How Much Knowledge Is Too Much?

[EternalPessimist]

EternalPessimist,

 

My argument would be that some human discovered how to hunt faster and stronger animals, and shared his knowledge or at least was observed and copied. Same with farming, husbandry, material science, all the sciences, all the arts, all the trading and laws and civilization we all enjoy. We have worked together to dominate this planet and use it to our advantage, and to take care of it, when we use it too much. For every conflict humans have engaged in, there has been a human resolution. Why should "this time" be any different.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You forget humanity's capacity for self destruction and also the destruction of the natural environment that it is prone to also.

 

In many ways humanity's inherent destructiveness outweighs it's creative abilities.

 

Working together?

 

There is no us.

 

There is only the wealthy privileged class utilizing the labor of everybody else for it's own designed end.

 

The goal eventually is to eliminate everybody else when they are no longer needed so that the privileged and wealthy administrator class inherents the future all to itself without all the useless eaters around.

 

I hope you enjoy this post.

 

Entropy is the master of us all.

 

Were all slaves to entropy and decay.

 

At any rate on a long enough time line entropy will outright win followed by a extinction event.

 

Problem with energy expansion is a planet with finite resources within a paradigm of infinite human expansion.

 

Civilization a existence of comedy and tragedy.

[tar]

a rather "destructive" post

 

I did not enjoy it.

 

and there is an "us"

 

Whose side are you on?

[EternalPessimist]

Whose side am I on?

 

I am on nobody's side.

 

I survive and take care of my family. That is all.

 

I am just a man ashamed to be a part of the same hubris species called homo sapiens.

[tar]

a rather "destructive" post

 

I did not enjoy it.

 

and there is an "us"

 

Whose side are you on?

 

EternalPessimist,

 

Sorry, I did not address you properly in the above. It was meant for you.

 

Are you a part of the wealthy class or are you their enemy?

 

That is, if you had to choose sides, would you make a team that included some people and not others? Where would you draw the line between those on your team and those on the other team?

 

We have teams, no doubt. And we have some solo operators.

 

While it is important to inspect one's objectives, and wheigh the results of one's actions, it is unrealistic to conclude that you alone can make it very far, without relying on the rest of your team.

 

Discovering the Higg's is not unlike discovering fire or the wheel, or the spearhead. They are likely to improve your team's chances against the world. And likely to create some issues among those not on your team.

 

It has, in the history of the world, been rather obvious that choosing sides with the team that is winning is a rather good strategy for survival. There also has been enough revolutions to suggest that sole operators, interested in only their own dominance are not likely to maintain such power, for ever...well we will have to see what happens in Syria.

 

But, since there are teams, many with conflicting objectives, it is not clear that you can ascribe unassailable virtue to yourself, and your team...in any case. That is why we have morals and ethics, for personnal behavior, and rules for behaviour in the local club/workplace, and laws with which to live in governmental pervues. And treaties and agreements to allow large teams to operate in a peaceful and productive manner.

 

But WE make and maintain and adjust those laws. Us human beings, that you would distrust as to their virtue.

 

My argument would be that "we" are doing a fantastic job, of being virtuous, and it has very little to do with ignoring knowledge and the power that comes with it. It has more to do with sharing knowledge and power with everybody on your team. And looking for the ways to do it, in such a way that does not harm the teams you are a part of, that you would like to see, win.

 

"Human nature" is not just our constant weakness, it is also our only strength.

 

Finding the Higgs is not the end of the world. Its another step, in whatever walk we are on. And we have incorporated such discoveries into our existence before. And we are likely to do it again.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

"This time."

 

sorry EternalPessimist, we cross posted.

 

You may feel you should only consider yourself and your family...against the world.

 

But I fear you will need some allies. And am rather sure you already have them, you just are not acknowledging them.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 4, 2012 by tar

[akh]

You forget humanity's capacity for self destruction and also the destruction of the natural environment that it is prone to also.

 

In many ways humanity's inherent destructiveness outweighs it's creative abilities.

 

Working together?

 

There is no us.

