Still Knowledge and Wisdome - Or not...

Here are some excerpts from the discussion on Xing. Enjoy and chip in!

P:
Jeannine

I don't care to take issue with the definitions provided; though you will not be surprised to learn I don’t think much of them in terms of clarity.

What does strike me as alarming is the concept of Wisdom of 'human potential for evil' which is anathema in my philosophy. Such ‘evil‘ is a religious concept with no bearing on the natural world.

‘’It is the third, quite different kind of wisdom that is what we mean when we talk about Buddhist wisdom, the wisdom that, in Shinran's view, is the dynamic through which shinjin is established. This is a "knowing" that stands in sharp contrast to the "knowing" of science and the "knowing" of common-sense. The focus is "deeply" rooted in the subject, a "depth" referring to the dimension of our human potential for evil, a potential unlimited in our life.’’

I realize that people do things that are anti-social and in our morally inclined cultures we characterize people as evil for things that are often beyond their comprehension, and ours, where their place in a just society is malformed and bound to lead to conflict. I can deal with 'evil' in a genetic way to be assessed and chemically treated to modify behaviour etc., but I cannot deal with religious evil in any sensible way, so merely appreciating that all human beings are genetically constructed with a potential to vary in response to want and need is hardly wisdom.

Anyway I reject the silly notions of categorizing ‘Wisdom’ down through common sense to street smarts; it denigrates the concept of loftier thoughts.

I am not going to allocate any form of wisdom to some street thugs selling drugs, that's banal.

In my view it is simply splitting hairs to create categories of wisdom, it is what it is. And it remains my proposition that without knowledge of information, there would be nothing to be wise about. It also requires intellect to manage one’s knowledge store to proffer wise counsel.

I never suggested that well educated people are invariably wise nor that ill-educated people are conversely unwise. Take each case on its merits and decide.

What more need be said ? [ lots I expect ]

P:
Hi F.
Say, we are in 1977, and you are listening to Ken Olsen President, Chairman and founder of Digital, 1977. This is what you get:

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Is that apocryphal ? I have read the remark attributed to the chairman of IBM too ! lol

F:
Peter, you seriously meant the good behaviour bit :-)

P:
My old pal Einstein, had a couple of thing going for him, a huge intellect and an amazing capacity to absorb new knowledge at a rapid rate. His data store was phenomenal compared to the average man. He referred to 'inspiration' as the subconscious product of his mind teasing at the problems he posed. Without knowledge of information Einstein would have been twiddling his thumbs as a rather frustrated patent clerk..

P:
Sorry , I am a liar .... work that out

F:
Peter, The IBM one is a different one and believed to be apocryphal: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

Yes, but if someone did say, it would be an example too of people who can't imagine the possibilities because they are caught up with the calculations :-)

Only later, they would say "Why didn't I think of that?"

Me:
P.: Yes it is!
BUT
I am to tired to think of a an appropriate reply, so I will sleep on it and will tackle it tomorrow... :-)
F.: I have also heard this attributed to IBM so I went looking and found this:

Famous misquote

Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers," there is no evidence he ever made it. The author Kevin Maney tried to find the origin of the quote, but has been unable to locate any speeches or documents of Watson's that contain this, nor are the words present in any contemporary articles about IBM. The earliest known citation is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "I think there is a world market for about five computers" — Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943. Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: 'Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: "I think there is a world market for about five computers."'. However one of the very first quotes can be found in a book "The Experts Speak" written by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky in 1984. But Cerf and Navasky just quote from a book written by Morgan and Langford, "Facts and Fallacies". However all these early quotes are questioned by Eric Weiss, an Editor of the Annals of the History of Computing in ACS letters in 1985.[8]

However, in 1985 the story was discussed on Usenet (in net.misc), without Watson's name being attached. The original discussion has not survived, but an explanation has; it attributes a very similar quote to the Cambridge mathematician Professor Douglas Hartree, around 1951:

I went to see Professor Douglas Hartree, who had built the first differential analyzers in England and had more experience in using these very specialized computers than anyone else. He told me that, in his opinion, all the calculations that would ever be needed in this country could be done on the three digital computers which were then being built — one in Cambridge, one in Teddington, and one in Manchester. No one else, he said, would ever need machines of their own, or would be able to afford to buy them.

(quotation from an article by Lord Bowden; American Scientist vol 58 (1970) pp 43–53); cited on Usenet.[9]

The misquote is itself often misquoted, with fifty computers instead of five.

F:
So, if we were to feed all the data that our friend Einstein had in another human being and then ponders on the same problems, do we get all the same stuff out of the test subject? Also, how does one explain millions across hundreds of years looking at a kettle and thinking 'gulp gulp gulp' and one looking at it and thinking 'chug chug chug'? Where lies the difference?

F:
Jeannine, the quote I used in my post (computers at home) is available on Microsoft's research site - it is not a misquote.

The one P. mistook it for (The IBM 5 computers one that I hadn't used), is apocryphal, or a misquote, as you have also posted above.

Me:
P., judging on the spelling mistakes in your post I think you must be at least as tired as me or you are merely trying to type really fast to get your 2 cents worth in? :-)

Oh and Einsteins biggest asset was his imagination! And his curiosity! The Intelligence just helped.

As you rightly said, having the a high IQ gives you the capacity to store myriads information it is however the wisdom that will enable you to use it in a sensible way!

I am living proof that it can be different..

F:
I sense a storm brewing now.... any time now...
Me:
No, no storm. Merely a soft breeze :-)

F:
Soft breeze is good breeze :-)

P:
F. No two human minds are the same alike, but massively different in the detail.

