We cannot understand understanding

[STT]

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.

I think understanding our understanding is impossible because I have an argument for it. The key point in this argument is that understanding is a process and it cannot possibly process itself. So I think you need to find a better attack.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think understanding our understanding is impossible because I have an argument for it. The key point in this argument is that understanding is a process and it cannot possibly process itself. So I think you need to find a better attack.

This is not an argument, it’s an assertion. To have an argument, you have to demonstrate in a compelling way why a process CANNOT possibly process itself.

 

[STT]

This is not an argument, it’s an assertion. To have an argument, you have to demonstrate in a compelling way why a process CANNOT possibly process itself.

The expression that understanding is a process and can process itself is faulty because each process is designated for a specific task so it cannot be used to process something else including itself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The expression that understanding is a process and can process itself is faulty because each process is designated for a specific task so it cannot be used to process something else including itself.

Why can’t a process be “designated” to the specific task of processing other processes?

Do you know how an operating system (OS) functions with regard to regulating and controlling other tasks such as programs, device drivers, storage, etc.?

I think your understanding of how processes work is incomplete.

Think about what metacognition means – thinking about thinking. Are you claiming we have no deliberate control over our own thought processes? If that were so, we couldn’t be aware of our own thinking and critique it. We couldn’t know if we were correctly or incorrectly thinking about a certain topic because we could have no means or perspective from which to assess whether our thinking about a matter was sufficient or deficient. That just seems wrong.

The other glaring example which contradicts your claim is the possibility of having awareness of awareness or self-consciousness. We are aware that we are aware and therefore have a perspective from which access whether our awareness is sufficient, deficient or something else. Now we can take that potential and run with it or we can disregard it completely, but it still exists.

Even on a strictly physical or biological level, human intelligence or understanding is precisely the possibility of processing other processes.

We can, for example, intelligently process processes such as the water cycle, the weather, the rock cycle, genetic replication, etc., etc. We can even use our understanding of these processes to intervene in them or use them to our advantage.

Think about the process of human history: there are entire fields of historical study and archeology devoted to analyzing these processes. These are fields that clearly involve processing intelligently the processes of human and natural evolution.

Your claim is simply incorrect. Intelligence involves processing all kinds of processes and self-awareness (consciousness) itself is a process of processing awareness in real time.

 

[STT]

Why can’t a process be “designated” to the specific task of processing other processes?

One process one task. I need to bring your attention to the point that we cannot understand understanding even if we have two process one trying to digest another one. Please read the following.

Do you know how an operating system (OS) functions with regard to regulating and controlling other tasks such as programs, device drivers, storage, etc.?

Yes, I know that. But you can only have consecutive processes if you have one CPU, otherwise you can have parallel processes. But this is unrelated to the topic.

Think about what metacognition means – thinking about thinking. Are you claiming we have no deliberate control over our own thought processes?

We of course have control over our thoughts. I think we can even understand what is the right algorithm for understanding a topic unless the topic is understanding itself.
That is true because of two reasons: (1) It is logically impossible to be cognitively open to understanding because a process with a specific level of complexity cannot process itself but only processes the processes which are less complex and (2) Our thoughts are processed in subconscious mind so we cannot really have access to them so we cannot understand what the processes are.

If that were so, we couldn’t be aware of our own thinking and critique it. We couldn’t know if we were correctly or incorrectly thinking about a certain topic because we could have no means or perspective from which to assess whether our thinking about a matter was sufficient or deficient. That just seems wrong.

That is true. We can judge our thinking and process them when the topic is not understanding.

The other glaring example which contradicts your claim is the possibility of having awareness of awareness or self-consciousness. We are aware that we are aware and therefore have a perspective from which access whether our awareness is sufficient, deficient or something else. Now we can take that potential and run with it or we can disregard it completely, but it still exists.

We don’t really have the capacity to be self-aware. We don’t have any sense to experience our selves. We just deduce that there is a self by watching our actions and observing our thoughts. We experience hence we are.

Even on a strictly physical or biological level, human intelligence or understanding is precisely the possibility of processing other processes.

We can, for example, intelligently process processes such as the water cycle, the weather, the rock cycle, genetic replication, etc., etc. We can even use our understanding of these processes to intervene in them or use them to our advantage.

Think about the process of human history: there are entire fields of historical study and archeology devoted to analyzing these processes. These are fields that clearly involve processing intelligently the processes of human and natural evolution.

Yes, we can process other process with the lower level of complexity but we cannot process processes with the same or higher level of complexity.

