We cannot understand understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
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
 
STT said:
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
Click to expand...
You would probably learn something by studying computer programming. Working with “processes that digest themselves” is a situation that programmers run into regularly, and is something that is totally within the realm of possibility.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
You would probably learn something by studying computer programming.
Click to expand...
I have extensive experience in programing.
JapaneseKappa said:
Working with “processes that digest themselves” is a situation that programmers run into regularly, and is something that is totally within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
I have never seen such a thing before.

So you think that we someday will understand how we understand?
 
Beryllos said:
Have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach?
Click to expand...
No. I read a short description of the book in wiki but I don’t understand how that the content of the book should be related to this thread. Would you mind to elaborate?
 
STT said:
No. I read a short description of the book in wiki but I don’t understand how that the content of the book should be related to this thread. Would you mind to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Self-referencing objects like the mind are one of the recurring themes of Gödel, Escher, Bach and other books by Douglas Hofstadter.
 
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.
 
po18guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
😉
 
po18guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. We can understand a prior knowledge. I miss that.

What is your opinion about argument?
 
STT said:
Do you have any opinion about the argument? I don’t think that we have a mirror that we can reflect to in order to understand understanding.
Click to expand...
What if what we do have is both a mirror and a light?

Read John 1:1-18
 
Peter_Plato said:
What if what we do have is both a mirror and a light?

Read John 1:1-18
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top