 

There is only the wealthy privileged class utilizing the labor of everybody else for it's own designed end.

 

The goal eventually is to eliminate everybody else when they are no longer needed so that the privileged and wealthy administrator class inherents the future all to itself without all the useless eaters around.

 

I hope you enjoy this post.

 

Entropy is the master of us all.

 

Were all slaves to entropy and decay.

 

At any rate on a long enough time line entropy will outright win followed by a extinction event.

 

Problem with energy expansion is a planet with finite resources within a paradigm of infinite human expansion.

 

Civilization a existence of comedy and tragedy.

 

I admire your level of pessimism. It is truly unrivaled.

 

You speak about ultimate truths.

 

You see things as they are, not through the glass of perception.

 

You are not fooled by the grand illusion.

 

Most people don't see reality the way it really is, but the disposition comes to you naturally.

 

 

 

You know what? You are not special in this regard. These are things I have felt with since I was a child, unaware, at the time, of how far these feelings really extended. The feelings simply existed. I am at constant odds with "world" and modern society. I feel humanity has stretched itself thin, living and breathing in an artificial reality that could crash into oblivion at any moment.

 

But at the end of the day, you have to have "faith". Not, faith in the religious context, but "faith" in humanity. It will try you like no other, and leave you disappointed more often than not, but you must be steadfast. I do not believe for one second that you are completely sold by your own abysmality. If you were, you would recognize the futility of your own existence, and terminate that existence (please do not do this). You would not have a job, a family, children. You would not get up in the morning, you would not eat or drink water. Do you feel that your own life is the greatest irony of all? The greatest tragedy?

Edited August 7, 2012 by akh

[SomethingToPonder]

You can Never have too much knowledge. Never. No matter what power sources or particles we find ,we invent or create, Someone will be able to turn it into a weapon in some way. That doesn't mean that We should stop trying to advance our research into those fields.

Even if there was some sort of knowledge that would be "Too extreme" for us to learn, where humanity should maybe say enough is enough we should walk away, You are making a big choice that might not only change the existence of our race 100 years down the line maybe a 1000, Imagine that that discovery would have taken us into a new age. But also we would be making a statement that it's not alright to learn, That we are not worthy to learn what the universe has to offer. We'r also saying that About everyone, not just some people. Everyone. And i doubt there would be a referendum on whether or not we would look into it.

But i mean do we really want the question to be out there of what would have happened? What is this mysterious technology and what power could it harness? how could it affect our civilization? I think that just the question alone would be enough for humanity to start research. You can never get too much knowledge.

[Prometheus]

Surely it's not how much knowledge we have that is the problem. It's us.

[Phi for All]

Surely it's not how much knowledge we have that is the problem. It's us.

Actually, WE think it's just you.

 

Seriously though, I'm sure we're responsible for our greatest failures as well as our greatest successes. Knowledge is a tool. It can be used for good or bad, so you shouldn't blame the hammer for smashing your thumb unless you're also willing to give it full credit for building the house.

[Prometheus]

Actually, WE think it's just you.

 

Ha, maybe it is me. I wish i knew too much though - it would make studying easier.

 

Good news is if we are the problem, we are also the solution.

[PeterJ]

Typist - I would agree with most of what you say. I see the point of research such as that at Cerne, but the cost is an issue. Blue sky research is all very well when it's cheap, but to sink all these resources into the Higgs project seems absurd in hindsight.

 

But I also agree with whoever said we have no choice. The potential commercial and defence benefits of such research naturally means that the money will always be forthcoming for grand technological projects. Shame it cannot be spent on acquiring wisdom, which is a much cheaper project. But the acquisition of wisdom attracts no grants.

[juanrga]

Typist - I would agree with most of what you say. I see the point of research such as that at Cerne, but the cost is an issue. Blue sky research is all very well when it's cheap, but to sink all these resources into the Higgs project seems absurd in hindsight.

 

Did you mean CERN?

