Cause and Effect Is NOT Understanding

I have postulated on several occasions that it is not possible to [literally] understand anything. Many have taken exception to this view but it is quite easy to provide clear and simple logic to this end.

The idea that our intellect is incapable of accessing reality [one reason being the time lag between an event taking place and its perception] should be enough, but there are several other cogent reasons, e.g., the infinite number of events taking place each moment that completely overwhelms our perceptual and cognitive capabilities.

Posters have then offered examples of supposed understanding we accomplish, but this is not really understanding, instead, it is learned cause and effect. That is, if 'x' happens, then 'y' will follow [but this has nothing to do with understanding why this happens...especially in a real sense]. For example...

I suggest to my wife that she has put on a few extra pounds [cause] and she counters with a roundhouse right [effect]. That sort of thing. Well, everything is, "that sort of thing."

In riposte, another might suggest that my wife was triggered by deep-seated anger from my comment which provoked her response, but that's not understanding. Understanding is knowing EXACTLY why she was provoked. Understanding is about "why," and the why of things is simply too complex for our intellects to handle. After all, even the simplest of things is brought to life by an infinite number of causal events preceding.

This is not to say that we can not use cause and effect to good effect, as we do this all the time, but what it does suggest is that if we can understand that we cannot [really] understand, this opens up a Universe of possibilities, and one that can lead to non-attachment and a significant reduction in personal suffering.

Our suffering is caused by our attachment [not letting go] to those things we cannot really know. It is the greatest error in judgement we all make. If we can simply allow things to come and go, we can live a lot lighter and suffer a great deal less.

 

It seems to me what you refer to as "understanding" is not what I mean by the word. In my view, a true understanding includes having a stylised model of a behaviour/thing/whatever, and a mapping of how it corresponds to reality. It does not suggest that my understanding needs to include every aspect of the real thing.

I understand how a lighter works. I understand that the button opens a hatch to let our a burnable gas, and produces a spark to light it, in such a way that it allows us to light an outside object. I do not know the motion of every single molecule in the lighter fluid, nor do I know the design iterations that optimised the wick or the valve. My understanding of a lighter is accurate, true and literal. There are certainly more things to know about them, but most of them will be beside the point for the purposes of understanding how a lighter works.

Certainly, there is a time lag between a lighter igniting and my having perceived the lighter igniting, but that's not a problem for me understanding it. In fact, my watching a lighter barely contributes at all to my understanding a lighter, since I have already seen it happen before. If anything, trying to keep the time lag of my perception in mind muddies the waters and just dilutes a proper understanding.

I think most people never even considered understanding in your way, so when you have let go of that, I guess welcome to our world.

 

How can you understand that it is not possible for us to understand anything then?

 

You can't. But you do the best you can.

When it comes down to it, the limits of understanding are severe. The idea is that once you kind of sense that you cannot understand, then you explore further. There's an entire world out there that does not depend on understanding, and we use it all the time [without thinking about it]. For example, driving...we must react before we can think it through.

 

Your hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. This is not true understanding.

You understand how a lighter works based on current principles of science but science [and all things knowable] is in constant flux. After all, there's almost a 100% chance that the theory of atoms and molecules is utter non-sense.

How do you know it does not matter?

I live in your world, as well, but try to allow it to come and go.

 

Sure, and that's what everyone else does. I don't think your position is as different to anyone else. Nobody believes we can know everything for certain or that there aren't limits to our scientific and logical methods (current and fundamental).

The only difference is your approach to that fact. Most people largely ignore it since there isn't anything we can do about it, and just deal with the limitations of our understanding (which day-to-day are largely insignificant anyway). Your approach seems to be to embrace it as something somehow freeing. To other people, your position could appear nihilistic. You're entirely entitled to your own opinion of course but that doesn't mean you're automatically right and it does feel little ironic that you seem so certainly of your views when you're using them as a basis for criticising others for certainty (as you perceive it) in theirs.

 

Your "constant flux" idea is severely limited.

Today we use the physics of Isaac Newton in almost every arena - construction, rocketry, cars, aiming weapons, etc.