Your claim is simply incorrect. Intelligence involves processing all kinds of processes and self-awareness (consciousness) itself is a process of processing awareness in real time.

I think I cover all of these.

 

[tonyrey]

… We don’t really have the capacity to be self-aware. We don’t have any sense to experience our selves. We just deduce that there is a self by watching our actions and observing our thoughts. We experience hence we are.

We have **direct knowledge **of our mental activity without having to deduce it occurs. That is our primary datum and sole certainty. Occam’s Razor slashes away the hypothesis that our thoughts, sensations, feelings, choices and decisions are a multitude of unrelated neural events. That is where materialism - and the analogy with a CPU - is a hopelessly inadequate explanation because it is analytic and atomistic without accounting for the unity and continuity of the self. Our inability to understand everything about our intangible mind doesn’t imply that it doesn’t exist! Mindless organisms and computers understand precisely nothing…

 

[Peter_Plato]

We don’t really have the capacity to be self-aware. We don’t have any sense to experience our selves.

I suppose you haven’t heard of blind sightedness, then? That is when a person has no conscious awareness of what their eyes see. Blind-sighted persons can bodily maneuver the obstacles in a room because their sense of sight is intact but they have no conscious awareness of what they see. That means being aware or conscious as a mental process is distinct from perception as a neurological process. Ergo, it isn’t senses, per se, that make us aware of what we perceive, there is a layer of awareness that makes us first-hand observers or experiencers of what our senses deliver.

We just deduce that there is a self by watching our actions and observing our thoughts. We experience hence we are.

Well, by what “sense” are we aware of our deductions and thoughts, then? If, as you say, “We don’t have any sense to experience our selves,” how in heck do we “experience” our deductions or thoughts?

If we just “deduce” that we exist we have to, in some way, be aware of what we have deduced, no? Which means we would require, according to you, some kind of sensory faculty akin to eyes or ears to experience deductions as if they were in some way visible, audible or tactile. But we don’t have any such sense, according to you, since we cannot experience ourselves.

Something fishy in your deductions.

Perhaps this is what Jesus was talking about when he said we have eyes to see but do not see. Ears to hear but do not hear.

I think you just undermined your entire “argument.”

 

[OneSheep]

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

I think understanding our understanding is impossible because I have an argument for it. The key point in this argument is that understanding is a process and it cannot possibly process itself. So I think you need to find a better attack.

Good Morning STT

Interesting thread, I think everyone has made some great points. I think one of the major aspects that comes into play from the definition you are using is consciousness itself. A good read on the topic (though I did not get very far into it myself) is the book I am a Strange Loop. Trying to understand understanding, unless the parameters are limited, is like trying to find the root of consciousness. “I see myself thinking, so what it my reference point?” So no, we can no more understand understanding than we can find the root of consciousness. I don’t want to introduce something else, but looking at brain function and trying to understand understanding in a mechanical way runs up against the same “loop”.

And while it is fun to discuss all these things, there is something to be said in this forum context for the gift of understanding. I like what is said here.

Excerpt:
“Thus, understanding is both speculative—concerned with intellectual knowledge—and practical, because it can help us to order the actions of our lives toward our final end, which is God. Through understanding, we see the world and our life within it in the larger context of the eternal law and the relation of our souls to God.”

The word “understand” comes from “stand among”. In my experience, we can “stand among” God in creation, we can “stand among” the mindset of other people, and through prayer we can “stand among” the deepest recesses of our own minds. The product of such understanding is appreciation, a seeing of beauty where we once saw something less. And to me, the “loop” in itself is beautiful and wondrous to behold. It is an infinity, like looking into space.

Blessings!

 

[STT]

We have **direct knowledge **of our mental activity without having to deduce it occurs. That is our primary datum and sole certainty.

That I agree but my point was that we cannot have direct experience of our selves. There was no challenge for proving whether soul/self exists if we could experience it.

Occam’s Razor slashes away the hypothesis that our thoughts, sensations, feelings, choices and decisions are a multitude of unrelated neural events.

I think that there is a point in that that neural events exist. No neural even no consciousness. In fact it is scientifically shown that you can cause hallucination by manipulating brain by electromagnetic field. You can read more about this effect here.

