Knowledge vs Understanding
Knowledge is simply thought with evidence realized by the person. What we regard as facts, remembering past events over the long term.
However, understanding is the meta scale of knowledge, where the processes in the brain are able to interpret knowledge patterns and create new parts to those patterns. Understanding is also considered to be the product of intelligence, and what intelligence predominately does.
There are – generally – five scales of understanding/knowledge.
- Recall – Memory in short term; being able to recite a poem or fifteen digits of pi; “Jack London lived for 40 years”
- Use – Is able to recreate patterns but unable to see the reason why; writing about a quote you just read, analyzing new information that is not fully integrated into the brain as memory or other; “Jack London lived for 40 years, I think this is because of…”
- Knowledge – acquired arrays of memory on the long term that we regard as truth; “the earth is spherical”
- Understanding – Where the person interprets the idea and can actively add to it by using the meta-data from long term knowledge or nature; “the earth is spherical because gravity says so, and the proof is…”
- Creation – The concept is the person’s own understanding, the person accurately creates the reason why something is by analyzing all other reasons for reality to be as it is. Fundamentally reasoning the underlying logic for a thing being true; “in this other universe, the earth is not spherical and that’s because of…”
Intelligence from a logical standpoint, is the ability to convert ideas between logic, image and language. It is measured by very separate factors: speed, complexity, amount and adaptability of the person to the new information.
Measuring this is difficult for many reasons, for example:
- Provoking a thought reaction by using something that is the exact same for all humans
- Keeping up this response and not allowing learning of patterns through repetition or memory
- Gathering an accurate “measurement”; with speed of response relying on reflexes most of the time
Provoking a Reaction
The actual thing needed to start the reaction in the person to measure their ability to process the information needs to be able to be replicated with the same results for all possible participants.
One possibility is to make the information very abstract, deal with things all people know equally. This causes problems later however, meaning that the means to process the information can be learned.
Retaining Response Over Multiple Viewings
It’s debatable whether this is indeed possible, considering that the brain adjusts to calculation.
This idea needs to be able to be repeated multiple times without the subject being able to memorize or become accustomed to the questions or views.
A possibility is to – as with making it abstract – make it to the complexity that no actual system can be created easily, or that any system made would simply be working out the problem manually. An example is to make it a placement problem. E.g. “place box A into B, overlapping C which is separate from B.”
Gathering an Accurate Reading of a Person’s Intelligence
The problem here is quite simple, since a person’s reaction time (only if time based) relies on the individual’s reflexes. There is also the problem of their personality interfering, for example a person may work easily under pressure, but another might struggle; This would mean that if under timed conditions or if the person knew that they were being tested on reaction time, they would change their ability to consciously work out the problem.
And all this means…
That making an accurate test of intelligence is incredibly difficult if possible at all. However there are ways to improve accuracy. Most of this points to the fact that abstract ideas are more reliable in the measurement of intelligence than knowledge or real world ideas.
What is defined as psychological maturity?
Psychological Maturity is socialisation that occurs until approximately adolescence. It is the maturing process that makes humans able to understand what is acceptable and what is acceptable thought – not just actions. It effectively narrows down what is “normal” and changes the way the brain operates to compensate for the culture’s norms, becoming more efficient at carrying out these operations and prioritizing them.
From where is it attained
Rationally the only source of psychological maturity (not brain growth) is from the environment, meaning other humans. This is because if the brain already contained the information from the environment it would be accustomed instantly, and psychological maturity in society would change slowly if at all, and not reflect the society’s changes. Not only this but psychology over different cultures would be remarkably the same and children of other ethnicity or genetic make would be unable to change their psychological maturity by maturing in a different culture.
This also means the process itself is one similar to some parts of evolution.
Logic Loop Paradoxes
Firstly you have to understand why I call it a logic loop paradox instead of an ordinary one. The term logic loop paradox, as you can see, is made up of three words. Let’s deconstruct it.
Logic – Something that can only be one thing, if A is B, then A can’t not be B.
Loop – Something that alternates on ends, that “goes in circles”; Infinite loop.
Paradox – Something with two parts, that at first seems to contradict, but upon further viewing does not*.
*In this case, the italics are the part to ignore as we are talking about Logic paradoxes, not literary ones.
The type of paradox we’re talking about here is the kind that loops infinitely because it causes the other thing to be defined by the other, and vice versa.
And an example: “I am a liar” (with context that all liars must always lie, others always tell the truth).
I would recommend trying** to find an answer to this if you want to understand what this concept actually is.
The actual theory
Since these things can’t actually exist, we have to assume that anything that creates one is also not the answer.
This can narrow down the search for the answer to things by eliminating possibilities.
**There isn’t an answer, all possibilities create paradoxes. (apart from “the context is incorrect”)
Black is a bright color.
Black, (an absence of color/light) is considered dark, the opposite of “bright”. Something regarded as bright such as the color white, is the perfect inversion of black, therefore black is not a bright color.
Moderator edits the post to comply with the new logic:
Black, (the absence of light) is considered in normal society to be dark, the opposite of bright. Something regarded as bright such as the color white, is the perfect inversion of black on a color scale or in visual cues in humans. Therefore by definition and human design, black is not a bright color.
Black is a bright color.
Note: the original is kept as reference, and before changes are made a comment containing the original (version before change) is made so as to keep context in comments about certain versions.
Chances are you got redirected here because you wanted to know how to get your idea into Infactual as a topic. You can also become a contributor so you can just cue an idea and we’ll let it post. Until we know a person can be fully trusted, they will use that method. Another way, without contacting a moderator to approve your contributor status is this:
Comment here on this post and use this sort of form:
- What category it falls under (maths, social, fundamental etc.)
- What the basic idea is (one sentence usually)
- What evidence you have for it (if there is none don’t worry too much)
- If you want to be attributed to that version of it, say so
.Category -> defining
.The idea is that “infinite” has more than one value, or rather it is impossible to measure. It’s that because of this there is only one of infinite universe logic fact for each topic.
.As it is a base issue for other ideas
.Evidence is logic and mathematics
reliant on Infinities’ value for understanding of the concept of infinity as an adjective
An infinite series (note: only series) can be defined by the number created after a certain amount of iterations.
And an example.
(x,y) – > (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) (4,8) (5,10)
(x,y) – > (1,1) (2,4) (3,9) (4,16) (5,25)
Results after fifth iteration:
10 v.s. 25
Therefore we can say that y=x*x is a larger infinite number than y=x*2.
The reason this works is because of the nature of the series. The series does not change its pattern after a time (like sine), so you can take the first few steps of it and determine a difference.