What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way.
We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors.
Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change.
Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science.
I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance.
As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man.
My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period.
When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously.
Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.
Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?
Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
So you've told us all about how you used to think a certain way, and then all of these changes happened (not described) causing you to change the way you thought about things (not described) and this change has had sweeping changes to your worldview (not described) and so now you feel your view (not described) is correct (with no evidence)
The you ask these questions:
Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?Who are Jane and Joe? Which meaning of science are you referring to? What do you mean by comprehension? How have you demonstrated that they have little comprehension in order for us to agree or disagree with you?
Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy.Which misconception are you referring to? How have you demonstrated that it is narrow-minded? How have you demonstrated that narrow-mindedness is unhealthy? What is your definition of unhealthy?
All I see here is one big mess of vague statements, with absolutely no evidence to support them, and loaded questions designed to make people simply agree with what you say in spite of the fact that in terms of informal logic, your "arguement" is completely worthless because you dont' set forward your premises in anything resembling a manner that demonstrates solid evidence to support a clear concise thesis.
-5 points for begging the question.
-5 points for hasty generalization.
-5 points for failure to support your claims with evidence.
The you ask these questions:
Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?Who are Jane and Joe? Which meaning of science are you referring to? What do you mean by comprehension? How have you demonstrated that they have little comprehension in order for us to agree or disagree with you?
Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy.Which misconception are you referring to? How have you demonstrated that it is narrow-minded? How have you demonstrated that narrow-mindedness is unhealthy? What is your definition of unhealthy?
All I see here is one big mess of vague statements, with absolutely no evidence to support them, and loaded questions designed to make people simply agree with what you say in spite of the fact that in terms of informal logic, your "arguement" is completely worthless because you dont' set forward your premises in anything resembling a manner that demonstrates solid evidence to support a clear concise thesis.
-5 points for begging the question.
-5 points for hasty generalization.
-5 points for failure to support your claims with evidence.
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
magenta flame;703764 wrote: May I ask a question of you Coberst?
I've always found new knowledge to be interesting and valid I read Poe and Wells for fun, I enjoy their wit. I have many books on the Arts, literature, history Psychology, Sociology, Anatomy, Calligraphy and religious thought. (oh and my little black sambo books I shall never give those up) I do admit I stay away from the sciences as best I can although I do have a book called the 'Perils of a restless planet', because it has my interest not because I think intellectually. I deplore the insinuation of seperation of people and thought. I don't believe it exists. I believe this thought only exists in the mind of those who believe their thoughts are of a higher standard to others. Which again I believe impossible, Knowledge is just that .....Knowledge. It's what you do with that knowledge that is tantamount to success. We can have enlightenment all we want but it's useless unless it's acted upon
Now this is my question to you - whilst an engineer did you close your mind off to other things and the goings on around you? Is this what has lead you to the overall concept of what you write here? My mind has always been open to new and wonderful things I think that's why I don't have to impress on others all those things I've learnt. It's not neccesary others have to come to their own enlightenment.
Yes, I did close out the rest of the world to a large extent for many years after I finished my college and worked as an engineer.
I worked as an electronics engineer for about 12 years as a designer of systems, a designer of circuits, and in management capacities. I decided that I was not suited for the type of pressures that management entails. I decided to get a PhD in philosophy because I wanted something that I thought was more meaningful; something that had intrinsic value.
I did not finish the PhD for various reasons and went back to sales engineering. I became a partner in a rep firm selling instruments to engineers. I could make more money in sales but sales are a bore because there were no creative accomplishments. After 12 years I sold my interest to my partners and became a small business entrepreneur.
I discovered something very important when I started a hobby I call September Scholar.
This is a short explanation of this activity.
I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.
Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.
I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.
We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.
The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.
I've always found new knowledge to be interesting and valid I read Poe and Wells for fun, I enjoy their wit. I have many books on the Arts, literature, history Psychology, Sociology, Anatomy, Calligraphy and religious thought. (oh and my little black sambo books I shall never give those up) I do admit I stay away from the sciences as best I can although I do have a book called the 'Perils of a restless planet', because it has my interest not because I think intellectually. I deplore the insinuation of seperation of people and thought. I don't believe it exists. I believe this thought only exists in the mind of those who believe their thoughts are of a higher standard to others. Which again I believe impossible, Knowledge is just that .....Knowledge. It's what you do with that knowledge that is tantamount to success. We can have enlightenment all we want but it's useless unless it's acted upon
Now this is my question to you - whilst an engineer did you close your mind off to other things and the goings on around you? Is this what has lead you to the overall concept of what you write here? My mind has always been open to new and wonderful things I think that's why I don't have to impress on others all those things I've learnt. It's not neccesary others have to come to their own enlightenment.
