is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
You Can’t Make Us Wear Those Veils
SCIENCE said:
You Can’t Make Us Wear Those Veils
seriously though, when you leap with your knowledge, how much latency is there about that as you simultaneously contribute to the study of your own ignorance
transition said:
is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
It doesn’t get a lot of publicity, but I think human ignorance has had a fair bit of study, over the millennia.
transition said:
is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
Dunning Krueger is usually presented as “stupid people don’t realize how stupid they are” or something similar. But the effect applies to all people, not just the stupid and ignorant. There’s an unintentional irony, that people will cite the Dunning Krueger Effect in a way which demonstrates their own ignorance of the conclusions of Dunning and Krueger, whilst only really demonstrating their own ignorance of the topic via the citation. To someone who’s really smrt, like me, it’s hilarious… until I remember it doesn’t matter how smart I am or how smart I think I am, I’m likely susceptible to the same said effect, and I’m likely laughing at my own ignorance rather than that of others.
To answer your question, though. The only animal existent on Earth capable of the level of abstraction required to recognize the concept of ignorance in a philosophical manner is humans.
Off-earth, we don’t know.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
It doesn’t get a lot of publicity, but I think human ignorance has had a fair bit of study, over the millennia.
sure it has
consider though, to move the conversation along, how much does knowing feel like a study of ignorance, ones own ignorance
transition said:
is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
The Meme Machine points out that there are three ways that a thinking creature may advance its knowledge.
The first is Pavlov – association of stimuluses.
The second is Skinner – punishment and reward.
The third is memetic – by imitation of others.
The one that most leads to a corresponding study of ignorance is Skinner.
Pavlovian learning leads to no corresponding study of ignorance at all.
Memetic learning tends to lead to a study of ignorance, but doesn’t have to. One can be perfectly ignorant of ones ignorance if one has learnt everything solely by copying others.
well to speak of knowledge might well imply a necessary appreciation of where it is lacking
There’s a huge evolutionary advantage for a species who’s brains evolve exclusively to treat objective reality as factual and immediate and unquestionable. But there’s also an advantage to abstracting narratives from real events. Human beings demonstrate the latter to a greater extent, other sentient animals the former. Questions about ignorance are purely abstract… the actuality of ignorance exists only as a directive to action which will average to survival rates.. It’s not a study, as such… it’s just the difference between life and death. Only humans can be ignorant. For others it’s just a question of whether they are acting in ways conducive to survival or not.
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
I’m afraid I have to agree with esselte there.
Indeed, acceptance of any nonsense presented with an air of authority seems to be a universal human trait.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
It’s extremely advantageous, and accounts for such things as the industrial and scientific revolutions, which have completely transformed the human experience in so many ways.
transition said:
is there a thinking creature that doesn’t advance its knowledge (or knowing) without some parallel study of its own ignorance
and if the human species managed to advance knowledge and knowing without a corresponding study of ignorance, how did it do that, what sort of hoodoo might that be
Can the universe think?
but tiny creatures on a planet that orbits a star in a galaxy full of millions of stars can.
Its a SF idea.
Maybe think is not the right word.
What if the universe was somehow self aware of itself
On a large scale, there are a lot of electromagnetic connections between galaxies that can carry information.
If the universe was not self aware what does that mean to life on planets that orbit stars?
History does celebrate numerous individuals who were able to specify facts about reality, but the vast majority of human history consists of the lives of the ignorant masses. So far, it’s proved a successful strategy… mass ignorance. The idea of a considered existence is very new… a few tens of thousands of years at the very best. Considered existence is not a proven strategy; not yet any way; not when compared to the alternative.
esselte said:
There’s a huge evolutionary advantage for a species who’s brains evolve exclusively to treat objective reality as factual and immediate and unquestionable. But there’s also an advantage to abstracting narratives from real events. Human beings demonstrate the latter to a greater extent, other sentient animals the former. Questions about ignorance are purely abstract… the actuality of ignorance exists only as a directive to action which will average to survival rates.. It’s not a study, as such… it’s just the difference between life and death. Only humans can be ignorant. For others it’s just a question of whether they are acting in ways conducive to survival or not.