 

But I also agree with whoever said we have no choice. The potential commercial and defence benefits of such research naturally means that the money will always be forthcoming for grand technological projects. Shame it cannot be spent on acquiring wisdom, which is a much cheaper project. But the acquisition of wisdom attracts no grants.

 

The search of the Higgs is not a "technological project" but a scientific one.

[ralfy]

It will be too much given de-industrialization due to lack of resources, the long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming, etc.

[racheljohns]

Greetings all,

 

My intention here is to challenge the celebration currently under way in regards to the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

 

Although I'm using the Higgs as an example case, my purpose really is to ask larger questions about our relationship with knowledge. I hope you might find these questions interesting and engage them, whatever your position.

 

The global celebration of the Higgs discovery, and the seeming lack of a counter view, seems to shine a light on a culture wide consensus that more knowledge is better, almost no matter what, even if the knowledge was very expensive to obtain, and seems to have little defined benefit.

 

I propose that the most significant challenge facing humanity is the relationship between knowledge and wisdom, that is, the judgment required to use the power that flows from knowledge wisely.

 

I propose that knowledge grows exponentially, while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, over time, the relationship between the two becomes ever more distorted. We are increasingly like a troubled 14 year old kid who has just been given a case of scotch, the keys to a car, and a loaded hand gun. We are ever more powerful, without being ever more wise.

 

So why complain about the Higgs discovery?

 

Well, shouldn't the discipline that brought us nuclear weapons, a tool that allows us to erase human civilization in 30 minutes, be subjected to relentless scrutiny when it announces another major project? I find such scrutiny to be entirely lacking, and this seems remarkable indeed.

 

I'll stop here for now to see if you are willing to take on this challenge together

 

 

more knowledge more wisdom, more wisdom more understanding and the more you undersatnd the matters you will become a human being in real sense

[Typist]

Hello again,

 

First, thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread, appreciated. Second, I hope it's ok to re-energize this thread, as I seem to suffer from an incurable addiction to this particular topic. Third, please understand I'm arguing one side of the case not because it's the only valid point of view, or even that I totally agree with every detail of it, but because it seems some counter point to a cultural group consensus might be useful, or at least somewhat interesting.

 

To recap, we have been examining the relationship between knowledge (and the power that flows from it) and wisdom, the ability to use knowledge/power in a constructive manner.

 

We can likely agree that human being make their livings on this Earth primarily by knowing things about our environment. We can likely agree that we've had to struggle mightly for new information for a very long time. Thus, it seems entirely reasonable that we should today have inherited a "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

 

What I'm attempting to do here, with your help, is explore the limits of this "more is better" relationship with knowledge. Here's an example that may help us continue the exploration.

 

For the majority of human history, the majority of humans have lived close to the edge of starvation. A great many do to this day. Thus, it seems entirely understandable if humans developed a "more is better" relationship with food, as that was a very practical relationship to have for a very long time.

 

But we live in revolutionary times. At least in the developed world, obesity appears to now be as much or more of a challenge than hunger. Our longstanding "more is better" relationship with food is becoming rather more complicated.

 

This is of course not to argue that we should go back to a pattern of near starvation. But it does point to the suggestion that our relationship with food now must be more sophisticated and nuanced than a simplistic "more is better" assumption that worked fine for a very long time.

 

This is what I see happening with our relationship with knowledge. For a very long time "more is better" was a perfectly appropriate way for us to relate to knowledge. But now we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge, and further knowledge development is continuing, probably accelerating, perhaps at an exponetial rate.

 

Surely there must be some rate of knowledge development which would be more than human society can manage, given that new knowledge tends to disrupt economies and cultures etc.

 

If it is true that some rate of knowledge development would cause more problems than it solves, then we are faced with the challenge of giving careful thought to where we are going.

 

Ok, that's enough for now. If you're still interested, will welcome further comments from other members.

 

 

 

 

[LaurieAG]

To recap, we have been examining the relationship between knowledge (and the power that flows from it) and wisdom, the ability to use knowledge/power in a constructive manner.

