The more we know, the less we know. Do you agree?

I agree until the endlessly part. I think we will eventually figure it all out.

This was intentionally difficult to read. The Oracle at Delphi declared Socrates to be the wisest man in Athens because he was the only one to proclaim that the only knowledge he had… Was that he knew nothing.

What we know is what we experience.

I think what you’re saying is, the more we understand (or think we understand), the more it becomes apparent that there’s a lot more we don’t understand.

Do I understand this correctly?

@SABOTEUR: I have to differ with you. Knowledge is best defined as “true” and “justified” belief. I can experience the sun rising. But to claim my experience equals my knowledge would then insist that I believe that the sun is nothing but a large glob of light in the Earth’s sky. One which rises and falls each day. In fact, I’d have to insist that most people in the world simply don’t exist, having never met or heard of the majority of them.

You don’t experience the sun rising, you observe the sun rising.
You may experience the warmth of the sun.

Experience implies active participation…personal involvement.

Big difference.

I do agree. Every time I learn anything, I know what I don’t know.

@SABOTEUR: Ah, kay. So you can only know items that can be actively perceived by your very limited senses (which apparently now dis-include sight)...?

If you are witnessing something with your eyes, you are indeed involved with that object. Because you’re interpreting the images sent to your brain, yes?

Bear in mind, I didn’t say perceived…I said experienced.

If 5 people see someone get mugged, do they see the same thing?

Is seeing a mugging the same as being mugged?

Let’s try taste.

Tasting an orange is different from the mind’s interpretation of the taste, which is different from attempting to explain the interpretation of the taste, which is different from someone’s understanding of the explanation of the interpretation of the taste.

So, after hearing what an orange tastes like, do I know how an orange tastes?

(Almost forgot…*welcome to Fluther, @Jerikao)!

I do, and I hope it’s true that it’s endless! I never want there to be a point where I know everything there ever is to know… life’s about the adventure, about the learning as you live it. I want to learn and wonder all the way through my last moments.
And I want to be able to see things happen and be amazed by them, because they’re beyond my comprehesion. That’s so inspiring, to me. That makes me want to live.
I think the beauty in the world is that we don’t know everything… but that we’re never in danger of losing the beauty, so we can keep satisfying our curiosity, and still be speechless in awe.

It reminds me of a quote ‘if the brain were simple enough to completely understand, we’d be too simple to understand it.’
But I wouldn’t want it any other way… I never want to run out of questions.

@SABOTEUR: You did indeed say experienced. And that is, I am fairly certain, the point I was trying to make. You said, “What we know is what we experience”. You then also said that experience implies personal involvement. And you explained personal involvement in the following way: “You don’t experience the sun rising. You observe the sun rising. You may experience the warmth of the sun.”

Seeing a mugging is, in a sense, experiencing a mugging. Seeing yourself being mugged is, in a sense, to be mugged. No, seeing someone else being mugged, and being mugged yourself are not the same. But you’re comparing apples to oranges and doing so on purpose.

Tasting an orange with your tongue is simply that. Experiencing the taste of the orange. Witnessing an orange with your eyes is simply that. Observing the visible light reflected from its surface and interpreting it. In all cases, you are interpreting small sensory details. When you hear how an orange tastes, you know what the speaker thinks an orange tastes like. (unless they are a liar ;-) )

(Also, thanks)

@DancingMind: Then lay your mind at rest. Because as each moment ticks by, there are as many new things to know as there are items in the universe. By item, I do not mean car. I do not mean atoms that make up cars. Nor do I mean the sub-atomic particles that make up atoms. I’m referring to the very bottom everything. The unknowable smallness that makes up all larger things. Every moment, every one of those small things… Changes. And so every moment there are as many new things to know about the universe as there are tiny components of everything.

@Jerikao : ) I know…. that’s what I love! haha, is that crazy? :P

@SABOTEUR Yes, you understood.

I think that is correct from a ceratin perspective. I believe that if we were to be all knowing creatures of the universe that we would actually loose sight of the little nuiances, and insignificant aspects of a lot of things. It’s like a lot super smart people can loose sight of insignifant, yet important details about the world.

I wish I didn’t know the answer to this question.

I agree and disagree. I have a situation (it might not even be a situation), where at the beginning I knew nothing, but thought I knew everything. Now I know a lot of things, I don’t know what I know, do I still know nothing or do I know everything?

OK, @Jerikao, I concede…as long as you understand there is a subtle difference.

I don’t care how many times I see a woman, I don’t believe for a second I know what being a woman is, though I can intellectualize on it…on her, hee-hee… until the sun goes out.

Yes.

Two great quotes by two great writers on this subject:

Our knowledge is a receding mirage in an expanding desert of ignorance. (Will Durant)

To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. (Henry David Thoreau)

Great quotes, @Owl
(Welcome to Fluther!)

Yes…this seems to be a never ending cycle…even though I know knowledge can’t be limitless, there has to be a finite amount of knowledge…assuming the universe is “finite” of course…

Yes, one new answer usually raises two new questions.

Even if there was finite amount of knowledge, not all of it is provable.
Some things may be true, and for that reason unprovable. That’s what Gödel showed with his incompleteness theorems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Haha @SABOTEUR: That was a fruitful, if somewhat off-topic, discussion we had. Very much enjoyed. Thank you.

You’re welcome…thanks to you also.