I think i know more than you.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » I think i know more than you.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Elmud
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:36 am
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:49 am
@Elmud,
It makes me think I now know why Justin added the "No Thanks" feature! :bigsmile:
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 02:20 am
@Elmud,
Elmud;52126 wrote:
Why do i think i may know more than you?

Now it's "may know". I like that. Who could possibly argue against that? Of course you "may" know more than me; however you might define "know". The statement, "I think that I may know more than you", is a truthful descriptive statement. It is logically unassailable. So, moving on with this little game (it is a game, no?)...

Quote:
Because I am older than you.

Now we are moving to that which needs supportive evidence for examination. This cannot be axiomatic. Make me a 'believer'.
This all hinges, now, on what you might mean by 'knowing'. Is it an absolute? Is it 'posession' of a 'truth'? The Truth? A 'belief'? Is it a description of your present state of cognition/thinking? The content of your rational mind/memory at the moment? ("This is what I 'think' is true means this is what I 'know' is true?")
Well talk memory shortly.

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

So far, its even, 1-1.

Quote:
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.

That makes some logical sense, but how much of this data/memory can you claim at any particular moment? I'd guess no more than a 6 year old. I'm wondering how much actual memory can 'fit' into one single moment. IT would take you a big pile of moments to take that trip down memory lane. Further, each of 'your' moments contain no more memory than that of which you are actually aware! It is quite possible that you at 100 years can actually perceive no more memory, at any particular moment, then a ten year old, or twenty...
I know that I 'feel' like I have quite the mnemonic 'baggage', but there is only a miniscule bit actually existing (perceived) in the actual (moment) Now!

Quote:
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.

Still need a definition, and evidence in support of your 'cause and effect' hypothesis.

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

I don't think that there is or has been any means of displaying, evidentially, the complete contents of memory at any single moment.
We live in a flip-book of averages.
I think the whole notion of continuous 'memory storage' is a failed hypothesis, as QM indicates.

Quote:
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.

So, still 1-1.

Quote:
You knew this because you have lived here longer.

Nah, I moved in next door to the bait shop.

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

Does this mean that you have pulled my leg with this post? That I have been tricked into wasting my time? Is this a punchline?
Are you a 'dummy' every moment of your existence? I wouldn't think that possible, but, who knows? Oops, probably you 'know', ancient one...

I've known many many elderly with less in their memory then a preteen, and less ability for critical thought. How do they fit into your hypothesis?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 02:36 am
@Elmud,
Quote:
How do they fit into your hypothesis?


Dumb and Dumber? Very Happy
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 02:42 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;52132 wrote:
Dumb and Dumber? Very Happy

Quite possibly...:Cara_2:
The game looked like it could be fun.
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:31 am
@Elmud,
I think you're wrong, but if I were to say the obverse (i.e., I know more than elmud), then I, too, would be wrong. But why are both the thesis and antithesis wrong? is an extremely interesting question here, because what it also asks is, what is knowledge?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:46 am
@hammersklavier,
I may be older but ive slept a lot and looked vacantly at grass growing for most of my waking hours.Uhhm ...
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:17 am
@xris,
Smile
Does not knowledge and its acquisition depend upon ones abilities to understand and the context/environment in which that understanding takes place, a simple relatively isolated existence does not lend itself to a wide knowledge of the world. A context/environment can be fertile ground or desolate ground for the acquisition of knowledge, to some extent, context/environment defines, for any equality to be assumed, one must assume the same context/environment in the first place and go from there.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:46 am
@boagie,
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
 
savagemonk
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:00 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
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
:perplexed: I may know what you are getting at.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 03:29 pm
@savagemonk,
Thanks

Yea, and one more clarification on this topic (one that's probably going to hit us all at one point or another, if it hasn't already).[INDENT] My Dad rocks. I've talked about him before and mentioned his long-study in Philosophy (which, for him, culminated in his doctorate in Phil: Logic). But he wrote a book - I don't know how well it's selling - which is what I'd call a "Fictional Biography". What he did was took his life's story, embellished it, and wrote it up. I'm happy for him in that it seems to have done him a lot of good. But I have a problem with this; one I can't shake. It has to do with what this topic's talking about - this "I know more than you", this "hey look at how great my mind and my life is!" persona. I don't know if that's what he meant, but that's how it's come across to me.
[/INDENT]You see, I think that for each of us life is the ULTIMATE experience! I'll bet that with each of you I could sit down with a drink and you'd come up with some of the most fascinating insights and experiences. As life goes on, one starts to get some perspective and then one day it hits: I know stuff![INDENT] The Point (for the Cut-to-the-chase Wikipedia-minded): Life, for you, is the biggest experience in the world! What we tend to forget - and what I'm trying to keep in mind and emphasize here - is that it's that same way for everyone else.
[/INDENT]must... keep.. perspective! Again Elmud, thanks for bringing this up; I hadn't much thought of it in a while until I saw your post

Thanks
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 04:10 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
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.



cough alzheimers cough
 
Elmud
 
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 04:22 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
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.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 04:58 am
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
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.
Your lucky youve got any skin im so old im like a dried out parchment full of creaking bones.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 07:14 pm
@nameless,
nameless;52129 So far, its even, 1-1. [/quote wrote:
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:
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 09:11 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Your lucky youve got any skin im so old im like a dried out parchment full of creaking bones.

Xris. pause,,,,,, I think you just may know more than I.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 09:16 pm
@Elmud,
Quote:
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.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 09:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
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.

I disagree. Of course, that is just my viewpoint. What is knowledge? What is intelligence? Are you more intelligent because you remember a passage of a textbook on science that you once read, or am i more intelligent because I remember the difference between Freddy the freeloader, Alice the Goon, Klem Kadiddlehopper and Marshall good? Its all about the amount of things. Little things and big things.

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.

We all have a time when we just wear out. I guess you could call it entropy. You can put forth exceptions on anything. The fact remains, one day of knowledge is greater than none. Two days are greater than one. This is basic math.

As far as your statement on intelligence goes, that is a subjective word. As far as passion for obtaining knowledge goes, we will attain some sort of knowledge whether we have a passion for it or not. It is called having a conscious awareness of everything that is around us. As long as we are awake, we will obtain knowledge of some sort. whether we have a passion for obtaining it or not.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 10:24 pm
@Elmud,
Elmund wrote:
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
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:

Quote:
What is knowledge?
Instead of getting that technical let's just use this definition:

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

Quote:
What is intelligence?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 11:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
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.

It is very difficult to not be influenced by the "quality" of knowledge. That is why I stressed that this is "not" about the quality" of knowledge, it is simply about the "quantity" of knowledge. Your friend Dean. How do you know, mathematically, how many things he knew? How do you know, mathematically how many things Einstein knew? You can't. Not even they could give you the number. It is a poor analogy anyway, because it is once again, influenced by the Quality of knowledge, rather than the quantity.

Let me ask this. When you pull up to an intersection, and you see that the light is red, what have you learned? You have learned that the light is red. Can you see where I am going with this? Another example. I am installing a door. One side measures 81 13/16. The other side measures 82 1/4. What have I learned? The answer is obvious. It is the fact that I learned "something". I learn many somethings every day of my life. Your friend Dean learns many somethings too. Every day that he is awake. Is Dean more intelligent than Einstein? That is not what this thread is about. It is not about what, but about how much.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » I think i know more than you.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:50:52