Most animals learn the art of survival from experience or parental guidance and will exist in various stages of ignorance just as we do. Ignorance is not necessarily a permanent condition.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
It’s extremely advantageous, and accounts for such things as the industrial and scientific revolutions, which have completely transformed the human experience in so many ways.
Dismissing imagination is dismissing creativity.
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
I’m afraid I have to agree with esselte there.
Indeed, acceptance of any nonsense presented with an air of authority seems to be a universal human trait.
What you’re describing is the life experience of those of a comparatively primitive mindset, who have nonetheless benefited enormously from the people who can distinguish between reality and imagination.
It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
For deceivers and the deceived, and for the deluded, imaginative fancies (undisciplined by reason or science) are upheld as “the real word”.
That’s a vast difference between the use of basic human faculties, so much so that we may as well be very different species.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
It’s extremely advantageous, and accounts for such things as the industrial and scientific revolutions, which have completely transformed the human experience in so many ways.
Dismissing imagination is dismissing creativity.
What is an ignorant person?
Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated mean lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject.
Ignorance can appear in three different types: factual ignorance (absence of knowledge of some fact), object ignorance (unacquaintance with some object), and technical ignorance (absence of knowledge of how to do something).
“the real word” = “the real world”
But for the religious, “the real word” works as well :)
an interesting quote in a doco I watched today was a guy saying that the internet has allowed for people to be both educated and ignorant…. the problem was that the ignorant often find like minded people and convince themselves that they are woke.
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
I’m afraid I have to agree with esselte there.
Indeed, acceptance of any nonsense presented with an air of authority seems to be a universal human trait.
accept
wait, we’re not human
decline
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
First and foremost, we need humans who can distinguish between the real and the imagined, as a matter of educated instinct.
Well, no. If that was advantageous it would be an evolved trait of humanity. It’s not.
I’m afraid I have to agree with esselte there.
Indeed, acceptance of any nonsense presented with an air of authority seems to be a universal human trait.
I INSTANTLY BELIEVE YOU
>>>It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
You recognize the contradiction here though? That it’s vanishingly unlikely a uniquely human vision would accord with reality, or at least no more likely than a uniquely canine or uniquely arachnoid experience does.
esselte said:
>>>It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
You recognize the contradiction here though? That it’s vanishingly unlikely a uniquely human vision would accord with reality, or at least no more likely than a uniquely canine or uniquely arachnoid experience does.
It can accord with reality perfectly, if you recognise that it’s not real. That’s the crucial cognitive switch: “Here, we are doing art, not science”.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:>>>It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
You recognize the contradiction here though? That it’s vanishingly unlikely a uniquely human vision would accord with reality, or at least no more likely than a uniquely canine or uniquely arachnoid experience does.
It can accord with reality perfectly, if you recognise that it’s not real. That’s the crucial cognitive switch: “Here, we are doing art, not science”.
Is a beautiful spiders web art, would you say?
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:>>>It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
You recognize the contradiction here though? That it’s vanishingly unlikely a uniquely human vision would accord with reality, or at least no more likely than a uniquely canine or uniquely arachnoid experience does.
It can accord with reality perfectly, if you recognise that it’s not real. That’s the crucial cognitive switch: “Here, we are doing art, not science”.
Is a beautiful spiders web art, would you say?
no, it isn’t art.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:>>>It’s a complicated topic for an artist like me, who works with and lauds the creative imagination. For me, recognising imaginative work as imaginative work is a source of pride, and I strive to create imaginative works that offer a uniquely human vision of human experience, that nonetheless accords with the world in which we find ourselves, and with rationally defensible ethics.
You recognize the contradiction here though? That it’s vanishingly unlikely a uniquely human vision would accord with reality, or at least no more likely than a uniquely canine or uniquely arachnoid experience does.
It can accord with reality perfectly, if you recognise that it’s not real. That’s the crucial cognitive switch: “Here, we are doing art, not science”.
