The function which generates knowledge is common to all

[stellamonika]

Study is the function which generates knowledge. The study function which generates knowledge is common to all knowledge. The function which generates knowledge is more vital than the generated knowledge. Execution of these seven sub-functions on whatever you wish to study will generate knowledge. The output of the function depends on the input. Input is nothing but the object under study. The output is nothing but the knowledge generated through the execution of the function. [illustrated at: http://www.pass.ga]


Study is a function which can be executed on every object. The study function has seven subfunctions.
1. function of seeing the parts.
2. function of seeing the uniqueness.
3. function of seeing the connections.
4. function of seeing the influences.
5. function of seeing the instability.
6. function of seeing the uses.
7. function of seeing the substitutes.

https://richmancentre.wordpress.com/the-richman-award/
illustrations at http://www.pass.ga/

[stellamonika]

[surreptitious57]

Number 2 is wrong because not every object can be studied and specifically those not known to exist or ones
that no longer exist or ones that will only come in to existence once the human species itself no longer exists

[encode_decode]

I think it would be wise to first define how you are using the word function.

The study function which generates knowledge is common to all knowledge.

A partial truth in that there is intuitively something common to people in gaining knowledge. Also there is ambiguity in the use of the word generates. Are you sure that knowledge is generated or gained(acquired)?

Personally I would reconsider the use of the word function and subfunctions - I think that maybe it would go something like the following:

Study is a procedure which can be performed on many objects. The study procedure has seven functions.

1. function of seeing the parts. -- returns what has been seen.
2. function of seeing the uniqueness. -- returns what the uniqueness is.
3. function of seeing the connections. -- returns what the connections are.
4. function of seeing the influences. -- returns a list of influences.
5. function of seeing the instability. -- returns what the instabilities are.
6. function of seeing the uses. -- returns a list of the uses.
7. function of seeing the substitutes. -- returns what the substitutes are. Are the substitutes analogies?

I am not saying that you should do it this way - I am merely trying to offer some constructive criticism. Procedures and functions are similar except that procedures do not typically have what can be construed as output - they are more like function drivers and it is the functions that have the output - hence the detection of ambiguity given that a function can also be defined as: practical use or purpose in design; here indicating no output.

I am basing my response on the linguistic context I am detecting based on your terminology - it is more like you are trying to write a program yet there is more than one "context stream". By "context stream" I am detecting more than set of "literary devices" in use. In one "stream" it is like a program is being written or mathematics is being performed and in the other stream it is more like a book is being written which tells me that the idea here is neither.

The usage of the word vital is in a different conceptual domain - think lexical semantics.

So what does that leave us with? Honestly I am not sure because the original post is interesting to me but worded in a rather peculiar fashion with no definitions supplied of keywords being used. So in effect it is wide open to interpretation. Is interpretation what you are going for here? I am wondering whether English is the native language of the author.

As for the image in the second post:

Number 2 is wrong because not every object can be studied and specifically those not known to exist or ones
that no longer exist or ones that will only come in to existence once the human species itself no longer exists

I would have to agree.

I like the underlying idea in the original post but I think it needs to be cleaned up so as to be better understood.

[Amorphos]

Study is the function which generates knowledge. The study function which generates knowledge is common to all knowledge.

Observation tells us what is observed = knowledge, yes. Don’t we begin life without that though? The set of unobserved knowledge built into our brains which we are born with.

I am interested in one possible wider [inferred?] meaning here, that the study is occurring as if in a sense of being generally out there. Like unobserved knowledge and info is out there, but we don’t understand it until we observe it. Hmm interesting.

[encode_decode]

Awesome Amorphos.

Observation tells us what is observed = knowledge, yes. Don’t we begin life without that though? The set of unobserved knowledge built into our brains which we are born with.

Good point Amorphos - I do believe that we begin life with an unobserved set of knowledge that comes built in.

I am interested in one possible wider [inferred?] meaning here, that the study is occurring as if in a sense of being generally out there. Like unobserved knowledge and info is out there, but we don’t understand it until we observe it. Hmm interesting.

Very interesting. I would never have thought to post like that.

[Arcturus Descending]

Amorphos

Observation tells us what is observed = knowledge, yes.

But observation alone does not equal knowledge, Amorphos ~ unless I am mis-reading what you are saying.
Someone observes a rainbow. Does that alone equal knowledge of that rainbow or does it simply tell us that there is something colorful and beautiful in the sky. It is still just an observation, right or wrong?

Don’t we begin life without that though? The set of unobserved knowledge built into our brains which we are born with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unobserved knowledge". You asked "Don't we begin life WITHOUT THAT THOUGH? What about the unconscious ancestral memories within our DNA?

I am interested in one possible wider [inferred?] meaning here, that the study is occurring as if in a sense of being generally out there. Like unobserved knowledge and info is out there, but we don’t understand it until we observe it. Hmm interesting.

By unobserved knowledge, I suppose you mean the reality which has yet to be discovered?

There are many things out there which I can observe but still do not begin to understand until I have not only observed it but study it, reflect on it, experiment with you ~ myself included lol
But I suppose that you are not really saying that observing something is the end-all of knowing.
I sometimes take things too literally.

[surreptitious57]

What about the unconscious ancestral memories within our DNA

DNA does not contain unconscious ancestral memories but instructions for building an organism

[Arcturus Descending]

What about the unconscious ancestral memories within our DNA

DNA does not contain unconscious ancestral memories but instructions for building an organism

lol Wherever did I get that from? But I'm glad that you clued me in.

But couldn't it be possible that ancestral memories reside within our DNA or somehow within our blood? Is that so far-fetched? I love science fiction but I certainly do not want to view it as truth or reality unless it has become irrefutably determined to be so.
I somehow do not intuit that we are born as a blank slate...


This is an interesting article...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... r-learned/


It is a good thing to be reminded that our opinions are not quite as informed as we think they are or as we would like them to be ~~ and that they are still just our opinions.

[Arcturus Descending]

What about the unconscious ancestral memories within our DNA

DNA does not contain unconscious ancestral memories but instructions for building an organism

lol Wherever did I get that from? But I'm glad that you clued me in.

But couldn't it be possible that ancestral memories reside within our DNA or somehow within our blood? Is that so far-fetched? I love science fiction but I certainly do not want to view it as truth or reality unless it has become irrefutably determined to be so.
I somehow do not intuit that we are born as a blank slate...


This is an interesting article...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... r-learned/

[Meno_]

Or, could it be that the in and out of DNA is an outworn distinction , somewhat corresponding to the primal logical distinction of the either or? Perhaps the whole idea of the inherited and or learned distinction could or should be revised, as the bicameral mind
builds more channels. If so, learning between consciousness and unconsciousness would attain more correspondence , and the positioning of internal and outward sources may change the perimeters of genetic change within changes in corresponding environmental scenarios.

The reason that such changes have not been appear entirely before, was that the differentials were too slight to be noted.

The thesis in the 'Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' , were yet to be tested, but seem credible, none the less.

If and when such were to be attempted, the whole of the philosophy of mind would alter. But the derivation and subsequent differentiation of the mind logically seems to be the final destination of vindicating the development of consciessness. That a unified field has yet to be able to be demonstrated shows it is still at an early stage.

[surreptitious57]

The ability of autistic savants to possess knowledge or skills which they could not possibly have learned is an intriguing mystery
Like with any intriguing mystery there is a perfectly logical explanation for it even though it is not currently known what this is