Saiyan300Warrior

Thanks for explaining!

I wasn't going to use "linear thinking" but I googled it and it said "step by step thinking" is what it means. I just wanted to use linear thinking to sound smarter lol So you talking about the brain and how it deals with memory? The brain is so complex based on human studies so I can't really speak for it besides through my own one. To me it seems like an eagle soaring the sky, sees lots of stuff from high up but in order to get its prey it has to kind of 0 in on one thing when going towards the ground and so doesn't see all the stuff (kinda bigger eagle eye picture) anymore. Maybe that is what I am talking about is we can't just fully function on all memories at once, the toolbox like you say... and we have to 0 in on a small piece of knowledge like an eagle and from the ground we do step by step thinking, maybe being in the sky is like memories + imagination... I don't know.

Seems like its only a big question because some person or group with academic reputation said its a problem and big question. Also seems more like a philosophical math question in a way and with those you can come with your own ones and can just consider them some paradoxical or tricky type of questions that have no answer. Could P vs NP be a stupid question that ignores common sense (how human thinking is hardwired which I talked about in my other question which wonders about human step by step kind of thinking and that no P doesn't equal to NP) and is similar to other tricky questions many people come up with. So maybe all together it's math/philosophy and psychology (biology at heart because it's how our brain is wired, or philosophy if you consider self awareness as the only true knowledge) question. I mean how with how we understand our thought patterns and add to that a problem which caters to our step by step thought patterns are we going to answer it with a P = NP if that is just opposite to how we naturally think (what I mean is take a problem that has 2 steps and compare it to a problem that has more than 2 steps). Yeah we have imagination that we think is limitless which we can use to even think up the question of P vs NP and what may not be P != NP but it just goes back to how the world really works based on what we can grasp which is based on how we are physically made which has limits from a perspective.

I was wondering if when you break down all kinds of knowledge in different fields if you get something as simple as a linear pattern, point a to point b. For example people sometimes prize themselves on the fact that they have specialised knowledge in certain knowledge fields like math or science or economics etc. I am wondering if learning anything and everything since we can't change the way we are built (for now since maybe genetic engineering could or if you are born with disability/disfunction) for most people is simply from a linear pattern of going from points a to b to c to d to e etc... I don't know if I am explaining it right but what I AM explaining is very simple concept to define human way of thinking and solving problems. Also not so much the theory of the knowledge where you get into detail of how different steps are but the essence of it where you can go from point to point in simple steps. Am I being clear and just wasting words trying to explain something very simple? But I think when people do biology related subjects they say that this part of the brain means this way of thinking, this part is that and etc. I think I am talking more from a philosophy point of view or psychology maybe. I think things like memory, eyes seeing different textures, objects, more than 1 thing and way brain functions factors for how there is variety in knowledge but simple linear thinking seems to be pattern in all knowledge based on my own self-understanding... here to there, this step after that, point a to point b etc

Yes but what is the point of that analysis for those people? To gather 1000 plus points on an internet forum?

But it does old sport, you see if you believe in something then you think something is true, that is the knowledge I am referring to, the "I know" as a prefix to any given sentence. It certainly does old sport.

Some people just trying to make that paper ya dig, what fk is to give to analysis that doesn't help them survive.

Ex. "I know that zapatos is a cool name" - "I know" - self doing the act of knowing, "that zapatos is a cool name" - description of what the self is knowing. So really if you think about it, we know nothing because knowledge implies truth and truth is just a belief concept that we decide for. All this "evidence and schmancy pancy empirical data bla bla bla" can be broken down to the self doing the act of knowing, truth is, everything simply is. We live in a world of ideas due to being built with a brain I believe and the ones we usually raise with utmost value are the "beliefs" (knowledge that we consider true), you get what I'm sayin'?

Which finger am I holding up?

Because that is the nature of knowledge and truth itself. It is belief. "I know that this is an object", you believe it is an object because without thinking about it much because you been taught in school about it being an object and you being active in "knowing" something. To know is to believe, to state what is true is to believe. We know nothing, things just exist. More philosophy answer I guess. I ain't no scientist.

An age of information? An age of misinformation? An age of Trump? gang gang Seriously though how would you describe the age we are living in with a simple title if you could? God bless everyone

Was just going to say something like Area54, Aliens could be much different than we imagine, they would maybe interpret the world in a different way.

Thanks for you answer my friend. I think I am talking about scientific discovery.

Wow they are cool AF, thanks for writing that down... Google: "While strangely cute, these tiny animals are almost indestructible and can even survive in outer space"

I think I am talking about scientific discovery, with a lot of physics having well established scientific laws, if something novel came out that was applied science invention, most likely it would be coupled with a scientific discovery (more likely other way around, scientific discover -> invention) which again leads me to think that it is best left to the scientists who work on this stuff for a living.