Imagination is more important than knowledge

[Itoero]

When you phrase it in these ways, I can safely say you're wrong, or at least you aren't using the standard definitions. If you've done something before, your experience takes the place of imagination. Put it this way, if you want to serve the tennis ball to a certain spot on the court you've been successful with before and have done many times, you're going to serve it the same way this time, right? Right? Why would you need to be imaginative about that?

 

You seem to be using imagine as "visualize", like you have to visualize yourself doing something before actually doing it. I don't think anyone else is using this definition, and that's why I think you're wrong about this.

Knowledge concerns always something you learned...always in the past.

If you hit a ball then you use your knowledge but you have to imagine the knowledge is sufficient.

 

Imagination refers to the use of knowledge, how you get understanding.

 

Imagination can be the same as visualization but not all the time.

If I ask: How would I look in a blue shirt and orange pants?

=> Then you have to imagine or visualize how you look like that.

[dimreepr]

Knowledge concerns always something you learned...always in the past.

If you hit a ball then you use your knowledge but you have to imagine the knowledge is sufficient.

 

Imagination refers to the use of knowledge, how you get understanding.

 

Imagination can be the same as visualization but not all the time.

If I ask: How would I look in a blue shirt and orange pants?

=> Then you have to imagine or visualize how you look like that.

 

That doesn't make sense, knowledge is added constantly; out of the three, only understanding is in the past.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

That doesn't make sense, knowledge is added constantly; out of the three, only understanding is in the past.

Basically: The imagination must be the fallow up of an idea << Imagination is within the desire to want to know more about a subject matter , that is sheared with your conscientiousness.

[dimreepr]

Basically: The imagination must be the fallow up of an idea << Imagination is within the desire to want to know more about a subject matter , that is sheared with your conscientiousness.

 

I get the 'typo's' not the meaning.

[Itoero]

That doesn't make sense, knowledge is added constantly; out of the three, only understanding is in the past.

Yes but the understanding of the knowledge is what I mean.

Understanding makes knowledge useful...in a sense.

[zapatos]

Yes but the understanding of the knowledge is what I mean.

Understanding makes knowledge useful...in a sense.

Isn't 'understanding' implied in the definition of knowledge? I don't think you can be considered to be knowledgeable about something if you don't understand it.

[Itoero]

Isn't 'understanding' implied in the definition of knowledge? I don't think you can be considered to be knowledgeable about something if you don't understand it.

The knowledge you get by reading a science book doesn't necessarily immediately translates in understanding.

[studiot]

Isn't 'understanding' implied in the definition of knowledge? I don't think you can be considered to be knowledgeable about something if you don't understand it.

 

No I don't agree with you there.

But then I only partly agree with the other contributors to this discussion.

 

Knowledge, understanding, skill, reaoning, imagination, visualisation (and other cerebral activities) are all different.

That is why we have so many different terms or words in English.

 

That is not to say that there is no overlap.

Yes there is overlap but there is also disjunction between the terms.

That is why activities often entail combinations of those qualities.

 

Like a Venn diagram with union or intersection.

 

Just to note about knowledge without understanding two examples:

 

Many drive a car without the faintest understanding of how it works.

 

Most elementary calculus courses develop a good deal of manipulative skill and knowledge, but I don't think many of the pupils have much understanding of calculus.

Edited July 7, 2017 by studiot

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Basically: The imagination is the fallow up of an idea ; from within the desire ,from a vision ,to want to know more about a subject matter , that is sheared with your conscientiousness

Edited July 7, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Itoero]

Basically: The imagination is the fallow up of an idea ; from within the desire ,from a vision ,to want to know more about a subject matter , that is sheared with your conscientiousness

I mostly agree. Imagination can be the follow up of an idea.

[zapatos]

The knowledge you get by reading a science book doesn't necessarily immediately translates in understanding.

Eh, I'm still not sure that is right. I may be overstating it when I say knowledge implies understanding, more in line with studiot's venn diagram idea, but you don't get knowledge just by reading something. Even if I can reproduce a Calculus book from memory, if I can't use calculus to solve a problem then I don't have knowledge, I only have 'data' or 'information' about calculus. It's not until I understand how calculus is applied that I would consider myself knowledgable.

