What is the difference between thinking and knowing?

I once heard a story that touches somewhat on your question. for what its worth.....

The difference between knowledge and wisdom, ie thinking something and knowing it for sure, is demonstrated by telling a young child that the stove is HOT. When he is told he has knowledge, but as soon as he tests that knowledge by touching the HOT stove he gains wisdom.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Thinking is a term that is skeptical in nature. Thinking is not a fact or a truth.
Knowing is something that is certain with proof.

I think my wife is cheating on me with John because she seems distant and is gone all the time and doesn't come home after work
I know my wife is cheating on me with John because I seen them kissing in the cafe and then she admitted it after I asked.

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.

Well, the answer you seek lies much in your own signature, which by the way should be like this;

"The conscious wave saw its Master (Water) and blushed."

If you understand this you understand the difference between gnosis (knowledge) and thought.

reply to post by followtheevidence

Gods know, man reasons

The most basic part of reasoning, is that you must challenge what you know. It is that part of yourself, that strives to become more than you are ... to improve upon yourself, to evolve.

The words:

Empty your cup, before you drink tea

It says that you must "relinguish" everything you know. Or, to put it more simply, you must "challenge" what you know. Whatever you were tought in school, is what you know ... but not necessarily correct. You must look at other ideas, other possibilities ... you must break down the problem ...

How do you know, that you exist?

I think, therefore I am

The very ability that you can actually question your existance, is proof that you do exist.

People know, a lot of things ... and it's been said a billion times. The masses just "know" this ... or "that". Knowledge is the memory of what you experience through your senses. Thought, is the process of those memories,

Case in example:

You watch a movie, how do you come to realize that the movie is not real? You can see this, by watching the movie dialog, and comparing it with dialog you know. Thus, the dialog in the movie, and the activity in the movie, does not compare. The result, you file in your brain as "acting".

The people, who are most important ... are the exceptions, that actually can do the above. The 99% of all the human race, go to school, learn what the word "actor" refers to. To the majority, it is merely an adjective, that is referring to some correlation ... to some implied action. Nothing more.

this reminds me of a story....

on his deathbed, Carl Jung was asked if he thought there was a soul.....his response was exactly: "i don't have to think....I know"

Originally posted by IandEye
this reminds me of a story....

on his deathbed, Carl Jung was asked if he thought there was a soul.....his response was exactly: "i don't have to think....I know"

That in itself is knowing!

reply to post by followtheevidence


Knowing is remembering something. Thinking is reflecting on what we remember.

reply to post by MamaJ

Originally posted by IandEye
this reminds me of a story....

on his deathbed, Carl Jung was asked if he thought there was a soul.....his response was exactly: "i don't have to think....I know"


That in itself is knowing!

That's not knowing. That's guessing and and tricking himself into thinking he has the right answer without knowing. AKA faith.

Thinking and knowing are based on perception. Perception is based upon limitations such as language, culture and experience. Therefore, knowledge is relative. No one is smart or dumb. Everyone has the ability to think. Everything is this world at the most basic level is opinion. Fact is simply agreed upon opinion. Hence why we now believe the Earth is round and is not the center of the universe. Facts (knowledge) are meant to evolve. Therefore, there is no knowledge, only understanding (thinking).

reply to post by followtheevidence


Well, I "know" 1+1 equals 2. That's an accepted universal truth. But what's the square root of -1? I think it could be -1. But no one can prove it.

reply to post by swan001


It's me. Literally, the square root of -1 is "i". Funny how the number turns into a letter.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yeah, I know, I checked it out in Google. "i" means "imaginary" number.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Who Knows?

Not Me.

Actually one plus one does not equal two in non-commutative geometry created by Alain Connes as an attempt for a unified field theory in science.

We have to realize that quantum physics is the new foundation of science and due to the time-frequency uncertainty principle it creates some very strange results that also are found in the search for true knowing -- quantum entanglement is now found in not just photosynthesis of plants but also in birds and electric fish and it's postulated to be found in humans. We think of quantum entanglement to not exist on a macro level due to "collapse" of the infinite quantum potential but the Quantum Zeno Effect literally can slow down or speed up time due to the change in frequency of the measurement.

So for example Louis de Broglie discovered a paradox in Einstein's relativity -- when the energy frequency increases then the time wavelength also increases as time slows down and this violates the Law of Pythagoras that time and frequency are inversely proportional. So the only way Einstein's relativity is true is if there is a "pilot wave" that causes reverse time from the future -- and this is a "coherent quantum" field that conspiratorially guides reality beyond spacetime -- this is true knowing as formless consciousness. Bernard d'Espagnat has proven that quantum physics logically proves consciousness as beyond spacetime and as I mentioned before Dr. Mae-Wan Ho has demonstrated this on a macro level in organisms as a rainbow vortex energy of all frequencies - she calls it "quantum jazz."

So since quantum qubits work through entanglement then one plus one does not equal two - and this is also proven in non-commutative logic in nonwestern music which is used for trance healing by creating sonoluminescence and sonofusion as I detailed in my Devil's Chord thread -- here

So this stuff can not be turned into objective repeatable technology because it evolves internally and consciousness as true knowing is an "always-already" infinite process of time-frequency uncertainty -- what de Broglie called the Law of Phase Harmony -- so that when frequency is zero then time is infinite as phase -- through quantum entanglement.

Experientially this is the process of listening as logical inference of the I-thought and again the I-thought is the only thought with no signified and no signifier -- and so it is like the number one that is not a number -- there is not a logarithmic real number "containment" through materialist geometry as Westerners are taught as mind-control. This logarithmic-based math is destroying ecology and true knowing which relies on the quantum biology entanglement as true knowing. So in actually one plus one does not equal two because of the inherent non-commutative relation of time and frequency in quantum physics, the foundation of reality.

You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

In On Being Certain (book), neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. Because this "feeling of knowing" seems like confirmation of knowledge, we tend to think of it as a product of reason. But an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

Bringing together cutting edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain, will challenge what you know (or think you know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.


----- Is this the case truly, I do not know. I just thought this would be an interesting perspective for this thread.