Is a beautiful spiders web art, would you say?
No.
Can only humans create art?
esselte said:
Can only humans create art?
not sure.
esselte said:
Can only humans create art?
Of course. It’s an entirely human concept.
Is this the creation of art?
esselte said:
Can only humans create art?
haha, depends on definitions.
Is a bower bird’s nest “art”?
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
No
esselte said:
Can only humans create art?
nope.
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
Within this or that human mind, it might be. The pig couldn’t give a fuck :)
ChrispenEvan said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
No
Separate from the picture being painted, is the idea of a pig creating a painting an artistic concept?
more specifically elephants have been observed ‘drawing’ with a stick in dirt… so that’s a kind of art…
esselte said:
ChrispenEvan said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
No
Separate from the picture being painted, is the idea of a pig creating a painting an artistic concept?
in a sense it is. i’m more of the idea that the pig would have to decide what it used to create its art. a pig painting is us imposing our concepts of art onto the pig.
ChrispenEvan said:
esselte said:
ChrispenEvan said:No
Separate from the picture being painted, is the idea of a pig creating a painting an artistic concept?
in a sense it is. i’m more of the idea that the pig would have to decide what it used to create its art. a pig painting is us imposing our concepts of art onto the pig.
As I said, the concept of “art” is meaningful only to humans. So those recognising spider webs or pig daubs as “art” are confusing human experience with the wider world, and in these cases, engaging in a particularly silly kind of “cognitive imperialism”.
Bubblecar said:
As I said, the concept of “art” is meaningful only to humans. So those recognising spider webs or pig daubs as “art” are confusing human experience with the wider world, and in these cases, engaging in a particularly silly kind of “cognitive imperialism”.
I agree, except I simply feel that those recognizing human daubs as “art” are engaging in similar cognitive imperialism – as if our human experience is substantially different and superior to that of a pig. Which it might be… but there isn’t really any evidence of that, so why should we assume that it is?
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
As I said, the concept of “art” is meaningful only to humans. So those recognising spider webs or pig daubs as “art” are confusing human experience with the wider world, and in these cases, engaging in a particularly silly kind of “cognitive imperialism”.
I agree, except I simply feel that those recognizing human daubs as “art” are engaging in similar cognitive imperialism – as if our human experience is substantially different and superior to that of a pig. Which it might be… but there isn’t really any evidence of that, so why should we assume that it is?
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
As I said, the concept of “art” is meaningful only to humans. So those recognising spider webs or pig daubs as “art” are confusing human experience with the wider world, and in these cases, engaging in a particularly silly kind of “cognitive imperialism”.
I agree, except I simply feel that those recognizing human daubs as “art” are engaging in similar cognitive imperialism – as if our human experience is substantially different and superior to that of a pig. Which it might be… but there isn’t really any evidence of that, so why should we assume that it is?
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
…but we can be sure they don’t give a fuck about art :)
If we look at art as a way of decorating then certainly many animals decorate their living places/selves in ways that might be considered artistic… to attract a mate or indicate genetic wealth or sturdiness.
if we look at art for the sake fo saying look at what I can do that you cannot… then maybe not.the second way is far more human.
Bubblecar said:
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
Because anything that accords with reality would be similar for pigs and humans. Both species exist in the same reality. It’s not different for different species. So there’s no reason to think that a “uniquely human vision” accords with reality and a uniquely porcine vision does not.
ChrispenEvan said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
No
It’s Francis Bacon.
Neophyte said:
ChrispenEvan said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
No
It’s Francis Bacon.
Pablo Pigasso.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
Because anything that accords with reality would be similar for pigs and humans. Both species exist in the same reality. It’s not different for different species. So there’s no reason to think that a “uniquely human vision” accords with reality and a uniquely porcine vision does not.
You misunderstand. A uniquely human vision accords with human experience. It only accords with reality if those promoting the vision recognise the various distinctions between human experience and reality.
