Knowledge is a box… | binary-chaos
I actually tend to wonder if it’s a function of knowledge itself, as well as an issue with the physical optimization of the structures of the brain. The idea being that going into any particular framework deeply enough itself causes the need for the same toolset to be used to accomplish that task.
That’s not to say one can’t pull back and lift the veil after the fact. It might just be fundamentally difficult. Perhaps a multidisciplinary approach is needed as the brain is wired in the first place to keep the circuits open to easily seeing again in a different way without as much difficulty.
A phrase I came up with to describe it a long time ago was “multi-associative logic”. Where I realized that everything was the same thing ultimately. I had also realized though that it wasn’t just a matter of want, but that if we are not careful, perspectives literally calcify in the structures of the brain. To be as open as possible seems to actually require wiring it in a different way. And either way, it may simply be that even with all the amazing complexity involved, the brain’s tendency to optimize to any given reality through trimming (conservation) means that it does become more and more difficult to radically shift the options as we learn more and more.
It does imply we can see and understand things in radically different ways than we are even aware of, but that the way the formation happens is also practically limited, and for good reason. In fact the more disciplined and habituated we are, the more difficult it is. So by making ourselves extremely good at something, we may literally be closing doors to other forms of perception.
It is possibly just a biological limitation caused by the physical optimization, and an issue of time, as our lifespans are relatively short. It’s not set like concrete, as we do understand the brain is plastic to a degree, but still, this doesn’t mean the fundamental perspectives are likely to change without something else to help. Currently, the use of psychedelics are still an option for more than normal levels of change. But they still have limitations.
Perhaps when AI and nanotechnology are much more advanced this limitation can be lessened or eventually removed, such as changing the brain enough, or transferring consciousness into another form that is wired differently. Basically reframing or re lensing our capacities. But as it stands it could just be a hard problem.
Starting off multi-associatively would be a way to mitigate it to a point, but then over-generalizing itself might actually limit depth in some way.
The issue is that knowledge is a box, and is based on comparison to what isn’t known. As less and less isn’t known, there is less of a comparative reference and a depth of knowledge is lost. It might be that specialist optimization is required, but maybe those multiple entities optimizing in different ways is the better approach, and even itself a different kind of practical limit to how perception works whether physically or just logically. Then the idea of knowing everything as a way of being that has no useful context.
It’s why I ended up thinking the classical ideas about god ended up making no sense. A fully omniscient being would have no frame of reference to compare to. In this sense, knowledge might not only be a box, but only actually work and be useful as a box.
Once you move beyond that kind of knowledge I’d question whether you simply become what you understand, and are losing differentiation with it. Therefore God is the universe, but has no knowledge of it, ends up making a lot of sense.
That’s obviously the extreme of the proposition, but it illustrates the idea. That said, considering how limited we are as this form, no doubt there are other forms that can see more.
Using the analogy of computing and chip optimization is another easy way to get it. Not an exact comparison as we haven’t yet developed chips that rewire themselves yet, but the point is the same.
A general task CPU can do anything, but cannot do that at the levels of efficiency as a chip optimized for that task. Whereas an optimized chip does that specific thing amazingly well and with less effort, but cannot do other tasks even as well as the general logic main CPU.
Our brain is more like a CPU that can rewire, but the deeper the structure to the fundamentals, the harder the change is, until practicality is lost.
In this case as well we may actually want some people to specialize and not have some other capacity. That’s how an Einstein or Tesla or Newton can even exist. Having every optimization at once is likely not reasonable, and could lead to madness, which itself is a limitation on capacity.
It’s a balancing act, and we might realize that’s why working together has always been the best solution. As a strong argument, this gives a great example as to why fully connected interdependent social systems are the absolute best approach for human living. Like a complete organism, all of the people working together make the whole. What can be accomplished is not just the totality of the parts, but a compounded expression of knowledge and capability.
Originally published at https://www.binary-chaos.net.