That is where materialism - and the analogy with a CPU - is a hopelessly inadequate explanation because it is analytic and atomistic without accounting for the unity and continuity of the self. Our inability to understand everything about our intangible mind doesn’t imply that it doesn’t exist! Mindless organisms and computers understand precisely nothing…

I have an argument for absence of soul/self/mind in body:

1. Soul cannot be experience directly by scientific experiment
2. This means that soul cannot affect matter otherwise we could experience it
3. This means that there is no soul in body

 

[STT]

I suppose you haven’t heard of blind sightedness, then? That is when a person has no conscious awareness of what their eyes see. Blind-sighted persons can bodily maneuver the obstacles in a room because their sense of sight is intact but they have no conscious awareness of what they see.

I have never heard of this.

That means being aware or conscious as a mental process is distinct from perception as a neurological process. Ergo, it isn’t senses, per se, that make us aware of what we perceive, there is a layer of awareness that makes us first-hand observers or experiencers of what our senses deliver.

I think there is another phenomena here. I think the experience of objects is different from the identity that brain gives to them. By this I mean that we are aware of existence of objects although we cannot experience them. That is my humble opinion. To me, objects are different from self so I don’t think that what your generalization holds for self too.

Well, by what “sense” are we aware of our deductions and thoughts, then?

This is a good question. There is no sense for that. There is a short video about this here.

To my understanding however thought is experienced when it is formed in a way that could be comprehend and experience by an intellectual being. The formation is the result of process which happen in different parts of brain which are responsible for understanding.

If, as you say, “We don’t have any sense to experience our selves,” how in heck do we “experience” our deductions or thoughts?

I think experiencing our selves is different than experiencing our thoughts. We are discussing whether we can directly experience our selves.

If we just “deduce” that we exist we have to, in some way, be aware of what we have deduced, no?

Yes.

Which means we would require, according to you, some kind of sensory faculty akin to eyes or ears to experience deductions as if they were in some way visible, audible or tactile. But we don’t have any such sense, according to you, since we cannot experience ourselves.

That is true we do not have a direct access to our selves as we discuss it. There are two campaign one argue that self experience things. The other one (Buddhism) simply states that experience just happens and there is no self. I don’t think that we can ever know the truth.

Something fishy in your deductions.

There could be something wrong by my deduction considering what was discussed in previous comment (experience just happens).

Perhaps this is what Jesus was talking about when he said we have eyes to see but do not see. Ears to hear but do not hear.

I think you just undermined your entire “argument.”

I think Jesus meant something else.

 

[STT]

Good Morning STT

Good morning Onesheep.

Interesting thread, I think everyone has made some great points.

Thank you and I think everybody made a great contribution here.

I think one of the major aspects that comes into play from the definition you are using is consciousness itself. A good read on the topic (though I did not get very far into it myself) is the book I am a Strange Loop. Trying to understand understanding, unless the parameters are limited, is like trying to find the root of consciousness. “I see myself thinking, so what it my reference point?” So no, we can no more understand understanding than we can find the root of consciousness. I don’t want to introduce something else, but looking at brain function and trying to understand understanding in a mechanical way runs up against the same “loop”.

I first thought that the problem is related to loop. Human however can have several unconscious thought processes at the same time. I however don’t know how we could train ourselves to process another process.

I think that the root of problem lays on the fact that we cannot understand processes which are more complex than process of our understanding. We can only understand processes which are simpler than process of our understanding. Understanding understanding is marginal so it is yes and no when it comes to complexity.

And while it is fun to discuss all these things, there is something to be said in this forum context for the gift of understanding. I like what is said here.

I think that wisdom is the result of our suffering which is gathered by our experiences (learning for example).

Excerpt:
“Thus, understanding is both speculative—concerned with intellectual knowledge—and practical, because it can help us to order the actions of our lives toward our final end, which is God. Through understanding, we see the world and our life within it in the larger context of the eternal law and the relation of our souls to God.”

I think that the final goal is perfection in all respect.

The word “understand” comes from “stand among”. In my experience, we can “stand among” God in creation, we can “stand among” the mindset of other people, and through prayer we can “stand among” the deepest recesses of our own minds. The product of such understanding is appreciation, a seeing of beauty where we once saw something less. And to me, the “loop” in itself is beautiful and wondrous to behold. It is an infinity, like looking into space.

Blessings!

Interesting writing.

 

[ynotzap]

That I agree but my point was that we cannot have direct experience of our selves. There was no challenge for proving whether soul/self exists if we could experience it.

I think that there is a point in that that neural events exist. No neural even no consciousness. In fact it is scientifically shown that you can cause hallucination by manipulating brain by electromagnetic field. You can read more about this effect here.

I have an argument for absence of soul/self/mind in body:

1. Soul cannot be experience directly by scientific experiment
2. This means that soul cannot affect matter otherwise we could experience it
3. This means that there is no soul in body

1)can thoughts be experienced by empirical scientific experimentation? Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they neural? Can knowledge be physically demonstrated?
2) What causes growth, physical order in the human body, nourishment and healing, does physical matter have the power to order itself? How can physical matter cause consciousness, and intelligence?
3) What causes life in the living things, especially rational life in humans. Can science create human life? What is the difference between vegetative life, animal life, and human life? Unless you have the right answer for the above questions, you do not have an argument for truth, it is subjective.

 

[STT]

What I am providing in the following is the physicalist explanation.

1)can thoughts be experienced by empirical scientific experimentation?

Yes, we can experience thoughts experimentally. There are processes in brain which each causes different mental state depending on the area of the brain. Thought is simply mental state which reaches to its final form such that it could be experienced. Any mental state needs to reach to specific form in order to be experienced.

Do they exist?

Of course thoughts exist. We simply experience them.

Where do they come from?

This I already discuss it in the first comment.

Are they neural?

Thoughts are the result of neurons activities.

Can knowledge be physically demonstrated?

Yes, knowledge is a set of consistent concepts which can explain a subject matters. Concept is an abstract idea which is the result of thought process.

1. What causes growth, physical order in the human body, nourishment and healing, does physical matter have the power to order itself?

DNA is the key ingredient for all these functions.

How can physical matter cause consciousness, and intelligence?

Consciousness is explained in the first comment. Intelligence is the power of thinking.

1. What causes life in the living things, especially rational life in humans.

Our organs.

Can science create human life?

I think so. Everything is matter of time.

What is the difference between vegetative life, animal life, and human life?

There is no consciousness in vegetative life. Animal are conscious but their brains adopted for other activities.

Unless you have the right answer for the above questions, you do not have an argument for truth, it is subjective.

Well, I hope provide good answers to your question.

 

[petra22]

This I can understand, joyfully!

 

[petra22]

1)can thoughts be experienced by empirical scientific experimentation? Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they neural?

You guys are so far beyond me… I’m stuck in AWE right here with where do thoughts come from? Isn’t it AWESOME that the mind can generate thought???

 

[STT]

You guys are so far beyond me… I’m stuck in AWE right here with where do thoughts come from? Isn’t it AWESOME that the mind can generate thought???

There is a short talk about this that you can find it here.

To me mental states can enrich enough to form a thought and emerge as a conscious entity.

 

[ynotzap]

What I am providing in the following is the physicalist explanation.

STT:

Yes, we can experience thoughts experimentally. There are processes in brain which each causes different mental state depending on the area of the brain. Thought is simply mental state which reaches to its final form such that it could be experienced. Any mental state needs to reach to specific form in order to be experienced.

No, thoughts do not have material mass, so they can’t be examined physically. Their effects can produce physical reactions and be detected by experimentation through these reactions,If you say they can, how much do the weigh, what color are they, what size are they, what is their physical description.? the brain is the center of the nervous system recording sense impressions, through the five senses through electrical impulses. You still haven’t described a “mental state or process”, and what is form something physical?

STT:

Of course thoughts exist. We simply experience them.

Agreed, but how do we experience them? Just a physical process?

STT:

This I already discuss it in the first comment.

So the physical brain is the source that causes our mental states or process, again what is this mental process that is physical?

STT:

Thoughts are the result of neurons activities.

When a human experiences a thought process, does the neuron activity come first, or the thought, eg. human emotion Physical activity (neurons) produce thought? Smart neurons? Do thoughts in the mind cause neuron activity instead of neuron activity causing thought?

STT:

Yes, knowledge is a set of consistent concepts which can explain a subject matters. Concept is an abstract idea which is the result of thought process.

Is explaining a subject, the same as showing knowledge to be a physical demonstration of knowledge? What is an abstract idea, something physical? Again what is a thought process, somethings entirely physical?

Continued next post

 

[ynotzap]

What I am providing in the following is the physicalist explanation.

STT:

DNA is the key ingredient for all these functions

Deoxyribonucleic acid contains the genetic code that contains all that a person will be physically, how does it account for thought process, and mental states, unless you say all thought process and mental states are just physical, is this what you are saying, true? Can physical matter have rational intelligence? Can a physical body order all the activity found in a human person?

STT:

Consciousness is explained in the first comment. Intelligence is the power of thinking.

