Why do i think i may know more than you?

Because I am older than you.

Oh, you may have me beat in algebra, but you did not know that billy bob has a mule in his backyard.

I think I may know more than you because I have been here longer, and my brain has had the opportunity to store more data.

Whether it is useful or not doesn't matter. I still think i may know more than you. Unless of course, you are older than me.

Then, I think you may know more than I. Your memory has stored more information.

Oh, i may know more about billy bobs mule than you, but you knew where that catfish pond outside of Alton was and, you knew which bait they were biting on.

You knew this because you have lived here longer.

And I am a dummy. What does that make you?

How do they fit into your hypothesis?

Dumb and Dumber?

This is a really titillating issue for me mainly because I have two seemingly-opposing views on on it. Generally (and in the interest of really *trying* to understand people) I suppress my own ego. I'm coming up on 46 and so the OP speaks to a part of me; wait, scratch that, two parts. Let me illustrate:[INDENT]If I Let Slip control of my Ego, I'll tell you that I've been individually, personally and for no other motive than my own understanding studying philosophy for the better part of 25 years; that I've lived in several states, 2 countries and have traveled extensively. I'll also tell you that when I was 25, 30 and 35 years old I, too, thought I *knew it all*. I've done things and been places that have exploded my perceptions and perspective more than I thought possible. Further, I'll sit you down and with a wag of my finger tell you that you need to relax - calm the hell down - quit professing such adherence to numbing philosophies, and that they all contain some worth and meaning. In this mindset I'll take 3/4ths of all posts I see here, giggle and chalk them up to a naive attempt at rationalism and posturing. For many of you, feigned self-righteousness drips into puddles that follow your posts around. Regardless, in all this, I'll try to get through to you as a kindred mind; that in the end equation time, perspective and finding one's place - absent of holier-than-thou posturing - is the essence of that holy grail we call "Philosophical Perspective"
[/INDENT]But I can't much do that, can I? I mean, who here just read that self-absorbed, self-congratulating drivel above and actually *liked* it? No one... therefore, I'll retreat to that mindset that actually accommodates free-and-open thought, I'll don the cloak of humility and self-questioning that's the salve by which conversation is enabled. So yea... the OP makes perfect sense as I age.

This ego; however, this incessant voice that says "I know it" must always be questioned/pined against the wall and laid bare. For as soon as I stop doing this - really humbly trying - is the day my mind gets relegated to the back of the cave, and I'll not do that.

Thanks

Why do i think i may know more than you? Because I am older than you. Oh, you may have me beat in algebra, but you did not know that billy bob has a mule in his backyard. I think I may know more than you because I have been here longer, and my brain has had the opportunity to store more data. Whether it is useful or not doesn't matter. I still think i may know more than you. Unless of course, you are older than me. Then, I think you may know more than I. Your memory has stored more information. Oh, i may know more about billy bobs mule than you, but you knew where that catfish pond outside of Alton was and, you knew which bait they were biting on. You knew this because you have lived here longer. I did not know this because I have spent less time here than you, and you are older than I and your mind has stored more memory than mine. So, i think you may know more than I. But, if you are not older than I, and you are actually younger than I, even by just a day, I think i may know more than you. And I am a dummy. What does that make you?lol.

I may be older but ive slept a lot and looked vacantly at grass growing for most of my waking hours.Uhhm ...

Ya know xris, when I wake up in the morning, my skin drags the ground. No one would wany to give me a hickey because they would choke to death on skin. That is how old I am.

Okay Mr. Nameless. It is 1-1. You have observed that I am not talking about the quality of knowledge, which is subjective. I am simply talking about the quantity of knowledge, which is objective. Others can chase their tail on the quality of knowledge.

I have a friend . His name is Charles. I've known him for about, oh, four years or so. Charles is about twelve or so years older than I. He hired me on awhile back to help him work on his house that he was building. At the beginning, we were talking about woodworking , cabinets and such. He shared with me this statement, " you could fill a textbook with what I do not know".

Now, Charles is an educated man. In his younger days, he was a science teacher at the high school level. He has a degree in biology and can talk quite intelligently about things like the theory of evolution, genetics and epi-genetics, which has been a continuing interest of his for about, say, forty or so years. He can also share his knowledge of the history and development of religion. Through not only life experience, but study as well.He can hold his own on politics. He has studied it extensively. Present day politics, and historical politics. So, we can assume that Charles is somewhat knowledgable about quite a few things. But, Charles still will tell you, "you could fill a textbook with things I do not know".

Charles likes woodworking. He is somewhat knowledgable about that field. But, when a job comes up, he calls me. Why does he call me? Because I have been in that field longer than he has. About thirty four years or so. So, even though Charles is somewhat knowledgable about woodworking, he is also somewhat ignorant about woodworking. That is why he calls me.

