UnbornTao

It wasn't a precise analogy. What I meant to say is that it is akin to an objective measure or tool - outside of yourself and your agenda - that demonstrates and proves the understanding. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. The gist of it is that the knowledge is demonstrable in specific ways. And the one who gets to make that final assessment of understanding is something that is not-you - speaking metaphorically again. It's true, real, and grounded if or because it is the case, not because one thinks or claims it is. Crucial difference that can easily go over one's head.

It can be as simple and commonplace as a feeling of hopelessness or despair - in that ballpark. PTSD is a more serious condition. Depression is a feeling or emotional state.

Press X to doubt.

Yep.

Ask yourself: Why isn't soccer taught through books? Why can't you learn to actually play by reading or watching videos? This is a simplistic and extremely specific example but go beyond the example and try to discern the underlying principle.

Everyone's lonely. So that's that. Look into the depression. Focus on what it is and not just the perceived or imagined consequences that it has on you and your life. What is it? We might think we know what it is because we can identify it - this may not be true. Look into this for yourself.

When it comes to abilities, the question is rather straightforward in my view: Can you perform? How well? When you get down to it, are you able to carry out the action or process effectively, or is it just assumptions you have about the workings of something? The criterion for whether you understand something or not is not dependent on yourself and your little bubble but on something true. We might metaphorically call this a 'third-person.' Just as a useful placeholder or analogy.

Sure. "On paper" and "experienced" are the key words here. The latter is what's being referred to as real understanding - the experiential kind. In the former case, you can't do it, so the conceptual understanding is rather secondary, or extraneous. It's just ideas you have about some skill and ability. And you can see that your failure to apply it or make it real suggests the conceptual understanding is wrong in many ways, or inaccurate, or incomplete. Ideas that you can't actualize. Why is that? Look at this disparity. I'm pointing out the existence of another domain of understanding. And if the subject is existential, intellectual understanding of something is lame. It's the first step, and isn't that profound. I guess it's very tempting to engage in this domain because, contrasted to having to experience the truth, it is much easier and more comfortable for the mind to do.

It's also true that they're able to do it, and don't really need to 'understand' it conceptually.

Mastery is mastery. You understand driving (because you can do it reasonably well) but haven't necessarily mastered it yet. Mastery is just being able to perform the activity excellently and non-randomly. This is the "doing" part, done proficiently. In this case one might say you thoroughly 'understand' the activity - since you're able to carry it out while actively producing superb results. You've actualized (made real, not just abstracted) the ability. It can be proven and shown objectively, as opposed to just sniffing one's farts, thinking one understands something in their own mind, with no real confrontation or feedback. In this context, if you can't perform the activity, then it doesn't matter how much you think you understand relative to it. So we can see that we have two domains here: thinking about something - imagining one understands - and a completely different domain that demands something real, beyond one's imagination and assumptions.

That's why I brought up bike riding, and why you mentioned driving above. We're not talking about existential matters. Even then, this principle can be applied similarly in such a context by operating from objective criteria, not just based on one's concepts. Understanding here would require "direct experience" and not merely adopting some conclusions, beliefs, or notions that one likes. The "value" here would be the realness of the apprehension. And it can't be faked, intellectual or superficial, otherwise this kind of 'knowledge' is a moot point.

Got it, thanks.

Maybe. But set that aside. I wasn't asking for a plausible, rational explanation or answer. Look into the existence of the depression. It's also possible that you're talking about more than one thing. I'd suggest you get even clearer on what things you're actually referring to. It sounds like you're using depression as a very broad category encompassing other feeling-states. Regarding depression, for example, how does it relate to time? In relation to what time period does it exist? Now, past, future? What are its components? Again, something to explore experientially. And by the way, it seems to me that we tend to conflate identifying something in our experience - labeling it, giving it a name, having a fixed conception around that experience - with being aware of what it is, its nature. I'd be wary of this confusion we often fall into.

I wouldn't say that. I think I know where this stance comes from - it is a common trope in pop-culture, and a tempting one to engage in. But look at the source of depression, beyond your intellect. It might be that we are ignorant of the fact that we generate it, and how we're doing that. We might simply use external circumstances as a pretext to abdicate our responsibility. Why does one get depressed from time to time (excluding some serious physiological imbalance)? What's going on in what you call the state of being depressed?

You might want to try QEMU + Virt-manager. Much more performant. Linux Mint is always a solid option. Stable and reliable. I'm rocking CachyOS now and loving it. Maybe not ideal as a first distro, though.

@RisingLane What even is that game about? The duo reminds me of Jak & Daxter.

KDE Plasma Powertoys (if you use Windows) Bitwarden Heroic, Lutris Tor Browser Proton VPN LocalSend Ollama I'm looking into KeePassXC and Syncthing.

Oh, right. I thought it was some sort of riddle or something. "Everything is free, comrade."

Everything? Thunderbird is a good email client, too. Da Vinci Resolve has a free version. On Linux you have to remove some libraries from its directory if it won't open. It's likely better than Kdenlive.

Switched to Zed. Rust-based. WinRar (though I prefer and use 7zip).

Reread what I said. To me, what you're talking about has very little use if it can't be actualized. It's just having concepts about some subject - which go mostly unchallenged, by the way. It's easy for one to think a subject is understood when it really isn't. You just have to believe that you do. If that something is an ability you can't carry out reasonably well, then there's very little value in what you think you understand about it. "Oh, I understand bike riding. But I can't even get on one without falling." Whoop-de-doo.

Not really. Doing it reasonably well isn't the same as mastering it. It just means being able to make it real - whether that is done excellently or not is a different matter.

Audacity's getting an overhaul that seems promising. I'd add GIMP and LibreOffice, although they are not particularly pretty.

Not at all. We're using 'understanding' differently. I'm talking about experiential understanding. If you can't "do" it (experience it, actualize it, make it real and not merely conceptual), you don't really 'understand' it. Your inability to actualize it is proof of this disparity, and this feedback points to the existence of this domain of "knowledge" that isn't just "thinking" that you understand something. The latter requires proving it, in a sense, and not just spinning your mental wheels.

It's a pretty grounded story. I think this down-to-earth quality is an important element of why the show resonates with people. Who hasn't had a drug-kingpin chemistry teacher at some point? Not me!