 

We can likely agree that human being make their livings on this Earth primarily by knowing things about our environment. We can likely agree that we've had to struggle mightly for new information for a very long time. Thus, it seems entirely reasonable that we should today have inherited a "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

 

Plato, Phaedrus 274c5-275b2 (c. 360BC),

 

I heard that … one of the ancient gods in Egypt has the sacred bird called the Ibis dedicated to him. The name of this deity is Thoth and I am told that it was he who first invented numbers and calculation, geometry and astronomy and, furthermore, draughts and dice and, finally, letters of the alphabet. Now at that time Thamos was king of all Egypt and he lived in the big city of Upper Egypt which the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes. They call Thamos 'Ammon'. Thoth went to him, showed him his inventions and said that they should be made public to other Egyptians. Thamos asked what good each one did, and when Thoth explained, he criticises the ideas depending on the merit he thought each one had… It would take too long to run through all the pros and cons Thamos raised about each invention. But when Thoth reached the letters of the alphabet, he said 'King, this subject will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memory. The drug of memory and of wisdom has been discovered.' Thamos replied, 'Most skillful Thoth, the man who has the ability to invent the objects of science and the man who can judge the extent of damage or good that those objects will bring are not one and the same. Now, through fondness for your invention of letters, you, their inventor have ascribed to them the opposite capacity from the capacity they in fact have. This, you see, will cause forgetfulness in the minds of people who learn them because they will not practice using their memory - if they rely on writing, they will be reminded from the outside, by external characters, not from the inside, by themselves. What you have discovered is a drug not of memory but of reminding. You are providing those who learn your letters what seem to be wisdom, but is not real wisdom. If they are very attentive to you, then without teaching they will seem to be very knowledgeable, but they will as a rule be ignorant and hard to get on with because they are apparently wise instead of really wise.

Edited April 4, 2013 by LaurieAG

[chris logan]

too much knowledge, I don't think so. the discoveries are not the problem, the way in which we use them is the problem. You talk about nuclear weapons that could erase civilization in 30 minutes, it could but it didn't. civilization is not as bad as it seems, it didn't wipe itself out. With time civilization will be better able to cope with it's new discoveries. We'll make new discoveries, we'll make bad moves, we'll survive.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Too much knowledge: The Hunan Brain can store 2.5 petabytes of data.

 

Too much knowledge is 2.5 petabytes of data that the Human Brain is capable of storing.

[krash661]

Too much knowledge: The Hunan Brain can store 2.5 petabytes of data.

 

Too much knowledge is 2.5 petabytes of data that the Human Brain is capable of storing.

unless you can accomplish what this guy did,

 

Edited May 2, 2013 by krash661

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

unless you can accomplish what this guy did,

Which guy? The Hunan or the Human?

 

In addition to our individual papers for the JCS issue, Stapp and I wrote an “appendix” that appeared between them. It became our strongest argument yet of the power of quantum physics to support the causal efficacy of mental force: “The basic principles of physics, as they are now understood, are not the deterministic laws of classical physics,” we wrote. The basic physical laws are, rather, those of quantum physics, which allow mental effort to “keep in focus a stream of consciousness that would otherwise become quickly defocused as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and keep it focused in a way that tends to actualize potentialities that are in accord with consciously selected ends.

[krash661]

Which guy? The Hunan or the Human?

hmm, i'm not sure what you mean,

hunan is a province in china.

[PureGenius]

The infinite capacity of the mind to absorb and retain information is unlimited as ideas can be further systematized into symbols this gives the mind still further capacity. There can never be an end to progress in science for human curiosity drives us to dream and create beyond what is visible. I also believe we should balance knowledge with respect understanding with tolerance. The answers are important but the questions we ask say say alot about who we are . Can the higgs boson change the world I don't believe it's probable but maybe well discover a limitless source of energy on accident or a way to create antigravity. If there were a limit to human understanding then our thoughts might just not be able to understand beyond a certain definable idea and our group of ideas, the human brain has not shown that it can be appeased by the available information . This is why the universe is becoming known this is why we have electricity and flight imagination and work build the world we live in. Unity isn't a bad idea I don't know why more people aren't into the concept.

