A gentle reminder

[tsuki]

The ability to represent something is called knowing, but understanding is the ability to do it.

[Leo Gura]

False

[UnbornTao]

In many ways this is true.

To use an example liberally, we may think we know what an emotion is, but in our experience, do we really? How far does our understanding of it go?

By 'doing,' in this context, I mean to actually see or understand it. Another example would be cooking: you may 'know' a lot, but actual understanding implies or demands being able to 'do' it - to apply the knowledge effectively so that you cook a high-quality dish. Something like that.

Edited 4 hours ago by UnbornTao

[tsuki]

Yes @Leo Gura, I know you know God and understand consciousness.

[Leo Gura]

Doing and understanding are two different things.

You are confusing them.

Ironically, you don't understand what understanding it.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

Actually, in many contexts, if you can't 'do' it, you don't really understand it. This applies to countless abilities and domains of knowledge. Driving is another example.

We're making a distinction between two domains of understanding, if you will.

Edited 3 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Actually, in many contexts, if you can't 'do' it, you don't really understand it. This applies to abilities and many domains of knowledge. Driving is another example.

No. These are confused examples.

Understanding driving does not require doing it. You are confusing mastery of a skill with understanding.

Your notion of understanding is sloppy, including stuff that isn't understanding.

A monkey can drive a car. That doesn't mean it understands anything. It is a motor skill. Animals perform complex motor skills with zero understanding.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[tsuki]

Hahahaha

[Leo Gura]

You guys understand understanding as much as this ape understands driving.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[tsuki]

Shit I gotta lose some weight!

Hahahaha

The happy music is killing me!

Hahahaha

[UnbornTao]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. These are confused examples.

Understanding driving does not require doing it. You are confusing mastery of a skill with understanding.

Your notion of understanding is sloppy, including stuff that isn't understanding.

A monkey can drive a car. That doesn't mean it understands anything. It is a motor skill. Animals perform complex motor skills with zero understanding.

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.

Edited 4 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

@UnbornTao What you are doing is not understanding understanding.

[Miguel1]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If you can't "do" it (experience it, actualize it, make it real and not merely conceptual), you don't really 'understand' it.

That’s called mastering it.

[tsuki]

Lol I’m a master poster because I just did it. Hahahaha

[Leo Gura]

A bird has mastered flight without understanding anything. And I understand flight without ever having flown.

That is why your definition of understanding is crapola.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

8 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

That’s called mastering it.

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.

[UnbornTao]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@UnbornTao What you are doing is not understanding understanding.

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.

Edited 3 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Jirh]

A reminder to whom?

Seems like some context is missing and that this has some personal element to it.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

To me, what you're talking about has very little use

Rookie mistake.

Use is irrelevant in an existential matter.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Jirh]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A bird has mastered flight without understanding anything. And I understand flight without ever having flown.

I think we can say birds understand flying instinctively or unconsciously, if that makes sense. Clearly, they don't understand it cognitively or consciously.