What is the difference between thinking and knowing?

I really don't even know how to frame this question or elaborate without sounding like an idiot. I suppose the title says it all.

The only thing that sort of helps distinguish the two (for me) is the notion that knowing doesn't require thought. We can interpret knowing through thought but cannot know any given thing through thought alone. Or something like that. But then how can I know that I cannot know through thought alone if thought lead me to that very conclusion? Pondering this question has been a maze, traversing through one hall of mirrors after another.

But really, there is a difference - a behemoth of a difference. It's not like we're splitting hairs here. What say you ATS? What is the difference between thinking and knowing?

I'm eager to hear your answers, reflections, "thoughts", etc.

Post Script: Sorry this is such a short post. I realize one-liner threads are becoming an unwelcome trend here on ATS; but really this is about what my ATS family has to say on the matter - not what I have to say. Because ... I don't know what to say.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Dear followtheevidence,

If you are happy and you know it, clap your hands. You can know yourself. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am". A first principle of philosophy. As we move from it we stop having knowledge; but, if we believe something and it is supported by either logic or physical evidence then we consider it closer to knowledge than to just some thought.

The truth is objective; but, our ability to understand it is limited. We believe many things to differing levels. I don't believe the moon is made of cheese; but, I cannot prove that it is not; however, it would not fit in with any tested or logical methods of thinking. Hope that helps get the discussion going. Peace.

Thinking leaves room for deliberation.
Knowing is decisive, like what Christians call faith.
Gnostics believe actively choosing to "know" something is a magical act. It ties in to the belief that reality will attempt to accommodate consciousness.
They may have been on to something, they were labeled heretics by the Vatican.

Castaneda's Don Jaun Matus (sp?) has a similar understanding.

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I really don't even know how to frame this question or elaborate without sounding like an idiot. I suppose the title says it all.

The only thing that sort of helps distinguish the two (for me) is the notion that knowing doesn't require thought. We can interpret knowing through thought but cannot know any given thing through thought alone. Or something like that. But then how can I know that I cannot know through thought alone if thought lead me to that very conclusion? Pondering this question has been a maze, traversing through one hall of mirrors after another.

But really, there is a difference - a behemoth of a difference. It's not like we're splitting hairs here. What say you ATS? What is the difference between thinking and knowing?

I'm eager to hear your answers, reflections, "thoughts", etc.

Post Script: Sorry this is such a short post. I realize one-liner threads are becoming an unwelcome trend here on ATS; but really this is about what my ATS family has to say on the matter - not what I have to say. Because ... I don't know what to say.

Thoughts are information perceived.

Knowing is the understanding of the perceived information.

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I really don't even know how to frame this question or elaborate without sounding like an idiot. I suppose the title says it all.

The only thing that sort of helps distinguish the two (for me) is the notion that knowing doesn't require thought. We can interpret knowing through thought but cannot know any given thing through thought alone. Or something like that. But then how can I know that I cannot know through thought alone if thought lead me to that very conclusion? Pondering this question has been a maze, traversing through one hall of mirrors after another.

But really, there is a difference - a behemoth of a difference. It's not like we're splitting hairs here. What say you ATS? What is the difference between thinking and knowing?

I'm eager to hear your answers, reflections, "thoughts", etc.

Post Script: Sorry this is such a short post. I realize one-liner threads are becoming an unwelcome trend here on ATS; but really this is about what my ATS family has to say on the matter - not what I have to say. Because ... I don't know what to say.

Aristotle had a good way of stating that the axiom is evident, but not apart from a higher truth. If I said, "if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than the two right angles." Is this evident to you?

Thinking is the process to reveal what is already there within yourself. Knowing is the point at which you arrive back where you started. Aristotle said that all truth is already written on the heart. Intuition is the key to knowing. We are in an image created by God. Within the image, we can know nothing apart from realizing the thing that cast the image. For all observers, there must be a thing observed and compared to the original. God per-exists and all truth is preexistent.

NOUS allows us to see.

Originally posted by tanda7
Thinking leaves room for deliberation.
Knowledge is decisive, like what Christians call faith.
Gnostics believe actively choosing to "know" something is a magical act. It ties in to the belief that reality will attempt to accommodate consciousness.
They may have been on to something, they were labeled heretics by the Vatican.

Castaneda's Don Jaun Matus (sp?) has a similar understanding.

A good way to think of faith is "knowing in action". Faith is the act of knowing. Although it's meaning, as expressed by Gnostics has been lost and confused with the idea of uninformed belief.

But "faith", in the gospels is meant to be the act of knowing. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I (am) know(ing) God"

reply to post by rwfresh

Thoughts are information perceived.

Knowing is the understanding of the perceived information.

I may be misunderstanding the question. The difference between THINKING and knowing.
Not thoughts and knowledge.

As in; I think it may rain vs. I know it will rain

Originally posted by tanda7
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Thoughts are information perceived.

Knowing is the understanding of the perceived information.

I may be misunderstanding the question. The difference between THINKING and knowing.
Not thoughts.
As in; I think it may rain-I know it will rain

Thinking is the act/experience of perceiving thoughts.

Thinking is the studious mind, the intelligent side.

Knowing is knowledge, knowledge is wisdom.

Wisdom is earned through experience.

Thinking leads to experience.

reply to post by rwfresh


What is the difference between thinking god exist and knowing god exist?

Faith
(this is just an example to illustrate my train of thought, not a personal statement of any kind)

A good way to think of faith is "knowing in action". Faith is the act of knowing. Although it's meaning, as expressed by Gnostics has been lost and confused with the idea of uninformed belief.

But "faith", in the gospels is meant to be the act of knowing. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I (am) know(ing) God"

We seem to be on the same page

reply to post by rwfresh


Dear rwfresh,

But "faith", in the gospels is meant to be the act of knowing. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I (am) know(ing) God"

While I did not approach my answer from a spiritual standpoint, I am quite aware of the answer you gave and would like to share something with you. In the Old Testament a word was used for faith, it was used in a couple of instances and one was when Moses leaned on his staff. He didn't just believe it would hold him up, he acted on it. Faith means trust and not just a thought. The term used in the Old Testament is closer to relied upon, that the person believed something so much that they would risk their life. That is why the term "know" can also be used.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Does this perhaps summerize what you're asking???


4 phases of learning

Unconscious incompetence
don’t know that you don’t know

Conscious incompetence
know that you you don’t know

Conscious competence
conscious thought process/effort
stage of development of habits

Unconscious competence
automatic doing
habit

Thinking is more accurate than knowing because noone knows anything for sure. We could be participants in a computer program designed by beings that have technology beyond our comprehension. This could all be an illusion. If that is true than everything we know could be wrong. Till I know for sure, I will keep learning and try to retain as much knowledge as I can, checking everything for validity from many different sources. What we are led to believe by others is often distorted for many different reasons.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Dear rwfresh,

But "faith", in the gospels is meant to be the act of knowing. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I (am) know(ing) God"

While I did not approach my answer from a spiritual standpoint, I am quite aware of the answer you gave and would like to share something with you. In the Old Testament a word was used for faith, it was used in a couple of instances and one was when Moses leaned on his staff. He didn't just believe it would hold him up, he acted on it. Faith means trust and not just a thought. The term used in the Old Testament is closer to relied upon, that the person believed something so much that they would risk their life. That is why the term "know" can also be used.

Hmm cool, would like to read the Moses story. i agree with what you are saying. The mistranslation is evident when reading the Nag.. It's definitely not meant to mean belief. That is not what they were talking about.

Originally posted by tanda7
reply to post by rwfresh

 

What is the difference between thinking god exist and knowing god exist?

Faith
(this is just an example to illustrate my train of thought, not a personal statement of any kind)

A good way to think of faith is "knowing in action". Faith is the act of knowing. Although it's meaning, as expressed by Gnostics has been lost and confused with the idea of uninformed belief.

But "faith", in the gospels is meant to be the act of knowing. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I (am) know(ing) God"

We seem to be on the same page

edit on 15-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)

Ha yeah i think so too!

reply to post by followtheevidence


The conscious water is from tetrahedron quantum coherence -- Dr. Mae-Wan Ho gives the details

So reality is actually "quantum jazz" as knowing -- and the tetrahedron is how the water then organizes reality -- the process of the tetrahedron as the time-frequency uncertainty principle using quantum entanglement.

So if you sit in full lotus yoga position that is the tetrahedron and then you will experience the difference between knowing and thinking. As your Nondualist description notes -- knowing as formless awareness is called "mouna" or silence samadhi -- it is eternal listening as infinite resonance -- using logical inference of the I-thought.

The I-thought is the only thought that has no signifier and signified. So if you repeat I-I-I in your mind not as a mantra but as a logical enquiry into the source of your thoughts then you find out what true knowing is. So all thoughts are based on the I-thought and so by repeating I-I-I in your mind then eventually it congeals into one thought as the I-thought but then the subconscious thoughts arise that also must be emptied out by repeating I-I-I more and more.

This is mind yoga but the mind on its own is weak -- it's like trying to turn a bike wheel by just holding the hub. In actually the I-thought is the one as the number but it is not a normal number one -- because based on time-frequency uncertainty number is not symmetric by geometry. So that the tetrahedron implodes or resonates into the formless quantum entanglement.