Pigs couldn’t give a fuck about these First World Problems :)
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
Because anything that accords with reality would be similar for pigs and humans. Both species exist in the same reality. It’s not different for different species. So there’s no reason to think that a “uniquely human vision” accords with reality and a uniquely porcine vision does not.
You misunderstand. A uniquely human vision accords with human experience. It only accords with reality if those promoting the vision recognise the various distinctions between human experience and reality.
Pigs couldn’t give a fuck about these First World Problems :)
And what the fuck has has art, imagination and anything else got to do with ignorance. So a pig is ignorant of art, but we are ignorant of what the pig is thinking. What a silly discussion.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
Why bother comparing? We don’t know what the pigs think of these matters.
Because anything that accords with reality would be similar for pigs and humans. Both species exist in the same reality. It’s not different for different species. So there’s no reason to think that a “uniquely human vision” accords with reality and a uniquely porcine vision does not.
You misunderstand. A uniquely human vision accords with human experience. It only accords with reality if those promoting the vision recognise the various distinctions between human experience and reality.
Pigs couldn’t give a fuck about these First World Problems :)
A simple example: human belief in god reflects a certain tendency amongst some humans to want to believe that the universe is shaped by human design, cognition, experience etc. This does not reflect reality outside of the human mind.
The imagination of a rational artist such as myself accepts that what I explore is imaginary: I am presenting a vision of the world that reflects my subjective experience of it. But because I accept that subjective viewpoint, you can trust me not to confuse my visions with the world as measured by science. My imaginings, as a contribution to uniquely human experience, are compatible with our place in the wider world. They are honest hopes and fears.
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
like that’s good
transition said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
like that’s good
Afraid I still can’t see the connection of creativity and ignorance, which seemed to be the main issue in the earlier discussion.
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
like that’s good
Afraid I still can’t see the connection of creativity and ignorance, which seemed to be the main issue in the earlier discussion.
Must be nice to know everything, but very frustrating to be surrounded by the rest of humanity who are so dumb.
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:
transition said:like that’s good
Afraid I still can’t see the connection of creativity and ignorance, which seemed to be the main issue in the earlier discussion.
Must be nice to know everything, but very frustrating to be surrounded by the rest of humanity who are so dumb.
Could be boring to know everything: no more surprises.
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:
PermeateFree said:Afraid I still can’t see the connection of creativity and ignorance, which seemed to be the main issue in the earlier discussion.
Must be nice to know everything, but very frustrating to be surrounded by the rest of humanity who are so dumb.
Could be boring to know everything: no more surprises.
How would any of us know? We are the sum of others and even taken as a whole our intelligence is still lacking just that.
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:It’s extremely advantageous, and accounts for such things as the industrial and scientific revolutions, which have completely transformed the human experience in so many ways.
Dismissing imagination is dismissing creativity.
What is an ignorant person?
Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated mean lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject.Ignorance can appear in three different types: factual ignorance (absence of knowledge of some fact), object ignorance (unacquaintance with some object), and technical ignorance (absence of knowledge of how to do something).
Ignorance is implicit in the formation of the word. It refers to the ignorance of the knowledge accrued by others.
It does not refer to the lack of knowledge but more to the not taking on of the knowledge offered.
the OP’s a variation on I am in-large-part what I don’t know, I was using ignorance in a soft, even positive way, but was bordering something else regard knowing, the proposition was of, if, knowing without a parallel study of self-ignorance happens, or whether the two invariably occur substantially equally together
PermeateFree said:
transition said:
esselte said:
Is this the creation of art?
like that’s good
Afraid I still can’t see the connection of creativity and ignorance, which seemed to be the main issue in the earlier discussion.
probably need consider protoart of toddlers, or infants
clearly art is a representational effort, though need not be of a definable thing, in fact it could be an accident, for the person doing the art most efforts involve some feedback between what is seen and what is done (felt in some way), or of the latter what happens or happened, so there’s a mind in there somewhere, the work of
of another observer, of whatever, thing, but perhaps more important the effort, or accident, i’d expect art may (to generalize) provoke a notion of possibility space, the potentials of the representational field
ChrispenEvan said:
sorry ¿ Fuck that
transition said:
the OP’s a variation on I am in-large-part what I don’t know, I was using ignorance in a soft, even positive way, but was bordering something else regard knowing, the proposition was of, if, knowing without a parallel study of self-ignorance happens, or whether the two invariably occur substantially equally together
Neither invariably nor equally.