Stating a mental state does not adequately explain consciousness, or intelligence. Is intelligence physical? A physical power?

STT:

Our organs.

Does science ever experience a body with organs intact, not living, eg. still birth And how do you account for human rational intelligence? Just the brain?

STT:

I think so. Everything is matter of time.

Does science know what human rational life is, let alone vegetative life. You have a very materialistic view of life, and so do many scientists.

STT:

There is no consciousness in vegetative life. Animal are conscious but their brains adopted for other activities.

But there is order in vegetative life, there is growth, and nourishment, and propagation through seed, and there is material principle of activity, . Like wise in animals,plus 5 senses and a principle of material activity. Is consciousness in animals the same as consciousness in a human?

STT:

Well, I hope provide good answers to your question.

As I stated, and as I say about some empirical scientists, you are earth bound and need to rise to a higher plateau, because you do not explain somethings that are obvious to many. But you are capable of doing so with some accurate info, and conscientious effort, good luck.

 

[STT]

No, thoughts do not have material mass, so they can’t be examined physically. Their effects can produce physical reactions and be detected by experimentation through these reactions,If you say they can, how much do the weigh, what color are they, what size are they, what is their physical description.? the brain is the center of the nervous system recording sense impressions, through the five senses through electrical impulses.

I didn’t say that thoughts have mass. color, etc. Thoughts are mental states and mental states is the result of processes (physical) so thoughts in principle could be measured.

You still haven’t described a “mental state or process”, and what is form something physical?

The process in brain is simply the result of current and electromagnetic field. Mental state is like a stamp to any specific form of process.

Agreed, but how do we experience them? Just a physical process?

As it was explained thought can be experience when a mental state reach to an intelligible state and when the mental state has a specific form which can be experienced. Not all mental state can be experienced and not all of them are intelligible.

So the physical brain is the source that causes our mental states or process, again what is this mental process that is physical?

This is already covered in the second comment.

When a human experiences a thought process, does the neuron activity come first, or the thought, eg. human emotion

Depends. A thought, which is a process can initiate a new process and otherwise. The process of forming thought takes time and there several millions neurons from different part of brain are involved in the process of forming a thought.

Physical activity (neurons) produce thought?

Yes.

Smart neurons?

I don’t think whether there is a smart neuron or dumb neuron.

Do thoughts in the mind cause neuron activity instead of neuron activity causing thought?

That is possible too since thought are simply mental state and mental state is the result of process. It is like saying that a process causes another process. Just think of a chain of thoughts.

Is explaining a subject, the same as showing knowledge to be a physical demonstration of knowledge?

Yes, it is totally physical. We use language to transfer thoughts.

What is an abstract idea, something physical?

All thought are abstract.

Again what is a thought process, somethings entirely physical?

Thought process is an intelligible process which is the result of other thoughts and other process which lead to a new thought.

 

[STT]

Deoxyribonucleic acid contains the genetic code that contains all that a person will be physically, how does it account for thought process, and mental states, unless you say all thought process and mental states are just physical, is this what you are saying, true?

DNA makes you what you are as a human being (your hair color, body shape, etc.). Environment makes you what you are as a person (your thought, belief, etc).

Can physical matter have rational intelligence?

No according to physicalist.

Can a physical body order all the activity found in a human person?

Yes.

Stating a mental state does not adequately explain consciousness, or intelligence. Is intelligence physical? A physical power?

Mental states have the capacity to become intelligent and conscious.

Does science ever experience a body with organs intact, not living, eg. still birth

I don’t understand your question.

And how do you account for human rational intelligence? Just the brain?

Our sensory system also help us to be a rational intelligent being. Without them we could not develop our brain properly.

STT:

I think so. Everything is matter of time.
Does science know what human rational life is, let alone vegetative life. You have a very materialistic view of life, and so do many scientists.

Not, actually. I am an idealist too. To me it is more interesting to think of things in materialistic form, perhaps because our world is closer to materialist rather than idealist.

STT:

But there is order in vegetative life, there is growth, and nourishment, and propagation through seed, and there is material principle of activity, . Like wise in animals,plus 5 senses and a principle of material activity. Is consciousness in animals the same as consciousness and human?

Yes, consciousness is simply the ability to experience. Their experience however could be different (think of a bat).

STT:

As I stated, and as I say about some empirical scientists, you are earth bound and need to rise to a higher plateau, because you do not explain somethings that are obvious to many. But you are capable of doing so with some accurate info, and conscientious effort, good luck.

Good luck to you in your journey.