As humans, do we require a total understanding of information to fully embody it as knowledge?

Is the underlying mechanism of the act of knowledge dependent on a complete understanding of theories, concepts, and information at the highest or most primitive of levels - e.g., you engage in a conversation with someone. At the most fundamental basis of the ideas of the speakers lies a set of underlying abstract archetypal ideas (Jungian term) which lie within the subconscious of an individual.

A sensitivity to detecting archetypes is known to constitute wisdom - and wisdom exists independent of empirical knowledge, that is to say wisdom is acquired through observing action rather than knowledge.

Then on top of these archetypes lies the representational less abstract concepts that can be empirically evidenced. If we extend this question to other biological entities (animals), then it really is evident - e.g., dogs do not know however what they can act out has been ingrained within them through millions of years of observing archetypes.

1 Answer 1


"dogs do not know however what they can act out has been ingrained within them through millions of years"

Yet somehow, the same process in humans gave rise to knowledge. How do you account for that? There must be some kind of spectrum, a way to approach this which is gradualist.

I suggest that it's about forming what Vervaeke calls generating a salience landscape, to provide cognitive-grip on the concepts we feel important. Consider the case of gaining knowledge of higher dimensions, discussed here: Is it possible to visualize higher dimensional space?

I would suggest the discontinuity with animals, arises from human capacities for intersubjectivity, honed by language. We can see how human neocortexes developed for the social landscape from Dunbar's Number, and look at how creche-rearing and mirror-neurons facilitate visual learning. Parrots and elephants, exceptional intelligences within their genera, are the only other animals known to spontaneously dance, and we can picture a kind of group synching-up in that, transferring individual experiences into collective ones, as the basis for language. Almost the only genera with very high intelligence that is not social, are cephalopods, and to understand it we need to know they have super-flexible genes, and that they've been in an intellectual arms-race with the rise of birds and mammals where they have to rely on mimicry and tool-use (shell armour) for hunting and defence - ie seeing into other minds, and 'seeing into' tool objects. Discussed in more detail here: According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings come from?

There is this process of abstraction, into efficient models of the world, that makes understand where and how to act, tractable. We can understand information in terms of how to act to achieve goals efficiently, in relation to Maxwell's Demon, and the nature of what is 'true' as comparing expectations from a mental model to what happens. Discussed here: What is the philosopher's take on information and thermodynamic entropy?

Knowledge in this picture is the assembly of information, of isolated experiences into something bigger, that is relational between self and world, goals and experiences, so that we can act effectively. Having 'all information' would be intractable, and tiny errors would make it rapidly useless - like say the positions of gas atoms known by Maxwell's Demon or Laplace's Demon (always limited by the Uncertainty Principle anyway). Knowledge goes beyond information, into mental models that shed useless information, and find what is preserved over time, which is to say has a continuous symmetry between past and future.

We can understand this process generally from observing the idea of finding symmetries. When we form a class of symbols, we abstract something they share, types of solid object so we can picture general operations on them (eg I have 5 apples and eat 2, how many left?), on to continuous symmetries and numberlines that link our deepest understanding of physics found in Noether's theorem: the link between continuous symmetries under transformation, and conservation laws. Shedding information with abstractions, to make models tractable.

So, now you know. :)

For wisdom, it's really important I think to consider why it is so unfashionable now in philosophy. I account for that, and describe wisdom as an active process of acting from the integrated centre of our concerns in the face of encountering dilemmas, here: Wisdom and John Vervaeke's awakening from the meaning crises?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .