A gentle reminder

[kavaris]

11 hours ago, tsuki said:

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

It might be better next time for us (or to others who are to *pickup what you are putting down) or "what you mean" essentially, by presenting it to *us like... (NOTE: This is a demonstration for any future definitions)

Example:
Knowing  =  The ability to represent (explain "representation" ~)

Example:
Doing       = To understand (e.g., to embody/digest/process, physically & mentally)

~

p.s. "the ability to do a thing" could also imply "abilities ~" (clarify what you mean, otherwise it would be akin to "Reminder: X means Y, Goodbye")

Edited Sunday at 09:44 PM by kavaris

[Joseph Maynor]

An epistemological question that I see underlying the theme of this question is: How do we know when our imagination has gotten ahead of us?  This is a key question in epistemology.  What are the boundaries of the imagination vs. direct experience?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Natasha Tori Maru Kiwis in honor of the lass from down unda

Gotta keep the Aussie theme going.

We got penguins here too! 
Fairy penguins!

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

Aww, what a cutie.

 Kororā

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Aww, what a cutie.

 Kororā

They are TINY! 

I love them - they come marching out of the ocean at Phillip Island CUTENESS OVERLOAD

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

ִֶָ𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָ˚ʚ🐧😊ɞ˚؛༊་༘࿐

CUTENESS OVERLOAD!!!

Edited Sunday at 11:14 PM by Xonas Pitfall

[Jirh]

5 hours ago, kavaris said:

(clarify what you mean, otherwise it would be akin to "Reminder: X means Y, Goodbye")

Exactly!

But it looks like this thread is targeted at a specific audience who are supposed to understand it.

It's not a discussion. It's a lazy, vague, short, personal lecture.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

We got penguins here too! 
Fairy penguins!

Yes, I know about them.

But Kiwis fit the vibe I'm goin for.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, I know about them.

But Kiwis fit the vibe I'm goin for.

Glad to roll with it then!

It is your creation, after all  

[UnbornTao]

On 3/29/2026 at 0:44 PM, Leo Gura said:

Rookie mistake.

Use is irrelevant in an existential matter.

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.

Edited 7 hours ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 3/29/2026 at 0:46 PM, Miguel1 said:

In your own words: ”to actualize it”.

I wonder what is ’mastering something’ then if not to actualized it and to do it really well.

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.

[UnbornTao]

On 3/29/2026 at 0:45 PM, Jirh said:

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

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

[UnbornTao]

On 3/29/2026 at 2:12 PM, Inliytened1 said:

I may understand how to remove a car battery by watching a YouTube video and so on paper I understand it but then when I go.perform the actual task I can't turn the.wrench quite right due to.the location of the battery because im not super experienced with the nuances of the wrench in certain weird . positions or have little experience.  Does this mean I dont understand it conceptually though?

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.

[UnbornTao]

18 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

An epistemological question that I see underlying the theme of this question is: How do we know when our imagination has gotten ahead of us?  This is a key question in epistemology.  What are the boundaries of the imagination vs. direct experience?

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.

[UnbornTao]

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.

Edited 6 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Joseph Maynor]

44 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

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.

The problem here is it ties true to the social or to the imaginary reasonable person (third person).  

[UnbornTao]

10 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The problem here is it ties true to the social or to the imaginary reasonable person (third person).  

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.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

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.

I worry about the groupthink aspect to objectivity sometimes.  We're looking to confirm with others.  But direct experience can be true and subjective as well.  

[UnbornTao]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I worry about the groupthink aspect to objectivity sometimes.  We're looking to confirm with others.  But direct experience can be true and subjective as well.  

It's not necessarily about another person, or about seeking social validation, although sometimes that can be incredibly useful, and oftentimes it is required, even demanded. This discussion deals mostly within the context of abilities or fields where knowledge can be easily verified, just for the sake of the conversation. As a more abstract field, think of math, for example.

If I can't drive, no amount of claiming that I directly experience and understand the activity is going to change the fact that I'm essentially lying to myself. When it comes to existential matters, boy, we can all be exceptionally good liars (mainly to ourselves) because, unless you somehow create it for yourself, there is not the same kind of feedback that tells us that we're lying to ourselves, overlooking and assuming stuff, etc.

What criteria or factor 'decides' whether one is able to perform or not, and how well? One thing is clear: you are not that deciding factor. In the case of physical activities, this point shouldn't be hard to see. That's why they're used as examples to bring up a deeper principle.

Edited 5 hours ago by UnbornTao

[CARDOZZO]

On 29/03/2026 at 6:49 AM, tsuki said:

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

I think understanding is a deeper form of knowing. Knowing is superficial. Knowing is a mental activity. Understanding requires both insight and practice. 

Mastery is a even deeper form of understanding. 

Knowing -> Understanding -> Mastery