I’ve already said how the ratio depends on whether the learning is Popov, Skinner or memetic.
With the loss of punishment as a dominant method of learning (Skinner), self-ignorance increases. Given a completely cushy lifestyle (ie. away from the bottom row of Maslow’s triangle), self-knowledge vanishes and self-ignorance completely takes over.
Until such time as health failures force us back onto the bottom row of Maslow, and self-knowledge increases.
>I’ve already said how the ratio depends on whether the learning is Popov, Skinner or memetic
i’d expect learning can be none of those things, especially given much of everything is probably more accidents
transition said:
>I’ve already said how the ratio depends on whether the learning is Popov, Skinner or memetici’d expect learning can be none of those things, especially given much of everything is probably more accidents
Popov is learning by spotting correlation between accidents.
Skinner is learning by avoiding accidents.
Memetic is learning by copying accidents.
Or you can think of it this way.
What we know is what’s shown on our graphical user interface.
What we are is what’s running on our computer.
Self-ignorance is the difference between the two.
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
>I’ve already said how the ratio depends on whether the learning is Popov, Skinner or memetici’d expect learning can be none of those things, especially given much of everything is probably more accidents
That’s in there.Popov is learning by spotting correlation between accidents.
Skinner is learning by avoiding accidents.
Memetic is learning by copying accidents.Or you can think of it this way.
What we know is what’s shown on our graphical user interface.
What we are is what’s running on our computer.
Self-ignorance is the difference between the two.
yeah but people intentionally limit what they do, they don’t do a lot, there’s value in that not done, you can’t define all that isn’t done, hasn’t been done, it’s an attribute of possibility space, that not done and that that won’t be done, it’s not a (physical) thing, but it’s real
from that above i’d suggest all learning is not as you say
transition said:
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
>I’ve already said how the ratio depends on whether the learning is Popov, Skinner or memetici’d expect learning can be none of those things, especially given much of everything is probably more accidents
That’s in there.Popov is learning by spotting correlation between accidents.
Skinner is learning by avoiding accidents.
Memetic is learning by copying accidents.Or you can think of it this way.
What we know is what’s shown on our graphical user interface.
What we are is what’s running on our computer.
Self-ignorance is the difference between the two.
yeah but people intentionally limit what they do, they don’t do a lot, there’s value in that not done, you can’t define all that isn’t done, hasn’t been done, it’s an attribute of possibility space, that not done and that that won’t be done, it’s not a (physical) thing, but it’s real
from that above i’d suggest all learning is not as you say
> it’s not a (physical) thing, but it’s real
Using HG Wells analogy, this is knowledge space outside the human mind, in the sense that much of the ocean is outside the coral reef. It has nothing to do with learning except where it intersects the boundary of the coral reef.
Tau.Neutrino said:
false
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
false
Well yes, obviously the yellow bit should be very close to 100%, perhaps exactly 100%.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
false
Well yes, obviously the yellow bit should be very close to 100%, perhaps exactly 100%.
nearly infinite, hence the benefit of using a linear rather than disc fractional plot
Is this better ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Is this better ?
Ill update it again to include all the knowledge we will never discover.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Is this better ?
Ill update it again to include all the knowledge we will never discover.
lol thanks
we apologise for the earlier abrupt judgement and hope it is merely the technical meaning you can drive from it, and mean no harsh intent from it
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Is this better ?
Ill update it again to include all the knowledge we will never discover.
lol thanks
we apologise for the earlier abrupt judgement and hope it is merely the technical meaning you can drive from it, and mean no harsh intent from it
I hope Socrates doesn’t mind me changing his diagram and adding in another observation.