PP27 Why an Apple?
G'day, my name is Bruce Robertson and this is Pirate Philosophy, the channel in which I describe the Pattern Paradigm, an original philosophy that is rigorous, logical and accurate.
Welcome.
In today's video, I want to explore the relationship between knowing and understanding.
I will start with a couple of quotes. The first is attributed, albeit questionably, to Albert Einstein: 'Any fool can know, the point is to understand.'
And this from the physicist Richard Feynman: 'I don't know what is the matter with people, they don't learn by understanding they learn some other way - by rote or something; their knowledge is so fragile.'
In brief 'knowing' typically resides in the domain of words in the form of an arrangement of words such as 'apples grow on trees'.
Whereas understanding resides in the domain of inter-connecting patterns such as the relationship between trees, fruits and seeds and fitting these concepts into a cohesive whole.
One needs understanding of the world in order to create a good model of the world. And one needs a good model of the world in order to make good decisions. And one needs to make good decisions in order to achieve happiness. So understanding is important.
Understanding, within the logic of the mind, requires a pyramid of patterns. A pyramid of patterns being a hierarchy of ideas in the mind that constitutes a person's model of the world. Understanding requires that these ideas and concepts are linked together in a cohesive and harmonious way. One's pyramid of patterns is founded on sense-data and the logical process of pattern identification. (This process was described in the videos PP9 'Patterns time and space' and also in PP10 'Pyramids, Patterns and why we sleep'.)
The relationship between words and patterns is that words are labels for patterns. This was discussed in the video PP16 'Words, Language and Communication'. If one only knows the words without understanding the patterns beneath those words and how they fit together with other patterns in one's pyramid of patterns. then one doesn't understand the concepts that the words purport to represent; all one knows is an arrangement of labels. There may be a number of reasons for a person not having an understanding of the words. One could be that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the domain to which the words refer in order to make sense of the words. Or perhaps the words do not refer to a meaningful domain of the real world at all and are fictional. Or perhaps the words are simply inherently meaningless. (Incidentally when I refer to the 'real world', I mean one that can ultimately be linked to sense-data.)
An example of knowing the words but without understanding them is artificial intelligence and the recent ChatGPT program.Artificial intelligence may know many of the words and how the words are linked to other words, but it has no concept of the patterns beneath the words for it has no pyramid of patterns. Neither is it linked in anyway to sense-data and the real world. And because of this it has no understanding and cannot delve beyond its programmed instructions.
Even if Artificial intelligence does have rudimentary links to sense-data from the real world in the way that self-drive vehicles do, It can still only follow its programmed instructions in an entirely mindless way that is devoid of understanding.
So what is there to understand? What can be understood? Well according to the Pattern Paradigm philosophy that I have been describing in these videos there are two main divisions of understandable knowledge.One is what I call 'abstract systems', which includes logical systems such as mathematics and the game of chess.This was described in the videoPP14 'The four components of mathematics'. The other branch of understandable knowledge is 'real systems', which is a logical system of pattern identification based on sense-data and which is incorporated in one's pyramid of patterns. Both of these systems have firm foundations and explicit processes of inference by which one idea can be linked to another.
(Incidentally the relationship between the two systems is one of a mapping whereby the elements of an abstract system can be mappedonto elements of the real system, and vice versa.)
This division into two systems is echoed by David Hume (and also others) when he wrote: 'All the objects of human reason may be divided into two kinds: relations of ideas and matters of fact'. So what Hume referred to as 'relations of ideas', I am calling 'abstract systems' and his 'matters of fact' as a 'real system'.
Both of these systems can be explored and are open to understanding.
And as previously mentioned, understanding and having a good model of the world is important as it facilitates good decision-making and one needs to make good decisions in order to achieve happiness.
The difference between knowing and understanding in the domain of abstract systems can be demonstrated by this example in mathematics: one might know perhaps that in calculus the gradient of the graph of y=x² is given by 2x. And these words and symbols may be known and the gradient of 2x can be used. However in order to achieve understanding of the calculus and of how it fits in with the rest of the mathematical system one would need to be able to derive the theorem that the gradient of y=x² is given by 2x from the basic axioms and rules of mathematics.
And in the domain of real systems, one may know, for example, how a car works in terms of pressing the accelerator to make the car go forward and of pressing the brake pedal to make the car slow down. But this is simple surface knowledge. To actually understand how a car works requires deeper knowledge, and there are many levels of deeper knowledge.
So, for example, at the next level down one might understand how the combustion of fuel and air in a confined space can create kinetic energy which can be used to rotate the prop shaft which in turn can be used to rotate the wheels and push the car forward.
At a still deeper level one can have an understanding of how the pistons operate within the cylinders with their valves and camshafts and ignition sources. And this understanding could prove to be useful should there be a problem or breakdown of the car.
Understanding lies in looking at the nuts and bolts of a phenomenon and how those nuts and bolts fit together. Most anything that belongs to the real world is understandable.
But what about things that fall outside of these two categories of logical abstract systems and real systems?