 

I may be splitting hairs here so won't belabor the point anymore. I just felt you were understating what is considered knowledge.

 

Just to note about knowledge without understanding two examples:

 

Many drive a car without the faintest understanding of how it works.

I think you missed the mark with this example. Driving a car and knowing how an internal combustion engine work are two different things. Driving a car requires that I understand which pedal to press, how to start the car, what the lines on the road mean, etc. Not how combustion is converted to forward motion.

[studiot]

Eh, I'm still not sure that is right. I may be overstating it when I say knowledge implies understanding, more in line with studiot's venn diagram idea, but you don't get knowledge just by reading something. Even if I can reproduce a Calculus book from memory, if I can't use calculus to solve a problem then I don't have knowledge, I only have 'data' or 'information' about calculus. It's not until I understand how calculus is applied that I would consider myself knowledgable.

 

I may be splitting hairs here so won't belabor the point anymore. I just felt you were understating what is considered knowledge.

 

I think you missed the mark with this example. Driving a car and knowing how an internal combustion engine work are two different things. Driving a car requires that I understand which pedal to press, how to start the car, what the lines on the road mean, etc. Not how combustion is converted to forward motion.

 

No I didn't say knowledge implies understanding, I said they were different.

I also said that sometimes there was overlap.

I would also agree with those who suggested that you need (perhaps a great deal of) knowledge to achieve understanding.

The difficulty with that overlap is that there is no one without at least some knowledge.

 

Driving only reqires knowledge, it does not require understanding, though some have a measure of both.

Do you understand why you drive on the right? All that is required is the knowledge that it is so.

Do you understand why the speed sign has the design it does? All that is required is the knowledge of its appearance.

Do you understand what the green and red zones are on the tachometer or do you just have the knowledge that you must keep it in the green?

 

Most people have some understanding, but considerably more knowledge about cars and driving.

 

There is also another quality involved. - skill.

 

Again some have more than others, despite both substantial knowledge and understanding.

Edited July 7, 2017 by studiot

[zapatos]

No I didn't say knowledge implies understanding, I said they were different.

Right, I'm the one who said knowledge implies understanding in my first post.

 

I also said that sometimes there was overlap.

Yes, I acknowledged that and said that your idea of overlap was probably a better description than my description that knowledge implies understanding.

 

Guess I didn't make myself clear.

[Itoero]

You can memorize knowledge but not understanding. Understanding is something personal.

But you transform understanding into knowledge to communicate it to other people.

This is imo how you explain something.

 

[dimreepr]

You can memorize knowledge but not understanding. Understanding is something personal.

But you transform understanding into knowledge to communicate it to other people.

This is imo how you explain something.

 

 

Understanding is, fundamentally, knowing why X = Y

Communication is a different skill.

[swansont]

Isn't 'understanding' implied in the definition of knowledge? I don't think you can be considered to be knowledgeable about something if you don't understand it.

You can know an equation but not know how to apply it. You have (some) knowledge, but not understanding.

 

Feynman discusses this in his popular work. He observed students while he was on sabbatical. They could answer questions phrased a certain way, because they had learned by rote memorization. But they could not apply it to problems.

[Handy andy]

A persons IQ is related to many different factors all working together. Some people are gifted in one discipline but are complete morons in others. A person who is autistic may be extremely good at art, mathematics, music etc. But when judged in an IQ test they might fail. Many people who are engineers or scientiscts are often mildly autistic and are unable to relate to people normally, where normal human communication skills arent needed. The creativity of an autistic person is most definately in many cases way beyond what a normal person can achieve. I read Nicola Tesla was apparently autistic and had extreme visualisation skills, he also wrote a lot of his imaginings down which in their day might have been considered acceptable but today would be considered none politically correct or unnacceptable.

 

Without imagination autistic people would not be able to create. Knowledge is what is gained by opportunity, and interest in a subject. That percieved knowledge might be flawed, as was noted by Einstein. To add to or contradict knowledge takes imagination.

