Yes, within the context of the question. To ensure semantic fidelity,
ideas must be communicated in their associated context. A different
context imbues the semantics with a different meaning.
Tim asked if anyone noticed that we were talking about two different
things (knowledge and wisdom). I attempted to show through analogy that
they are different from a functional point of view, but they cannot be
deemed different from a structural point of view, since one
(atoms/knowledge) is a subset (is completely contained within) the other
(molecules/wisdom).
This duality is a ubiquitous and unavoidable hallmark of a universe
driven by the process of evolution, and therefore composed of ever more
complex and hierarchically-dependant levels of emergence. This not only
determines the nature of what we perceive, it also constrains the relevance
of our analysis to a prescribed context. Therefore, for a discussion to
maintain relevance and coherence, a context must be either express or
implied. To avoid endless recapitulation of caveats and provisional
statements, the parties to a discussion thread usually rely on implied
context (i.e: "So, at this level of analysis, it can be seen that....",
"In one sense it can be argued that....") or on continuity; that is, what
has been deemed to be understood by all parties in previous discussions.
Dualism, by its very nature, also precludes an ultimate categorical
classification of characteristics between things (e.g.: "Are atoms
different than molecules?"...."Well, yes and no..."). Ironically, humans
react negatively to this inability to exclusively categorize perceived
phenomenon due to the most important aspect of their intelligence; the
ability to perceive patterns in their environment, or simply "pattern
recognition". This effect can be mitigated somewhat by analyzing things
from a broader and deeper perspective; that is, analyzing things from a
more "wholistic" perspective. Some people call this the "Big Picture".
Indeed, this dissatisfaction with seemingly irreconcilable
characteristics, such as the dualism between the wave and particle nature
of photons, has been one of the biggest driving forces in the reductionist
approach to the investigation of the nature of things, and has had great
success, as when further work showed them to be different aspects of the
same phenomenon in quantum theory. But quantum theory, in turn, betrayed
its own dualism, the Pauli exclusion principle.
Doubtless, further reduction will resolve this exclusion as different
aspects of the same thing yet again, but will fail to address the
broader, not just the deeper issues. It is seeing things in a broader
sense, I believe, that allowed Darwin to notice the process of
biological evolution. But if anyone had asked him "What mechanism
carries these traits from one generation to the other, and what
specifically changes?", he might have replied "Heck, I don't know,
all I'm trying to do is point out a pattern I've noticed in how life
behaves in general.".
It seems apparent that taking the reductionist understanding of the
structure of things along with the broader understanding of how things
function in the cosmos that has allowed some, of late, to notice the
following wholistic pattern: that evolution is not simply restricted to
biology; that it should be more broadly defined as "change" rather than
"random mutation", and simply "selection" rather than "natural selection"
culminating in the description "change and selection".
Memetics, as I understand, is based partly on this realization; that
it is simply another emergent level of complexity in the evolving
universe, just as all the emergent levels before it, and operates on
that substrate, just as all subordinate levels operate on previous
ones.
It might also be useful to point out that wholistic investigation,
or cosmology, for lack of a better term, is dualistic in itself,
where broad interpretation of function, and deep investigation of
structure, are part and parcel of the same thing. What emerges from
their interaction is a more fundamental understanding of the nature of
existence.
John Dale wrote:
>We can string knowledge together to form
>molecular chains out of atomic facts, but this is not a
>sufficient condition to give us wisdom, IMO.
This only makes sense to me if I read it as "We can string atomic
knowledge together to form molecular wisdom chains", but the reference
to "facts" is inaccurate in this context. It is not synonymous with
either wisdom or knowledge, so I'm not sure how you meant it to be
interpreted. Facts are discrete units of information; they exist
independently from cognition, and therefore do not require a mind to
acknowledge them, hence the term "knowledge". The same is true for
wisdom, as knowledge is subordinate to it.
However, in reference to what I believe is the essence of your
statement, I would have to say yes, and no. It depends on what you
mean by the verb "to string", in this context. if you mean that
simply "putting units of knowledge together in close proximity"
(euphemistically speaking) is enough to create wisdom, then no, it is
not sufficient. If, on the other hand, by "stringing together" you
mean to imply "using the process of cognitive association" (i.e:
thinking about these things that you know), then yes, it is enough.
It is by the process of associating different memes (ideas, thoughts,
knowledge etc, including memories of previous thinking regarding these
ideas, thoughts, knowledge, etc, ad nauseam) that allows your brain's
intrinsic pattern recognition ability to draw conclusions,
inferences and deductions from patterns made apparent through these
associations, and what may emerge is a higher level of abstraction
(understanding, or even wisdom).
The critical point to make here is that memes (bits of information,
for lack of a short definition) do not contain nor
manifest their own intentionality, and your memesphere
(that is, the sum total of all the bits of information, and all
the associations of bits of information, ....and all the emergent
patterns of associations of bits of information in your brain)
is (at this level of analysis), functionally distinct from
the biological function of the brain itself. The brain's intrinsic
intelligence, tightly coupled with the operation of the limbic
system, manifests its own emergent: cognition, or "thinking". The
limbic system provides the primal drives and urges, while intelligence
provides a mechanism to perceive patterns that enables associating
things in the environment with the promise of satisfying the
corresponding urges and drives. When the association and subsequent
attainment is successful, the association is reinforced, when it
is unsuccessful, it is weakened; but either way, the experience
causes re-thinking or re-cognition (recognition) that serves to
further develop the set of associations in the brain.
This process, iterated countless trillions of times in ways large
and small, gross and subtle, experiential or introspective, builds,
over time, the size and complexity of the set of associations in the
brain, and hence the depth in the level of abstractions therein.
In essence, the limbic system is the motivator, the cortical
structures are the facilitator, and the memesphere is the resulting
set of (associations (of associations (of associations..of
patterns))) received by the senses. These co-operate in synergy to
produce the emergent property of individual awareness; i.e: the
human mind.
The symbolic representation of information (language) together
with the vectors to reproduce it, or "communicate" (e.g.: speaking
and listening, reading and writing), as well as a plurality of minds
each able to recognize the benefits to itself, operate in synergy to
produce the emergent property of "culture" or "memetics".
John Dale wrote:
> In moments where I experience what I might call wisdom, it
>feels more like my awareness acquires an added dimension
>which surrounds facts in a kind of depth.
An apt euphemism.
John Dale wrote:
> We also could possibly note that there is a wisdom which
>can follow from facts, and also a wisdom which can precede
>facts.
I can't parse this with any confidence. This kind of statement begs
for an example.
John Dale wrote:
> There is perhaps also a value dimension to wisdom which
>goes beyond fact.
Consistent with the above passages, I would say that there is
a "values" dimension (or "philosophy intended to circumscribe
behaviour") which either arises from wisdom or /is/ wisdom, and
therefore transcends and includes "fact", which is merely
formatted information intended to transmit knowledge, much as
metaphor is formatted knowledge intended to transmit understanding,
and as parable is formatted understanding intended to transmit
wisdom.
John Dale wrote:
> Sincerely,
>
> John Dale
Dan Plante
------------------------------------------
instincts --> input
input + thinking --> data
data + thinking --> information
information + thinking --> knowledge
knowledge + thinking --> understanding
understanding + thinking --> wisdom
wisdom + thinking -->
------------------------------------------