Well, such things would lie in the world of fiction or fantasy or perhaps historical tradition. If they reside only in the world of words, then they cannot be broken down into nuts and bolts and become understandable, there is only a simple knowledge of the words themselves.
And some people do live in a world of words without even attempting to understand the nuts and bolts. Certainly such people can lead happy and fulfilling lives but they may be living in an artificial world in which people simply follow the rituals and traditions of their culture without understanding what their purpose or usefulness is.
And as Feynman alluded, it is a fragile world because without the deep foundations, it is subject to the whims of fashion, public opinion and perhaps the assertions of charlatans.
This relates to the schisms I discussed in the video PP17 'Culture and Schisms', where I discussed how some words and ideas that are embedded in historical culture may not seem to fit within one's pyramid of patterns, and so they cannot be understood. Their only reality is that they are a part of popular historical culture. They lack the foundations based on the real world and sense-data.
David Hume considered that such writings about fantasy worlds that didn't fit in with either of his two categories should be committed to the flames as in his famous quote: 'If we take in hand any volume, let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning containing quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence? No.Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion'. Incidentally 'sophistry' means 'the use of clever false arguments, especially to deceive other people'. And while I wouldn't say that such volumes should be cast into the flames, they can certainly be regarded as fiction, fantasy or illusion. But so long as it is realised that they belong to the world of fiction or fantasy and not the real world, then they do have a place in the human world. For such fictions can be a stimulus to the imagination and open up a world of possibility and hence, in this way, provide a useful function.
Much of Standard Western Philosophy resides in the domain of words, which makes it highly resistant to understanding.
So what can one do to explore a particular real phenomenon or situation and turn mere knowledge into understanding? Well, first of all one has to identify what the real phenomenon is, as distinct from the mere words. For words themselves cannot be analysed as they are merely labels. The question 'Why?' Is a good one to use as it is a request for more information and a motivation to delve beneath the surface. Also the question: 'How?' is a good one as in 'How do things fit together?', as it motivates one to look at the links between the nuts and bolts of the system.
As an example, I would like to ask the question 'Why an apple?' As portrayed in the thumbnail to this video. One can know that an apple is good to eat and can be found on an apple tree or perhaps for sale in a shop. But to understand what an apple actually is, one has to examine the reality of the apple and not just the words that describe its surface appearance and some of its uses.
One has to analyse the entity itself and to break it up into its component parts as I have shown schematically in the picture. In this way one can discover for oneself its structure and its constituent parts.
So the first task is to divide the apple into its constituent parts, examine each in turn ans hence gain an understanding of how the parts fit together.
At the heart of the apple are at its pips or seeds. And once one has found the seed and has an understanding of the constituent parts of the apple, one can reverse the process of analysis, so instead of dividing the apple into its constituent parts one can start at the centre, which in this case is the basic seed and then construct an understandable story for how, starting from the foundation of the seed, one can construct an explanation for why an apple exists. (Incidentally this process is called 'synthesis'.)
And so, the story one might arrive at, put very simply, could be: the seed contains the genetic material required for the apple tree to reproduce. And plants and trees require some mechanism by which they can spread their seeds far and wide, so that the new seedlings don't have to try to grow where they fall, underneath the shade of their parent tree. And apple trees have come up with the solution of putting their seeds in fruits which are attractive to local animals, so that when those animals eat the fruit they will carry the seeds far from the tree and the seeds will eventually pass through the animal and be excreted onto the ground together with some manure to nourish the young apple trees. In understanding this, the ideas are linked to other ideas about the world such as evolution, animals, growth and the incredible diversity of life.
I should note here that understanding about the world is not certainty about the world, instead it is about making sense of the world. Understanding opens up the possibility of new and greater understanding. Whereas simple certainty is a barrier to learning.
In the Pattern Paradigm philosophy that I have been describing in these videos, I have tried to focus on the understanding rather than the simple knowing.
I have constructed a synthesis that starts from a few fundamental ideas and shows, using only the simplest of words, how these ideas can be linked together and expanded into a philosophy of logical thinking and of how people create a model of the world and how people interact with the world.
In the process of analysing the domain of philosophy and before constructing the synthesis, I examined the tenets and ideas of other popular Western philosophies, but found that many of them did not fit within either of the two systems of knowledge of the abstract system or the real system and hence rejected them as belonging only to a fantasy world and hence ignored them when constructing the synthesis described in these videos.
And so to summarise, knowing is contained in an arrangement of words, whereas understanding is to be found by exploring the relationship between the nuts and bolts that constitute this world. And understanding leads to the creation of a better and more useful model of the world.
Well, that is all I have for you today. I hope you have enjoyed this video and if you have any comments, please leave them in the section below. And if you would like to continue this journey with me, please subscribe to my channel, give it a thumbs up and ring the bell. You can also visit my website: ThePatternParadigm.com for transcripts of all these videos. Also If there is a topic that you would like me to cover in these videos, then please let me know in the comments below and I will do my best to cover it.
Thank you.
Comments