Yes, I did close out the rest of the world to a large extent for many years after I finished my college and worked as an engineer.
I worked as an electronics engineer for about 12 years as a designer of systems, a designer of circuits, and in management capacities. I decided that I was not suited for the type of pressures that management entails. I decided to get a PhD in philosophy because I wanted something that I thought was more meaningful; something that had intrinsic value.
I did not finish the PhD for various reasons and went back to sales engineering. I became a partner in a rep firm selling instruments to engineers. I could make more money in sales but sales are a bore because there were no creative accomplishments. After 12 years I sold my interest to my partners and became a small business entrepreneur.
I discovered something very important when I started a hobby I call September Scholar.
This is a short explanation of this activity.
I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.
Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.
I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.
We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.
The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
Given your constant overemphasis on topics that deal with how society wants to function, and the way you seem to think it ought to function, I'm hard-pressed to see how you can define your search for knowledge as a search for disintrested knowledge.
All of the knowledge you seem to be driving towards has very specific and objective purposes, hardly knoweldge solely for its own sake in that case.
All of the knowledge you seem to be driving towards has very specific and objective purposes, hardly knoweldge solely for its own sake in that case.
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
coberst;703756 wrote:
Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?
Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
Who does Joe and Jane represent? All of society? A particular group? What is your point and why do you feel the need to make it?
In all of your posts, coberst, I have seen vast and gross generalizations. Isn't that the true meaning of narrow-minded misconception?
Sometimes I wish mirrors were two sided. So that when people like you insist on asking people to take a good look at themselves you'd be able to take a good look at yourself, too.
Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?
Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
Who does Joe and Jane represent? All of society? A particular group? What is your point and why do you feel the need to make it?
In all of your posts, coberst, I have seen vast and gross generalizations. Isn't that the true meaning of narrow-minded misconception?
Sometimes I wish mirrors were two sided. So that when people like you insist on asking people to take a good look at themselves you'd be able to take a good look at yourself, too.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
laneybug;704121 wrote: Who does Joe and Jane represent? All of society? A particular group? What is your point and why do you feel the need to make it?
In all of your posts, coberst, I have seen vast and gross generalizations. Isn't that the true meaning of narrow-minded misconception?
Sometimes I wish mirrors were two sided. So that when people like you insist on asking people to take a good look at themselves you'd be able to take a good look at yourself, too.
Joe and Jane is what I use to identify the common guy or gal that one might meet everywhere. Like Joe sixpack, or everyman, etc.
The important point I am trying to make is that most things that we learn have small impact upon our world view but occassionally we learn something that has great impact, such a think I describe as a twist of the kaladiescope. When I learned that science meant something much broader that I had before imagined it caused me to develop a far broader comprehension of my world and myself.
Learning is a process of slowly moving from the specific to the general; this is called induction. Inductive reasoning is how we develop a comprehension of our world and our self.
Looking at one's self is a big problem. I once asked a professor of philosophy what was philosophy about, he said "philosophy is radical critical self-consciousness."
I think that Socrates meant this when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living".
In all of your posts, coberst, I have seen vast and gross generalizations. Isn't that the true meaning of narrow-minded misconception?
Sometimes I wish mirrors were two sided. So that when people like you insist on asking people to take a good look at themselves you'd be able to take a good look at yourself, too.
Joe and Jane is what I use to identify the common guy or gal that one might meet everywhere. Like Joe sixpack, or everyman, etc.
The important point I am trying to make is that most things that we learn have small impact upon our world view but occassionally we learn something that has great impact, such a think I describe as a twist of the kaladiescope. When I learned that science meant something much broader that I had before imagined it caused me to develop a far broader comprehension of my world and myself.
Learning is a process of slowly moving from the specific to the general; this is called induction. Inductive reasoning is how we develop a comprehension of our world and our self.
Looking at one's self is a big problem. I once asked a professor of philosophy what was philosophy about, he said "philosophy is radical critical self-consciousness."
I think that Socrates meant this when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living".
