, when you see your image (which came into being before you came into being) you will have to bear much.

Now seek the light that will cover up your image. The image you see but the light behind the image you do not see. Everything is hidden within the Father’s light. Seek the light that will cover up your image.

 

[STT]

What about a spiritual process? We see relations between concepts through the very Spirit of life that animates us. That very spirit should be able “to digest itself”, if it is the very connection to God (whom understands everything).

I don’t think that there is any spiritual process since spiritual entities are formless. That is true because you need variation for process.

I don’t understand how how connection with God could resolve the problem unless God enlightens us.

Maybe an altered perception would change your view on a psychological process that digests itself. Perhaps awareness of the human being that I am is the psychological process that digests itself; according to our understanding. I think that the closer we get to the I am, it perhaps becomes an objective reality.

I don’t understand you.

Are you one to go down the same mental path always? Altering our perception leads to new mental pathways, inevitably to our objective self (aware of the spiritual connection-processes that belongs to our understanding.

How do you alter your perception?

I think you say we cannot understand understanding because you follow the same pathway of knowledge through your own head, as you probably always do (without knowing it). Be aware of what you think first then you can come to a knowledge of understanding. Try changing your mind, and your understanding in an infinitude of ways. It will all coalesce together, turning the light on inside your brain.

I don’t understand your prescription here.

To say that you cannot understand something, even yourself, means that you are lacking knowledge to see the Light within, the spirit within, the body. Gain more knowledge through your senses and then you will understand; for those who seek find the spirit within themselves.

How this is related to understand understanding?