You could fill a textbook with things I do not know. This is the maturity of Charles speaking. I will add my line here. In the vast expanse of overall knowledge, which is ever increasing, ever changing, relative to circumstance, culture, geographics and time, my knowledge does not amount to a lintball in the pocket of a pissant. Does this fact, make me somewhat ignorant? No. This fact makes me extremely ignorant relatively speaking. It qualifies me to be almost, an ignoramus.

We begin learning the day we are born. We learn something every day. Doesn't matter what we learn, that is not the point. The point is, we are , if we are consiously aware, learning continuously. So, if we are learning something, beginning on the day of our birth, "again, doesn't matter what," then we accumulate a library of knowledge . Let me again stress, it is not the quality of what we learn, just the quantity.

So, Nameless. I'll assume, that you are a relatively young man. I know, that I am a relatively old man. Keeping in mind that we are not discussing quality, but simply quantity, who knows more? Now, Charles is older than I. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for me to know more than Charles. But remember, Charles stated that you could fill a book with what he does not know. He therefore implied a great amount of ignorance residing in himself. I therefore must imply a greater amount of ignorance in myself than is in Charles. That is why I use the word dummy. So, Mr. Nameless. If you are younger than I, mathematically speaking, now remember, this is quantity and not quality, what does that say about you?

What do you have to say for yourself. LOL.:whistling:

Your lucky youve got any skin im so old im like a dried out parchment full of creaking bones.

We begin learning the day we are born. We learn something every day. Doesn't matter what we learn, that is not the point. The point is, we are , if we are consiously aware, learning continuously. So, if we are learning something, beginning on the day of our birth, "again, doesn't matter what," then we accumulate a library of knowledge . Let me again stress, it is not the quality of what we learn, just the quantity.

Just because you've consciously experienced more things doesn't necessitate:

1.) That you absorbed long-lasting information/knowledge
2.) That you will retain that information/knowledge

One that lived until 40 could easily have more knowledge than one that lives until 60. Living longer does not necessitate a higher quantity of knowledge.

This doesn't even take into account mental deterioration, intelligence, passion for obtaining knowledge, etc. etc.

A forty year old cannot possibly have attained more knowledge than a sixty year old. Living longer does indeed necessitate a higher quantity of knowledge

What is knowledge?

What is intelligence?

A forty year old cannot possibly have attained more knowledge than a sixty year old. Living longer does indeed necessitate a higher quantity of knowledge. It is not only mathematically possible, but probable as well. Basically, its just common sense.

As far as mental deterioration goes, how do you know what resides in the mind a anyone, including those who show an outward sign of dementia?How do you know what lays dormant in their mind. You cannot know.

First you must make sure we're speaking about someone conscious. For if we're not, I'll sweep you under your feet even faster: Suppose someone was in a coma for 30 years, or suppose one man slept 5 hours a day for his entire life, while the other slept for 10 hours a day -- Clearly, there's differentiation even in the amount of time each human is consciously aware, which already discredits your theory that knowledge is directly proportional with age. But, assuming a person is conscious, I will still continue:

Instead of getting that technical let's just use this definition:

"The sum of all that one knows". Is this fair?

Intelligence is indeed a subjective word, and this was a recent discussion topic. There are many variations of intelligence, and many degrees of effectiveness (within those variations). The point here to remember is: Since there are many variations of intelligence and many degrees of effectiveness (within those variations), we cannot assume everyone absorbs the same amount of knowledge from a specific instance.

With that said, we have absolutely no idea how the 60 year old lived his life; we have no idea of the experiences he's had. The witnessing of the same exact instance in time by two different humans does not mean they are absorbing the same amount or quality of knowledge. This is common sense.

Next, we cannot assume every brain effectively functions the same: There are varying levels of intelligence (I clarified above), and various physical differentiations with memory storage, etc. Suppose one 60 year old has a problem with their hippocampus and is literally unable to store long-term memories. Compare this to a 60 year old that has been reasonably perceptive their whole life, with absolutely no memory problems. Clearly, the one with the hippocampus problem will have less knowledge.

If you mean we don't know someone's every thought, no we don't. But if you mean we can't infer the functionality of the brain with brain scans and so forth, you're wrong. As far as I know, scans can differentiate stages of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and we can detect damage within parts of the brain from accidents, etc. In other words, we can infer if someone will be able to store short-term or long-term knowledge, attention span, etc etc.

Are you really supposing my good friend Dean (now 78) who has severe mental retardation (IQ of 26, and horrible memory decifict) had more knowledge than Einstein did before he died at 76?

I conclude that even if we took two humans whom were exactly 60:

1.) They would not necessarily have the same amount of knowledge, about anything
2.) They would not necessarily have even experienced for the same amount of time to have acquired knowledge

Age is not directly proportional with quantity of knowledge.