Understanding

Month, Day: 166, Names, Dominion (Beauty)

Some of these posts are place markers for topics that need further study and discussion. Just like evolution is controversial, so too is understanding (which can be related to comprehension).

Now, anyone with aptitude knows about understanding; in fact, we see success all around from this gift's application. Yet, we know, too, that there is more that is undecidable than there is that is not, even for humans.

This applies to our use of technology which can lead to some views that try to demean the human spirit not without counter views, though, whose basis for argument seems to get more limited in the process. Why? The demeaners are fairly effective at adapting.

As asked before, how can the Writings and, Creation-based science, be used to weigh in on the discussion? That question is meant to be rhetorical and audacious.

For instance, can a machine have understanding? Is this like asking whether (SAQ #55) a vegetable can have animal spirit or an animal can have human spirit? Can that question be formalized to the extent of allowing some technical discussion that has operational meaning?

We know that we humans have understanding. We also know that understanding can be obtained by effort or by gift (can we separate intuition?). And, we know that we're to make the effort; that there are the undecidables bring us to the Sisyphus state (yes, it's true).

So, operationally, how far can we go? Consider this. the Fourth Valley: "Obey Me and I will make you like unto Myself. I say Be and it is. You will say Be and it will be."

See any limits implied? "Herein the high heavens are in no conflict with the lowly earth, nor do they seek to excel it, for this is the land of mercy, not the realm of distinction"

Note: Mathematics, with its axiomatic basis, builds mounds or discovers those already there (basic ontological difference). Any effort at understanding a whole theoretic peak is local, though it seems otherwise. That which encompasses peaks (albeit, via surface interaction or, perhaps, a few probes) is intuition. Where mathematics and intuition (albeit, one that is trained - to be defined) differ, we ought to be suspect (topsy-turvy, thanks Chaitin, comes into play). Of course, all this is arguable, though Names is the beginning of the chain of evidence.

Remarks:

02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.

10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.

09/26/2009 -- An issue for the Operational view.

Modified: 02/24/2010