Understanding = Use of Memory and is Result of Training
Animals immediately 'forget' anger when feeling OK, they show angry behavior as way of sensing reality, not because of 'understanding' the IDEA 'angry'.
'Understanding' = use of human memory + testing fit with some human logic
. Nietsche about 'knowledge'
is a (sub)cultural process, decisive is in what surroundings you are born (parents, family, ..).
is a matter of training. 'Understanding', 'spiritual', 'mental' are words for ill-defined processes.
Even in the 21st century of neurology is spoken about 'understanding'/'intelligence as a quality in itself, with no relation to behavior.
The 'quality' of the contents of the brain can be measured, and also the level of training, but at birth brains are
largely similar computers of flesh and nerves.
When someone says "my knee hurts", than a doctor after research saying "your knee is o.k." is applying 'understanding' and indirectly denies
that you sense pain. The pain though IS sensed. Neurology learns that our brains can translate sense experience in any way, when pain is sensed then there is a trigger.
On Western universities it is easily forgotten that western students are trained in accepting 'intelligence' as property.
Not as being effective in memorizing the dominant conceptual scheme.
Skill though, they learn to consider as behavior that results from training.
The simulating of having a university degree mostly is sufficient in western society to be considered 'intelligent', it is more and more clear that
a university bull does not guarantee related skills, only guarantees high wages.
The optimistic message: Life is mainly training
Consciousness is the BEHAVIOR of
treating the reflection in a mirror as copy of yourself, and as independent of 'the others'.
If somebody asks "who do you see?" and you're Albert Einstein, then your answer will
be "myself" or "Albert".
A believer in mind-body split will say: my 'mind' mirrors my body because a hidden METAphysical force makes them move in 'harmony'.
A believer in 'only body' will say: there is only 1 movement that is seen from 2 standpoints.
Language is (cultural) expression of thoughts, not thought itself.
Thought itself is 'intuition', the 'logic' developed by evolution and archived in DNA.
Any language a tiny part of 'intuition, and is endlessly more limited than thought itself, only
is a logical simulation of a tiny part of sense experience. Like pointing at the ocean with 'lot of H2O'.
In the Western Word using 'thinking' became dominant over the much bigger rest of 'intuition'.
This temporary dominancy of 'thought' is now culminating in crisis.
Thinking 'in some language' is doing a tiny simulation around a limited and truncated part of thought.
Thinking 'in some logic' can be useful, to 'stop' part of thought and to make simulations of that part of thought more repetitive (in some variables).
But outside technology 'logic' mostly only terribly slows down thought, and ignores practically all of thought.
A very small example: a boxer who theorizes about where to hit and how to defend is much slower than a boxer
who trained his fighting intuition and just hits and defends. The 'logic' developed by evolution and archived in DNA is in
practically all situations more effective than 'language'
A dog for instance only by using his smell learns much more about an opponent, than language can express.
The nose of a dog for instance can distinguish between a human with cancer and a human without.
More effective than our most complex 'diagnosis machines'.
When you start depending on 'rational' numbers to value reality, then you're seriously in trouble.
27 degrees Celsius and moisture level 50% is a very poor measure of what you feel.
Rationality and Consciousness
In the tiny Subreality 'Rationality' produced by Western Enlightenment
(humans = ape body + human 'spirit) like addicted practice all the time the ritual 'Consciousness'. Simulating 'understanding' and use of 'mind'. With premise: mind body split
Conscious pain and unconscious pain: non-sense, anaesthetics just disable some senses.
On the surface Einstein seemed a brilliant believer in 'ratio'.
But wonder about Einstein's view about the dualism behind 'consciousness' and mind-body split when reading the quote to the right:
Einsteins was deeply religious, maybe that's why he seems so sure about his model of THE design design behind the universe (dualism):
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in THE laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man
It doesn't change Einstein's brilliant achievement, but Einstein in brilliant 'mathematical' and 'rational' way made 'mathematical' and 'rational' observations in
a 'mathematical' and 'rational' model of reality. Only of value in 'mathematical' and 'rational' aspects of reality and without any doubt missing
many other aspects.
Let focus on reaching the planet of Mars in the 21st century.
'Consciousness' is treated in the same way as electromagnetism before it could be measured. Only difference: the invisible electromagnetic forces can be felt very well.
This giving properties to something not material that only 'exists' in theory is pointed at by scientists as 'substance dualism'.
Albert Einstein saw a role for metaphysics as the skill of abstract modelling,
as long as logic and sensory experience are firmly connected (in fact quite unlike the definition of metaphysics).