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
coberst;704421 wrote: Joe and Jane is what I use to identify the common guy or gal that one might meet everywhere. Like Joe sixpack, or everyman, etc.
In my opinion, there is no such thing. There is no such thing as the "everyman." That is usually the common, and very disturbing, opinion of the person who considers themselves "different." We are all different. Every one of us could fit into a hundred little categories, and yet none fit into a "one size fits all" mold.
People are too diverse, too interesting, too complicated to even begin using bland descriptions of them such as "Joe," "Jane," and "everyman." Give mankind a little more respect than that!
The important point I am trying to make is that most things that we learn have small impact upon our world view but occassionally we learn something that has great impact, such a think I describe as a twist of the kaladiescope. When I learned that science meant something much broader that I had before imagined it caused me to develop a far broader comprehension of my world and myself.
Very true. And I don't know many people who would disagree with you there.
Learning is a process of slowly moving from the specific to the general; this is called induction. Inductive reasoning is how we develop a comprehension of our world and our self.
Learning is a process of specific to general and general to specific. Up and down and sideways and all over. Learning is not linear and is not one dimensional. To suggest learning is a simplified process of A+B=C (i.e. specific to general) is hugely inaccurate, in my opinion and in my experience. Learning is not structural. Learning is not black and white. Learning is available to the rich and the poor, to the stupid and the genius. Be careful of generalizations and over-simplifications. Both can have disastrous effects on the very fabric of learning.
Looking at one's self is a big problem.
Yes, but it is the only problem truly worth attempting to solve. Once that problem is solved, the rest falls into place like puzzle pieces.
I think that Socrates meant this when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living".
I definitely agree with Socrates and I'll be so bold as to add something onto that. Your unexamined life is not worth living. One can never be so brazen as to think that they could ever examine another man's life for him.
In my opinion, there is no such thing. There is no such thing as the "everyman." That is usually the common, and very disturbing, opinion of the person who considers themselves "different." We are all different. Every one of us could fit into a hundred little categories, and yet none fit into a "one size fits all" mold.
People are too diverse, too interesting, too complicated to even begin using bland descriptions of them such as "Joe," "Jane," and "everyman." Give mankind a little more respect than that!
The important point I am trying to make is that most things that we learn have small impact upon our world view but occassionally we learn something that has great impact, such a think I describe as a twist of the kaladiescope. When I learned that science meant something much broader that I had before imagined it caused me to develop a far broader comprehension of my world and myself.
Very true. And I don't know many people who would disagree with you there.
Learning is a process of slowly moving from the specific to the general; this is called induction. Inductive reasoning is how we develop a comprehension of our world and our self.
Learning is a process of specific to general and general to specific. Up and down and sideways and all over. Learning is not linear and is not one dimensional. To suggest learning is a simplified process of A+B=C (i.e. specific to general) is hugely inaccurate, in my opinion and in my experience. Learning is not structural. Learning is not black and white. Learning is available to the rich and the poor, to the stupid and the genius. Be careful of generalizations and over-simplifications. Both can have disastrous effects on the very fabric of learning.
Looking at one's self is a big problem.
Yes, but it is the only problem truly worth attempting to solve. Once that problem is solved, the rest falls into place like puzzle pieces.
I think that Socrates meant this when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living".
I definitely agree with Socrates and I'll be so bold as to add something onto that. Your unexamined life is not worth living. One can never be so brazen as to think that they could ever examine another man's life for him.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
What happens to us when we learn new stuff?
Coberst wrote: Inductive reasoning is how we develop a comprehension of our world and our self.
On the contrary, in all instances deductive reasoning is stronger and more useful than inductive reasoning.
Inductive logic generally involves a best guess, a reasonable possibility, taking a stab at what one supposes might be the correct conclusion.
Moving from specific instances to a general conclusion is pretty much the definition of the hasty generalization.
Deductive logic requires that your conclusions be both necessary and sufficient conclusions to follow from your premises, such that anyone who agrees with your premises must necessarily agree with your conclusion.
On the contrary, in all instances deductive reasoning is stronger and more useful than inductive reasoning.
Inductive logic generally involves a best guess, a reasonable possibility, taking a stab at what one supposes might be the correct conclusion.
Moving from specific instances to a general conclusion is pretty much the definition of the hasty generalization.
Deductive logic requires that your conclusions be both necessary and sufficient conclusions to follow from your premises, such that anyone who agrees with your premises must necessarily agree with your conclusion.