People learning by rote are working on a Knowledge based systems based on likely outcomes and not neccesarily understanding why the answers come out. Students who are taught calculus are not initially taught where the derivatives etc come from, they just jump through the hoops as instructed by their teachers, and get the correct answer. I have had graduates working for me who had no thinking skills, but qualified with honours degrees. When posed a problem not in a text book they could not work out basic problems. I finished working trouble shooting around europe. I would be dragged in to factories to diagnose or fix problems, where different teams working on processes would explain what they thought was wrong, all I had to do was listen to the different parties and the solutions were obvious to me. Often people would demand to know how I knew what I knew and where it was written down, it wasnt. When knowledge runs out or doesnt explain what is happening correctly, creativity takes over. Brain storming an idea produces many crap ideas, but if they are filtered down with a little knowledge a reasoned picture can be arrived at. With a picture of what is happening it is then normally easy to apply some maths with most simple systems. Fluid dynamics is a differnet matter

[dimreepr]

A persons IQ is related to many different factors all working together. Some people are gifted in one discipline but are complete morons in others. A person who is autistic may be extremely good at art, mathematics, music etc. But when judged in an IQ test they might fail. Many people who are engineers or scientiscts are often mildly autistic and are unable to relate to people normally, where normal human communication skills arent needed. The creativity of an autistic person is most definately in many cases way beyond what a normal person can achieve. I read Nicola Tesla was apparently autistic and had extreme visualisation skills, he also wrote a lot of his imaginings down which in their day might have been considered acceptable but today would be considered none politically correct or unnacceptable.

 

Without imagination autistic people would not be able to create. Knowledge is what is gained by opportunity, and interest in a subject. That percieved knowledge might be flawed, as was noted by Einstein. To add to or contradict knowledge takes imagination.

People learning by rote are working on a Knowledge based systems based on likely outcomes and not neccesarily understanding why the answers come out. Students who are taught calculus are not initially taught where the derivatives etc come from, they just jump through the hoops as instructed by their teachers, and get the correct answer. I have had graduates working for me who had no thinking skills, but qualified with honours degrees. When posed a problem not in a text book they could not work out basic problems. I finished working trouble shooting around europe. I would be dragged in to factories to diagnose or fix problems, where different teams working on processes would explain what they thought was wrong, all I had to do was listen to the different parties and the solutions were obvious to me. Often people would demand to know how I knew what I knew and where it was written down, it wasnt. When knowledge runs out or doesnt explain what is happening correctly, creativity takes over. Brain storming an idea produces many crap ideas, but if they are filtered down with a little knowledge a reasoned picture can be arrived at. With a picture of what is happening it is then normally easy to apply some maths with most simple systems. Fluid dynamics is a differnet matter

 

You've clearly not read this thread, please do so.

 

You may, try, disguise your intention with an apparently germane argument; but we both know why you posted this nonsense.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

You've clearly not read this thread, please do so.

 

You may, try, disguise your intention with an apparently germane argument; but we both know why you posted this nonsense.

''

< After reading the post from handy''; I would most agree wit much of it !

Edited July 9, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[dimreepr]

''

< After reading this post from handy''; I would most agree wit much of it !

 

I would welcome an explanation.

[Handy andy]

I read the thread from beginning to end and understood every last word, are you posting a response to another thread. If not what do you think I have missed.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

I would welcome an explanation.

Well < your're the one who analysed it; and judged ''nonsense'' it is for you to explain; Why?

[dimreepr]

I read the thread from beginning to end and understood every last word, are you posting a response to another thread. If not what do you think I have missed.

 

You've clearly missed the bit that I requested an explanation...

Well < your're the one who analysed it; and judged ''nonsense'' it is for you to explain; Why?

 

I have, it's you that's yet too explain.

[Itoero]

Understanding is, fundamentally, knowing why X = Y

 

Communication is a different skill.

Can you get knowledge without communication?

Communication is the act of conveying intended meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules.

This entity can be anything or anyone.

[Evgenia]

Imagination is an aditional tool the humans have. We use it when analyze the reality and try to predict the future by different scenarios. But for that purpose some of us (scientists with a help of great knowledge,i mean) created the computer programmes which can analyze endlessly the scenarios and choose the most optional. In my mind, science versus intuition is not a battle. But being stubborn about not giving a chance to imaginative power is