We expanded that through the work of Einstein and many others. But, there are well known limits within which we ALWAYS choose Newton's physics, because Newton was right within those limits.

That's been solid for nearly 300 years of serious work in physics, and there is no intimation that it will ever be abandoned in those uses.

We have the theory of evolution - a foundation of all biology, including modern medicine, developed more than 150 years ago, rock solid in its predictions of natural world function.

Basically, you want to play around with definitions of words like "understanding" and "truth" - taking them to absolutes that do not further greater understanding.

 

[QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1074054668, member: 51921]I don't think your position is as different to anyone else. Nobody believes we can know everything for certain or that there aren't limits to our scientific and logical methods (current and fundamental).[/quote]I am saying that you cannot [really] know anything. That's different.

[QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1074054668, member: 51921]The only difference is your approach to that fact. Most people largely ignore it since there isn't anything we can do about it, and just deal with the limitations of our understanding (which day-to-day are largely insignificant anyway). [/quote]Of course there is something you can do about it. And it follows that you would believe the limitations to our understanding are insignificant. People have always found things they cannot understand to be insignificant.

[QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1074054668, member: 51921]Your approach seems to be to embrace it as something somehow freeing. To other people, your position could appear nihilistic. You're entirely entitled to your own opinion of course but that doesn't mean you're automatically right and it does feel little ironic that you seem so certainly of your views when you're using them as a basis for criticising others for certainty (as you perceive it) in theirs.[/QUOTE]This isn't about being right or wrong because if real understanding is not possible, ... . Reaching this conclusion is about making better choices and suffering less.

 

Really. How so?

It's cause and effect with a bunch of lame hypotheses thrown in as garnishes.

One hundred and fifty years and absolutely nothing has changed. Amazing. Just think, if I were in practice in 19th century, I would be doing the very same things I am doing today.

Imagine taking a concept like truth to the absolute. Heresy!

 

Once again, you're trying for a useless definition of "real understanding".

You would seem to claim that Newton's physics isn't "real understanding" and that evolution isn't "real understanding", even though they have stood the constant testing of a hundred years to be reliable in predicting outcomes.

Suggesting that humans don't have "ultimate truth" is obviously true, but just as obviously meaningless in terms of human progress and understanding.

 

Your "garnishes" comment is no more than an attempt at insult.

Your comment about the 19th century and today being the same is more games by you. The point is that Newton's physics has held constant. And, human understanding has moved forward enormously, uncovering other theory as powerful as his physics is.

 

To you.

 

Attempt at insult? If I was going to insult you, you would know it. And anyway, what would be the point of insulting you?

 

Yes - I don't care if you insult me. After all, it reflects on you, not me.

 

That's just semantics due to the different viewpoints. You're not entirely dismissing everything you see and hear or the logical conclusions you reach as a result of them - if you did, you'd be catatonic. We all accept that nothing we think we know can be guaranteed to be true but equally we it can't be guaranteed to be false. The only practical option we have is to rely on those things since they're all we have.

I said insignificant day-to-day. Philosophically this kind of thing can be significant, but if you're deciding whether it is safe to cross a road, what's best to have for dinner or if your crush likes you back, it doesn't have any practical impact either way.

You've not made clear what those better choices are though. What do you actually do differently to everyone else as a consequence of this point of view?

 

Well, that's the crux isn't it. To me, and to most people, what I described is a true understanding (assuming I am in fact right about how a lighter works).

It seems to me the concept you're talking about never exists, never is useful as a concept and doesn't match other people's use of the word "understanding". So what makes you think the thing you're talking about is "understanding"?

My understanding of a lighter includes acknowledgements of which aspects are unknown, in flux or otherwise.

It seems to me, your understanding of atoms and molecules is most likely utter non-sense. However, in my understanding, confidence in all claims is proportional to the evidence for it, which means any uncertainties, mistakes, simplifications, are dealt with in my understanding.

Not sure what you mean. What doesn't matter?

 

Reality isn't really a thing outside of us it is our perception. We try to make things that measure it but they only measure it with regard to our perception.