One is easily led to believe that [..] concepts [..] which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, [..],
to be removed from thinking. For all thought acquires material content [..].
This latter proposition I take to be entirely true; but I hold the prescription for thinking which is grounded on this proposition to be false.
For this claim- if only carried through consistently- absolutely excludes thinking of any kind as 'metaphysical'.
Substance dualism is the idea that reality is a combination of both a physical and non-physical reality.
Like the religious Einstein says about non-physical reality: 'the spirit manifest in THE laws of the Universe'.
Consciousness is not accepted as just the firing of neurons in the brain, but also as some non-physical process.
The substance dualist adds to reality the force 'consciousness', by saying:
Clearly science and our experience tell us that the world of 'consciousness' is not only material/physical.
And our inner experience tells us with certainty: consciousness is 'something'.
Our goal: to fit the real effects of the never proven 'something' 'consciousness' into the brain.
Though there are many different ways of modelling the one of reality into 2 or more parts (like day and night), ...., there is only one world.
To believe in immaterial
ideas like 'understanding', 'intelligence' and 'evil'
is playing with 'words' and
is similar to believe in 'forms'or 'God in Heaven' (worlds of reason
The myth is that behaviour that SUGGESTS being able to distinguish between self and others points at 'consciousness'.
Well apes that ate themselves didn't survive in evolution.
And children of their own milk drinking ape-mothers didn't either, or ape-'leaders' who without emotion harshley suppressed common sense apes.
And poor apes in a nightmare created by a dreamer (like in Zimbabwe) don't survive.
Mammals became experts in interpretation of sense experience and in communication of sense experience,
by COOPERATION during survival, because mammals (however strong and dominant) behaving like passive obedient zombies always died.
Possibly handling the tool intuition is way to difficult for scientist, though in use it is as simple as a cellphone.
In fact 'growling' when your intuition triggers angry or frightened behavior, and 'smiling' when feeling OK is much more to the point.
The angry-behavior is way to expres sense experience, not result of the 'rational' IDEA 'anger'.
That's why other animals immediately 'forget' anger' when feeling OK,
they show angry behavior as way of sensing reality, not because of being 'angry'.
Very smart behavior.
Zombies are dead behind the eyes, and stagger around seeking a Master. In the context of philosophy, the staggering around is unimportant -
what makes philosophers excited is the notion of a being lacking intuition/emotion, thus not able to decide by itself.
A philosophical zombie' is a being that physically exactly resembles a normal, healthy human being, but can't translate sense experience into emotions.
Zombies can act rationally, talk rationally, but they do not have emotions. When we see pretty woman/guy, we transfer a sense experience in the emotions acceptable/unacceptable, agreeable/not-agreeable. This 'what it is like' translation is a vital part of sense experience.
Though the zombie might claim that it has rich sense experiences, it can not not translate these experiences in emotions. The zombie is brain-dead in the sense that there is nothing going on inside its head in terms of doing anything by itself with sense experience. The zombie is identical to any other human being in terms of practically all physical constitution - but lacks the ability to make decisions by itself (it needs an external trigger to relate anger to any sense experience). The perfect soldiers.
the duality behind 'consciousness'
(brilliant YouTube video)
'Rational' philosophers believe in a 'mental process' of 'pure thinking' (mind),
a kind of immaterial bubble outside the body around the head that 'creates' the world (the mind-body problem).
John Locke: I may be held morally responsible only for the act of which I
am conscious of having achieved; and my personal identity (my self)goes as far as my
consciousness extends itself). Translation: My pure reason creates my personal reality and that is my
view on the world. Pure Reason is natural law so I can't be wrong. Anyway: I'm innocent.
Henk Tuten: 'Understanding' is the ability to use some logic consistently, while using memory.
And intelligenceand creativity are pointing at the ability to MAKE logics fitting with memory.
Consciousness I'll tackle on my site death of common sense, here I'll demask 'understanding' as 'use of logic'.
'Understanding' is use of some cultural logic.
The dazzingly complex logic 'intuition' uses your creative database 'brain' to make sense of reactions as filtered by your senses from reality.
That by using some filter (logic + basics).
|Employees of companies leading in 'understanding' (using 'rational' logic)
only consider the 'rational logic' side of a common sense problem. They consider complex rational models for the tiny rational part of a problem as innovative solutions for THE total common sense problem.
They develop cancer cures, test next-generation robotics, test tsunami warning systems, and test the near future of 'defense' tools.
