Knowledge is not understanding

[Allcanadian]

I like this video--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0
It explains many things and while we all would like to think were open minded were just not. I have come to realize this more so lately and come to understand there is no changing a mind that cannot be changed... it does not work.

AC

[evolvingape]

Great video  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. It is not a single theory, but a collection of hypotheses.

A few theoretical physicists have argued classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner. He assumed the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Physicist Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."[2] However, most contemporary physicists and philosophers consider these arguments to be unconvincing.[3] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons."[4]

The philosopher David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness. He has instead discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[5] Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness.

http://sedonanomalies.weebly.com/quantum-brain.html

[ion]

AC, while the video is interesting, but the concept not new, what you (and the video presenter) have confused  is "knowledge" with "trained responses through practice", these are clearly two different things.

As an example there was an experiment involving a set of glasses with built in image inversion built that enabled a study to be made of how vision is processed. After a while of wearing the glasses the subjects would see normal non-inverted images.

If someone started on the reverse acting steering mechanism with no prior "training" on a standard bike, they would pick it up about as easily as anyone could be trained to ride a direct acting steering mechanism.

There are many automatic responses that we train ourselves to do, but these should never be confused with knowledge, they are the result of repetitions and creating fast tracks in the neural networks to execute a certain set of applicable muscular or other responses.

If it were just a matter of knowledge or understanding to ride a bike, the skill to ride  could be transmitted via a book or video and we know that is not the case. The use of the word "understanding" is also wrong as one can understand how to ride a bike and still not be able to do it if the actual automatic neural input / output responses have not been established.

Welding is also a skill that should not be confused with knowledge, though some of the finer points of it can be taught in a book, the actual practice is hand-eye co-ordination and automatic responses after training.

We could get into servo-control mechanisms, auto-tuning algorithms, fuzzy and neural networks and heuristic logic as applied to control problems, but that is another subject. We do all of these when we learn to ride a bike, but it is not knowledge, actually it is closer to firmware. I have designed such system with great success in my life as a dumb, self taught "engineer", and made a decent living at it. I should have become a welder I guess, probably pays more these days..

Someone once said "the picture of knowledge is a load of books on the back of an ass". That should be quite different than understanding or even wisdom.

[evolvingape]

Experiential knowledge is knowledge gained through experience, as opposed to a priori (before experience) knowledge: it can also be contrasted both with propositional (textbook) knowledge, and with practical knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_knowledge

A priori

In the philosophy of mind, the phrase often refers to knowledge that can only be acquired through experience, such as, for example, the knowledge of what it is like to see colours, which could not be explained to someone born blind: the necessity of experiential knowledge becomes clear if one was asked to explain to a blind person a color like blue.

The question of a priori knowledge might be formulated as: can Adam or Eve know what water feels like on their skin prior to touching it for the first time.

Scientific method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[4]

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[8] Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[9] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.[10]

[ion]

Maybe this will shed some light.

[Allcanadian]

@Ion

while the video is interesting, but the concept not new, what you (and the video presenter) have confused  is "knowledge" with "trained responses through practice", these are clearly two different things.

Just as your post is a "trained response" due to your knowledge and beliefs and is very predictable. The fact remains that one can have a very different perspective in regards to knowledge which leads to a different understanding. This relates to false cause in assuming one thousand people with the same knowledge would always have the same understanding and reach the same conclusions.

I thought the video was brilliant because it shows how some things which are relatively simple in there nature but very counter-intuitive can be almost impossible for the mind to grasp. The "Down Wind Faster Than The Wind" technology is a perfect example. Basically every supposed expert on the planet got it completely wrong because they made assumptions based on their own knowledge and understanding. They failed to understand how it worked because they had tunnel vision and could only grasp what their mind allowed them to see. The analogy here is that the DWFTTW technology is like riding a bike with backwards steering and it is so abstract and counter-intuitive that the average mind simply cannot grasp it.

This is where critical thinking comes into play in understanding that our own perspective is seldom if ever the whole story. I think many of these more exotic technologies are like a backwards steering bike. They are most likely very simple when viewed from the right perspective however our mind will not allow us to grasp them because they are completely counter-intuitive to how we are trained to think and see reality.


AC

[Matt Watts]

I think many of these more exotic technologies are like a backwards steering bike. They are most likely very simple when viewed from the right perspective however our mind will not allow us to grasp them because they are completely counter-intuitive to how we are trained to think and see reality.

I tend to agree AC.  The trick is going back to a state-of-mind similar to a young child and accept the alternate paradigm as the starting point.  Not easy to do, but by far the quickest way to get results.

[muDped]

I still have very vivid memories of learning to ride my first bike.

It was an adult sized bike and I, at age 7, was just a bit too
small to manage it comfortably.  Our front yard had about a
four feet high very steep bank down to the sidewalk which I
used to mount the bike.  I learned to push off from the bank
to get forward motion started and then struggled to pedal
the machine to sustain movement.  I was a rough go and I
fell many, many times until at last;  victory!

I then learned to approach the front yard bank to dismount
without having to crash as before.  I was way too short to
get on or off the bike as normal people did.

Then we moved to another house and somehow the bike didn't
make the move with us.

It was truly a grand experience though.  One that framed my
approach to problems from that time onward:  "The easy tasks
can be done immediately, those that are impossible take a
little longer."  The Marines have a similar philosophy.

(The Marines are a part of the Navy.)