A chemical synapse between a motor neuron and a muscle cell is called a neuromuscular junction; this type of synapse is well-understood, and is a good measure of complexity .
The human brain contains rather a lot of chemical synapses; young children have about 1016 synapses (10,000 billion) This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for adults vary from 1015 to 5 × 1015 synapses (1,000–5,000 billion).

I cannot say that my old pal Albert had the maximum estimated synapse content in his brain [ I think I read somewhere that it was possibly even under average weight ] but I’d assume he was well provided for in the genetic brain pattern department.

There would be no reasonable prospect of replicating all that made the mind of the man from conception to ‘imagination’.

The comparison does not work.

I posted elsewhere some time about human parallel processing and passing on the data to the next generation, though I suspect wisdom had no application where the result is simply a variant on an onomatopoeic word ..chug a lug [ a beer drinking variant, quite imaginative ! ]

P:
Hey

what's happening her? This is not an extension of sentences for the textually insane, thought the idea was to chuck IDEAS about...

F:
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." - Newton

P:
Jeannine

Can't think what you might consider to be typo's but they happen, let me know and I'll correct them .

In fact I don't get tired, I usually lose interest and just decide to stop and sleep, then I wake up 4 to 5 hours later and that's it ..

I'm not a particularly fast typist just dogged.

Well if you like to believe Albert's quips, he was actually not that good at one liners, but he got a couple in as a 'famous' dude that would otherwise have been overlooked. 'Imagination' was a better one but inadequately described, he lacked the imagination to foresee that his words would be taken literally.

His IQ was only ever estimated and it's not rated as the best, just damn good at between 160-180. I'm unsure how you quantify the unquantifiable: imagination and curiosity. They are merely attributes of the functioning mind and perceived by no rational test , just the subjective observation that he used his 'imagination' and was 'curious' both attributes of intelligence in a thinking man. [ or a raving lunatic and Schrödinger's cat could also have those attributes to exceed Albert's own 'abilities ]

I suspect the IQ is only an indicator of knowledge and manipulation of data capability. Quite how, or why not, that translates into Wisdom, the wise use of that data, is currently not determined - by me.

No storm no breeze just a zephyr...troublemakers :)
P:
Now Newton was profoundly bright in an intellectual way, yet incredibly dull to think that alchemy was useful. Imagination going completely the wrong way

Me:
First of all:
Death is a cat lover and we know that he did not favor the Schrödinger's cat experiment though. Therefor we can conclude, that the cat is, in fact alive, because Death would not have taken her!
As for raving lunatics - the line between genius and crazy is, as we know, very fine if not altogether blurred - as again I am living proof of... :-)

On a serious note:

quote P.: "what's happening her? This is not an extension of sentences for the textually insane, thought the idea was to chuck IDEAS about...
I'm off if this persists." end quote - Huh...???

also quote P.: "I can deal with 'evil' in a genetic way to be assessed and chemically treated to modify behavior etc., but I cannot deal with religious evil in any sensible way, so merely appreciating that all human beings are genetically constructed with a potential to vary in response to want and need is hardly wisdom." end quote

Now that actually presupposes that genetic constructions is all we are and leaves no room for anything more, for the lack of another word, "spiritual"

So ind the end it all comes down to our very own and personal definition of what and who we are, why we are and what exactly we consider knowledge and wisdom.
I talked about this thread on my blog and one of my readers posted the following:

Knowledge is the accumulation & acquaintance with facts, truths or principles. (according to Dictionary.com)
Wisdom is: knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action. (also Dictionary.com)
Knowledge can exist without Wisdom.
Lots of people make stupid choices even tho' they know better, but Wisdom can only exist with Knowledge. Can a person exercise Wisdom without any Knowledge? No, according to the dictionary definitions.

That question: "Can a person exercise Wisdom without any Knowledge?" again relies on the definition of the two.

Lets look at the raving lunatic:
Oh, but first let me acquaint you with the political correct terminology for what we used to call crazy or insane:

"Insane People" are now called: Selectively Perspective or Mental Explorers and "mentally retarded" are called exceptional (which I personally find very true!)

Isn't it great? We are now finally admitting, that we have no idea of what goes on in the minds of such differently abled people! For all we know they might have a much clearer perspective and simply lack the capacity to voice it in ways we "normals" are able to comprehend. Of course, there are varying degrees...
This comment should not be regarded as disrespectful or prejudice against differently abled persons. I have worked with and for them for many years and must say, that there has been many a time where I preferred the company of such a person to that of "normals"!

But to get back to the raving lunatic:
How many truly great people were considered insane?
Look and our track record: Picasso, Goya, van Gogh I could go on but here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
Or take Nietzsche who spent the last ten years of his life insane and unaware of the immense success of his works. (Of course he is believed to have contracted syphilis in his youth but who is to say that that wasn't what made him what he was?) Tchaikovsky died in an insane asylum and also Beethoven was believed to have "lost it" towards the end.
So is it the genius that develops insanity or the insane that develops genius or does it go hand in hand?
And when they do something really great why is that? Is it because of wisdom? Or maybe it is just intuition, common sense, experience, knowledge or even instinct?
So much on on Intelligence and raving lunatics... :-)

But back to the question:
I guess in order to truly get a definite answer to any of the (relevant) question we have asked here so far , we would first have to set parameters to use, standards to adhere to and take spirituality out of it completely. We would have to find an irrevocable meaning for each of the words and all agree to it.

And I guess if we could do that we would have found the Answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything...

Which of course we already know to be 42... :-)