Edited May 3, 2013 by PureGenius

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

The infinite capacity of the mind to absorb and retain information is unlimited as ideas can be further systematized into symbols this gives the mind still further capacity. There can never be an end to progress in science for human curiosity drives us to dream and create beyond what is visible. I also believe we should balance knowledge with respect understanding with tolerance. The answers are important but the questions we ask say say alot about who we are . Can the higgs boson change the world I don't believe it's probable but maybe well discover a limitless source of energy on accident or a way to create antigravity. If there were a limit to human understanding then our thoughts might just not be able to understand beyond a certain definable idea and our group of ideas, the human brain has not shown that it can be appeased by the available information . This is why the universe is becoming known this is why we have electricity and flight imagination and work build the world we live in. Unity isn't a bad idea I don't know why more people aren't into the concept.

This is one of the best posts I am coming across at long last now from a guy who seems to be a real genius. I am not trying to flatter him but I am merely admiring the "qualiia" (Latin or Greek for quantity) the level of of his knowledege.

 

The famous cliche that the brain is the most complex organ in the universe still appears to hold true for many people. The brain has around one trillion neuronal connections which continuously keep rewiring themselves as they receive new information. It continues throughour life to form new neuronal or neural networks and trillions of more connections as the mind passes on the information being received through the five senses coming into it from the outside into the inside. As mental force is continuosly appllied the brain continues to become sculpted over time. That is essentially the whole definition of Neuroplasticity. The implications are so profound that there are very widely proven ways in which we can alter our own brain chemistry and thereby change our lives for the better simply through the rigorous and continuous application of the act of what is called directed mental effort and force. The end result is what is termed Neuroplasticity.

 

"The answers are important but the questions we ask say say a lot about who we are." That the findings of science are firmly grounded in empiricism is very clear. But the "questions" that we scientists ask of nature are for all means and purpose and intents beyond an end.

 

"If there were a limit to human understanding then our thoughts might just not be able to understand beyond a certain definable idea and our group of ideas, the human brain has not shown that it can be appeased by the available information." Imagine the Universe as a ballon having a finite boundary. Now imagine the Space outside it which extends into Infinity. Because logically speaking it would HAVE to be infinite or again we are back to square one. Logically speaking how can anything finite have a finite boundary. If the balloon (the Universe) goes through another big bang then again we are producing an infinite number of more balloons. That is exactly what the widely known concept of Multiverse or Multiverses or Multiple Universes or maybe even Infinite Universes is all about.

 

More people (with your being the notable exception) don't take these concepts seriously enough because it is merely outside the scope of their limited imaginations. Not everyone is educated or intelligent enough but if he or she prefers to evade or avoid such concepts then he or she is what I would like to call a "coward".

[Phi for All]

In addition to our individual papers for the JCS issue, Stapp and I wrote an “appendix” that appeared between them. It became our strongest argument yet of the power of quantum physics to support the causal efficacy of mental force: “The basic principles of physics, as they are now understood, are not the deterministic laws of classical physics,” we wrote. The basic physical laws are, rather, those of quantum physics, which allow mental effort to “keep in focus a stream of consciousness that would otherwise become quickly defocused as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and keep it focused in a way that tends to actualize potentialities that are in accord with consciously selected ends.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please STOP cutting and pasting the work of others as your own with no citation given. Last warning.

[PureGenius]

Thank you for your understanding arjun i find your name very interesting the root word being arjuna the warrior who was personally instructed by Krisna in the bagavad gita. Also your comments on neoroplasticity are very interesting. I agree with most of what u said check out my video on the dual universe theory it is early in its stages but accurate nonehtheless.

[krash661]

i can feel myself,

reaching that stage in the dim future of mankind

when the mind will cast off the hampering of the flesh

become all thought and no matter..

 

a vortex,

of pure intelligence in space..

 

it's the goal of evolution,

man's final destiny is to become what we imagined in the beginning

when we first learned the idea of the angels,

but that is far ahead,and I'm impatient to go the whole way.

-The Sixth Finger(1963)