But (inherently EXTREMELY arrogant) don't ask themselves if their 'rational logic' view of cancer might block much 'wider' common sense approaches, that their robots might be awfully expensive lawn mowers,
and why common sense Thai sea gypsies fled into the mountains many hours before the Asian tsunami.
And why 200 years old western formal medical science based on 'rational logic' should be 'better' than 5.000 years old Ayurveda based on 'common sense logic'(example).
'Rational' solutions for America mean that uniformed to 'rational logic' addicted apes from US slaughter common sense apes in Iraq, Afghanistan. 'Rational' solutions for Russia mean
that uniformed to 'rational logic' addicted apes from Russia slaughter common sense apes in Georgia.
'Rational' solutions for China mean that uniformed addicted to 'communist logic' apes with cap from China slaughter common sense apes in Tibet.
|The Chinese character 'ci' for 'understanding' only points at the common sense intuition 'clear' = 'fitting perfectly (the used logic)'.
A HUGE task of humanity in the 21st century is to get rid of a many ages old myth of the Western Whites: 'understanding
Humans are beautiful animals, and grasp reality with the evolutionary logic 'intuition'.
Western humans since Aristotle
became quite consistent in use of A TINY PART of intuition (the 'rational' part) and call that skill 'understanding'.
But that has nothing to do with humans being 'spiritual' beings who believe in 'gods'.
The ghost 'god' was invented by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics
In fact 'god' is meta-Aristotle. He did so as tutor of Alexander the 'Great'
because Alexander behaved like a predator and talked like a 'thinker' (Henk Tuten: the very first human ape who behaved like a 'manager'
Aristotle could only make sense of such 'dual' behavior by presuming 'godly' rules for bodily behavior.
Trying to move mountains with only 'logic' only results in a red face.
Making tasty pancakes is not a matter of 'understanding' taste, but result of finding logic in a lot of try outs (done by yourself or your teacher) .
Helping hungry people is not a matter of making a 10 year plan to 'understand' hunger, but the simple logic: hunger THEN IMMEDIATELY give food.
That's why after beating connditioned 'fear' it's not that difficult to handle crocodiles or sharks. Such in earlier times dominant predators have HUGE 'dead angles'.
Poisonous snakes don't bite because of being member of the category poisonous animals
, but because of being using
the simple logic: unfamiliar motion THEN attack. Warrior-humans don't counterattack because of being member of the 'category 'terrorists', but because their herd is threatened. Israel
better use common sense, and stop erasing the Palestine herd, instead of with powerful weapons
chase defenders of that brutally threathened Palestine Herd
And that's why predators of subvariant freedom fighters
easily beat much better equipped predators of subvariants FBI, CIA or US-soldier. Withour 'rational' fear of death they just step aside before the predictable VERY HARD hit, and themselves make surprise attacks.
To commit 'no action' is a non-action or compromise, and certainly there are much better ways. Being passive when looking at structural hunger only is called 'good' in a fossilized ethics (religion). It is always result of not being able to make sense of reality.
All human actions are aimed at survival as collective, because temporary survival as individual is 'nothing' (only byproduct).
Critical Trial and Error
There are limitless ways to come to cultural intuition. Trying all is not possible. That's why structured random search is 'clever'.
The oldest known Chinese philosophical procedure "I Ching" is close to random search. Based on the idea: EVERYTHING contains truth,
only some things more 'useful truth' than others.
It is based on dynamic balance of opposites, seeing the sequence of events as a process of structured chance, and acceptance of the inevitability of change.
That way if a billion of Chinese play "I Ching" to make sense of some configuration
of 'things', some part of truth MIGHT be found 'earlier'.
The miraculously clever game "I Ching" is based on a very humble realization. That is that 999.999.999 humans out of a billion are born as more or less 'failing' try outs in the
trial and error random generator 'evolution
'. And also brilliantly using the characteristics of the
selection virus 'evolution'.
'Failure' though is not a description that feels OK. Every
human can be a fine discoverer, but that results in getting further and further away
from DNA + Common Sense. Only few have the luck of discovering something that 'fits' Common Sense.
That means better don't forget to make fun of life by having sex, and that way actively assist the game by producing 'variation'.
In I Ching man simulates 'random' by a near infinite sequence of exploring babies.
1 out of in a billion in this way sexually produced humans might hit the jackpot (a prophet) and change course, though being born as "a common baby". This 'jackpot' causes a Back to Common Sense Basics.
Now a next sequence of the game with virus "Evolution" restarts by means of a fresh Paradigm.
Equal chances again for all players.