Do I truly know the goose, or am I simply aware of its existence? Considering the universe has not ended, it would seem that simply being aware of the goose’s existence is not enough to truly “know” the goose, and as such indicates that the word “unknowable” does not refer to knowledge of the goose’s existence, but instead refers to understanding the goose. This is a good example of knowing being erroneously conflated with understanding.
Understanding implies knowledge, but the reverse is untrue. Knowing that 2+2=4 doesn’t help you do simple arithmetic if you don’t understand why 2+2=4; it simply allows you to announce “4!” whenever asked what 2+2 is equal to. If you were asked, “what does 2+1 equal” you would be understandably befuddled as you lack the understanding to deduce that 2+1 is one less than 2+2, and therefore is equal to 3.
A good example of this concept could be the overhyped “LLM”. An LLM contains a lot of knowledge about many different things. However, it understands none of it. The result is that simple changes in how requests are phrased can radically change the accuracy of the information received. It doesn’t understand how a car works, and so it doesn’t understand that fueling a car with water is impossible. All it knows is that the word “gasoline” (or “petrol” for those of you in Europe) is typically involved when discussing cars, internal combustion, and fuel sources in the same breath.
To return to our goose, it seems the goose is perfectly knowable, in that I’m capable of being aware of its existence; but it is in fact the understanding of the goose which is impossible. I hope to understand the goose some day. Perhaps once this reality is gone, a newer, better one may take it’s place.
Do I truly know the goose, or am I simply aware of its existence? Considering the universe has not ended, it would seem that simply being aware of the goose’s existence is not enough to truly “know” the goose, and as such indicates that the word “unknowable” does not refer to knowledge of the goose’s existence, but instead refers to understanding the goose. This is a good example of knowing being erroneously conflated with understanding.
Understanding implies knowledge, but the reverse is untrue. Knowing that 2+2=4 doesn’t help you do simple arithmetic if you don’t understand why 2+2=4; it simply allows you to announce “4!” whenever asked what 2+2 is equal to. If you were asked, “what does 2+1 equal” you would be understandably befuddled as you lack the understanding to deduce that 2+1 is one less than 2+2, and therefore is equal to 3.
A good example of this concept could be the overhyped “LLM”. An LLM contains a lot of knowledge about many different things. However, it understands none of it. The result is that simple changes in how requests are phrased can radically change the accuracy of the information received. It doesn’t understand how a car works, and so it doesn’t understand that fueling a car with water is impossible. All it knows is that the word “gasoline” (or “petrol” for those of you in Europe) is typically involved when discussing cars, internal combustion, and fuel sources in the same breath.
To return to our goose, it seems the goose is perfectly knowable, in that I’m capable of being aware of its existence; but it is in fact the understanding of the goose which is impossible. I hope to understand the goose some day. Perhaps once this reality is gone, a newer, better one may take it’s place.
Yeah but you try saying ‘ununderstandable’ after a couple of drinks