Outside of humans is there even reality

 

It's not what those better choices are, but instead, how you make your choices. If you approach all things not-knowing, then you will essentially throw out most of your assumptions and see things MUCH closer to what they actually are.

Seeing things more clearly [without thinking that you know] allows you to respond with greater accuracy...like being in the moment when you are completely absorbed in a task.

As great a benefit is decreasing personal suffering [which is directly proportional to your attachment to a particular idea, thing, person, etc.]. Allowing all things to come and go creates an environment where things simply are the way they are...moment after moment.

 

Based on the idea that you can understand, of course.

QUOTE=["Swensson, post: 1074055269, member: 30924"]It seems to me the concept you're talking about never exists, never is useful as a concept and doesn't match other people's use of the word "understanding". So what makes you think the thing you're talking about is "understanding"?[/quote]And I could come back with that the concept you are talking about never exists, as well. Your idea of understanding is "close enough." But close enough doesn't work in reality. It is or it isn't [of which we cannot know]. But you are ok without knowing a lot of things, right?

QUOTE=["Swensson, post: 1074055269, member: 30924"]My understanding of a lighter includes acknowledgements of which aspects are unknown, in flux or otherwise.

It seems to me, your understanding of atoms and molecules is most likely utter non-sense. However, in my understanding, confidence in all claims is proportional to the evidence for it, which means any uncertainties, mistakes, simplifications, are dealt with in my understanding.[/quote] So what you are saying is that you really can't know anything but you'll take what I can get and then add all kinds of suppositions, estimations, lots of guessing, and a ton of complete bs, and that's what you think.

Have you ever really listened to what people come up with to explain [every damn thing]? Even the most intelligent among us hasn't a clue. They are simply able to put forth the latest and greatest bs in a very palatable way. And everybody applauds until the next genius completely proves them wrong [rinse and repeat].



Not sure what you mean. What doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]

 

Some would suggest that there is Reality and reality. Reality is what it actually is but is unknowable, whereas reality is our personal reality, our individual perception of Reality.

 

Reality as far as we know can only be perceived by humans so outside of us can it even exist?

 

Yes, you would like to deny the very idea that there is science, where experts around the world test hypotheses as a method toward improving knowledge.

 

Sure it exists, I have plenty of things I understand in my sense of the word.

My understanding isn't just being close enough, it is stylised, it brings out functional/important aspects and deliberately omits bits that are not. For instance, it does not include the lag in my perception. That's not to say there isn't a lag, just that the lag is not relevant for my understanding of a lighter.

Nope, if something is actually BS, then it is not supported by the evidence and gets very little traction. But yes, any estimations needed should be a part of the understanding (so that I know I need to update my understanding if any of the assumptions change).

I'm not convinced you've been listening to the most intelligent among us. In science, all your assumptions and estimates should be documented, and conclusions are rarely that something is true, but how well something fits to a model, which models fit best to data etc. Explanations without substantiation (like your method of accessing some kind of spirituality through meditation) are not worth much.

 

Yes, everybody has their own reality.

How do you know this? The lag might be the most important part of perception. Who knows?

Seriously? I have been a practicing physician for over forty years and I simply cannot tell you how much bs is in the professional literature. Just look at COVID and how that came down as a prime example. Things are rarely as they appear.

Science is simply the best current guess [even if you assume zero contamination]. Meditation is experiential and many people are not really tapped into such. I understand, but you should not so quickly discount something that has been around for millennia. I believe you are making more of it than what it is. It is simply perceiving with clarity.

If you believe everything needs an explanation then how do you explain the fact that you [and your 1000 closest friends] can drive @ 80mph on the freeway just feet apart and not crash into each other? How can all these people make the infinite number of micro-adjustments in real time?

 

"Close enough" is what humans do on Earth.

Close enough is a major principle of engineering, physics, health care, art, culinary sciences and everything else we do. Huge effort is put into understanding and carrying out what is close enough.

What you are proposing with your ideas of absolute understanding is a philosophical exercise in claiming an infinite that is obviously irrelevant to human activity.