So the process of knowing is something that is eternal yet we already are part of it so when we logically infer the source of the I-thought we are actually listening to knowing as infinite consciousness that we always-already are. So we are resonating with knowing and this process then creates energy transformation as light energy and electromagnetic energy and emotional electrochemical energy and also spacetime transformation like precognition and even astral travel and telekinesis and levitation and even bilocation.

But all of those abilities are just other aspects of thinking as holographic visions -- just coherent light energy while knowing itself is the formless awareness as the time-frequency uncertainty also called complementary opposites resonance - the Pythagorean Tetrad aka the three gunas of Indian philosophy aka the Tai Chi symbol of Taoism.

So to activate knowing it must work through heart-mind-pineal gland connection as the heart is the holographic spirit energy that is then transmitted externally through the pineal gland and this then interacts with the spacetime reference externally. This process is impersonal but also manifests out of love-being or bliss-being. Ramana Maharshi calls this the "three in one" secret -- again it is what I referred to above - the infinite process of knowledge as formless awareness is this foundational process with the love-bliss as electrochemical energy and the thoughts-visions as electromagnetic energy.

So you could say that knowing is the spacetime vortex aka the Emptiness aka formless awareness while thoughts are the holographic spirit realm. Modern humans are left-brain dominant so we think of thoughts as words but the older language gets the more musical it is and in reality -- music is right brain dominant -- and nonwestern music is trance music used to create the light energy. Sonoluminescence and sonofusion. This is also the secret of rainbow water as sonofusion.

So the collagen in our bodies acts as the piezoelectric ultrasound energy points for acupuncture and through the three in one process of knowing -- the energy then increases - this is how the full lotus yoga position works. But you can also activate it through the "small universe" meditation as the foundation practice requiring just sitting in a chair - springforestqigong.com... for details. But I like the full lotus as it is obviously not a "mind illusion" - at least not to those attached to materialist reality. haha.

Twenty minutes of full lotus meditation equals four hours of any other meditation. Ramana Maharshi required a vegetarian diet for his mind yoga practice as the weaker the body then the stronger the mind. But his Brahmin practice also required solitude from females and also his body was left to deterioriate so he required servants-helpers, etc. to take care of him. So the full lotus yoga position is a tantra love practice for healing and happiness with out the need for a patriarchial practice.

So don't trust the "mind yoga" types -- a real energy master can sit in full lotus for as long as they want in ease -- Chunyi Lin did a month in full lotus with no sleep and just three small bottles of water and three apples in a cave through qigongmaster.com...

Originally posted by rickymouse
Thinking is more accurate than knowing because noone knows anything for sure. We could be participants in a computer program designed by beings that have technology beyond our comprehension. This could all be an illusion. If that is true than everything we know could be wrong. Till I know for sure, I will keep learning and try to retain as much knowledge as I can, checking everything for validity from many different sources. What we are led to believe by others is often distorted for many different reasons.

So do you know that no one can know anything for sure? Or is that a belief?

reply to post by rwfresh


Dear rwfresh,

I have to point out that I am in no manner, shape or form an expert at translations. People who did study these things brought it out. There was a preacher named Gene Scott, he was an expert in these translations and knew the languages, he was the first one to explain it the best. Now, may people, myself included, had problems with Dr. Scott; however, he new his languages and received his degree from Stanford. You might be able to find his sermons about faith. This is not a blanket endorsement of the man.

I have a semantic problem with saying that faith and belief are the same thing because they are not. We cannot have absolute knowledge because we do not possess the ability to know everything. That means the most we can "know" is limited to our ability to understand. Knowledge cannot therefore be a question of whether or not our belief is correct, we have no control over what is correct, that is the scientific method. The true test of belief is faith, it is when we act in a way consistent with what we proclaim to believe. We only know what we truly believe when we are tested, faith is the actions that prove what our beliefs are. Words alone do not do it. Peace.

reply to post by rwfresh


It's more like a realization. I will not blindly trust what others tell me is real even by someone with credentials to prove their knowledge. I have investigated way too many things that have no real basis to back them. They are just someones idea that got accepted as reality.

So many thought provoking replies! Sadly I don't have time to reply to them specifically just yet.

One thing tho ...

I don't think we can "know" anything absolutely ... at least not according to formal empirical thought and logic. We just can't. We can't prove that the external world outside of the mind is real, that other minds other than our own are real, etc.

So since we can't actually "know" anything in the formal sense yet the phenomena of "knowing" (or at the very least "feeling" like we know something) is so visceral and fundamentally ubiquitous in the human ethos - what is this experience we call knowing?

I'm not expressing myself very well. I'll be back later with a more cogent reply.