# Knowledge and Imagination



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Some random questions to think about:

What is your general approach to knowledge (e.g., learning, processing, (re)constructing, etc.)? Do you make the accumulation of knowledge one of your life-long pursuits? Do you agree that we should gain as much knowledge as possible?

Do you think that imagination is more important than knowledge? Does having more knowledge constrain imagination? Do you prefer your mind to be led by imagination or by knowledge/expertise?

Here is a quote from Albert Einstein (1929):
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
For more details about the quote, see: Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge – Quote Investigator

Definitions:
Knowledge - _is a familiarity or awareness, of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge), often contributing to understanding._
*Knowledge, in a word, is what is known or can be known to you. *

Imagination - _Imagination is the production or simulation of novel objects, sensations, and ideas in the mind without any immediate input of the senses... Imagination is a cognitive process used in mental functioning and sometimes used in conjunction with psychological imagery. It is considered as such because it involves thinking about possibilities._
*Imagination includes various things, such as the known and the unknown, sensation and intuition, specific images and abstract ideas, etc.. *
I think Einstein's quote refers to the imagination that is rational and future-oriented, about anything that is not yet in existence now but could be in the future.

Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

> What is your general approach to knowledge (e.g., learning, processing, (re)constructing, etc.)? Do you make the accumulation of knowledge one of your life-long pursuits?
> Do you agree that we should gain as much knowledge as possible?


To be more specific, I strive to expand my _understanding_. Knowledge and imagination should serve this goal. Accumulation of knowledge detached from any phenomena/object/aim is, consequently, aimless for me.

Should everyone aim for it?
Well, who is honestly excited about the idea of becoming more ignorant?
I think understanding is the key to acceptance, contentment, and appreciation of the world. I mostly stand with Aristotle with his concept of eudaimonia, which implicates the attainment of excellence in reason.



> Do you think that imagination is more important than knowledge? Does having more knowledge constrain imagination? Do you prefer your mind to be led by imagination or by knowledge/expertise?


I don't think knowledge and imagination must be put into some competition with each other. For me, they must always cooperate for the sake of getting a more comprehensive understanding. Both of them have their own role and neither can replace the other.

Greater knowledge expands the space of imagination. For example, for biologists, plants and animals are more than just plants and animals. They are incredibly complex, rich, fascinating worlds with many yet unsolved mysteries. Nothing is really trivial and dull. 

An ignorant mind, on the other hand, has nothing to work with.

As such, I don't agree with Einstein, I think his perspective is limited and this relationship between knowledge and imagination makes no sense.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

lww23 said:


> What is your general approach to knowledge (e.g., learning, processing, (re)constructing, etc.)? Do you make the accumulation of knowledge one of your life-long pursuits? Do you agree that we should gain as much knowledge as possible?


Yes.


> Do you think that imagination is more important than knowledge? Does having more knowledge constrain imagination? Do you prefer your mind to be led by imagination or by knowledge/expertise?


You could make a religion with it. Most people are capable of ignoring what they know in favor of imagination.


> Here is a quote from Albert Einstein (1929):
> “I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
> For more details about the quote, see: Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge – Quote Investigator


Think he said that because he liked to skip class (and felt constrained by "what we currently know").


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Should everyone aim for it?
> Well, who is honestly excited about the idea of becoming more ignorant?


I don't think anyone is excited about becoming more ignorant. In my observation of various people, the 'ignorant' tend to be unaware of their ignorance. They are quick to judge and tend to assume superiority a lot. They like to pontificate on those whom they assume to be less knowledgeable than themselves. I think that being ignorant or not has to be related to awareness. Everyone can be ignorant in one way or another, and it's perhaps more important to know the ignorance and be humble. Many people seem to be content with what they already know, and they can hardly see beyond 24 hours, and the world, to them, is only as large as their surroundings. 









Reminds me of this curve. Those who know less, tend to (firmly) believe that they know a lot. Once one is aware of their ignorance, they experience a sense of despair, and then starts working on it. Most people of today's society, perhaps find it hard to go up that slope of enlightenment. 



Allostasis said:


> I don't think knowledge and imagination must be put into some competition with each other. For me, they must always cooperate for the sake of getting a more comprehensive understanding. Both of them have their own role and neither can replace the other.


Agree. These two are not conflicting with each other. Nor can they substitute each other. In my observation of the current higher education system, college education can balance knowledge and imagination to some extent, encouraging people to imagine things that might become reality in the future. Higher up, however, knowledge becomes deeper but also narrower. The purpose becomes making people experts in particular fields of study, and the specialization can more or less constrain imagination. Why? The priority is given to gaining mastery of a subject and knowing as much as possible - facts, theories, etc. An expert may be proud of their knowledge of what is already known, but to innovate or to imagine, is another story. 

I don't think imagination is in any way, more important than knowledge. Innovation has to have something to work on (a foothold, a starting point) in the first place and it requires knowledge. But to solely focus on the mastery of the already known may kill imagination so one can hardly look beyond the established. I think that Einstein wanted to encourage people to think out of the box and come up with new and original ideas because by doing that, human society will realize continued progress. 

The bigger problem of today's society is, perhaps, that imagination is dismissed too fast. Yesterday I came across a news story about an imagined nuclear-powered sky hotel.
Concept Video Imagines a Giant Nuclear-Powered Sky Hotel Airplane 

It's an example of wild imagination. What is disappointing, perhaps, is that many comments on social media showed a negative/dismissive attitude, calling it "useless" for example. Understandable. It's not practical, not yet, but it may involve some great ideas that are worth exploring. Many people don't seem to see the value of such ideas. Without imagination, without such seemingly crazy ideas, human society may get stuck in a primitive mode. 

This debate between Flat Earthers v. Scientists was so amusing. See how 'confident' and 'certain' those Flat Earthers were, in making arguments.
Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? | Middle Ground


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Source of the chart:
"The Dunning-Kruger effect in innovation"
03 JUL 2015 BY ULF EHLERT 
The Dunning-Kruger effect in innovation 

Would recommend this article.  
There is a thought-provoking discussion about technological evolution as well.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Allostasis said:


> Greater knowledge expands the space of imagination.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

As a creative professional, I find that the more I know, the more inspiration I gather, and more techniques and skills I have, the more my imagination flourishes. Because part of imagination is making connections and synthesising. So without knowledge you can't synthesise anything new.



Allostasis said:


> As such, I don't agree with Einstein, I think his perspective is limited and this relationship between knowledge and imagination makes no sense.


I find that Einstein gets quoted as if everything he says is true. Sure he was ground breaking in a specific area, but that doesn't automatically make him the master of all areas. Elon Musk is starting to be quoted and treated like he knows everything now.

From that link: Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge – Quote Investigator
*"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world,* stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

It doesn't sound like he's making precise philosophical, academic statement... it sounds more poetic. - Perhaps in this context, I wonder if Einstein is trying to say that creativity & imagination is required to make progress, whereas the way he uses the term "knowledge" is a static attitude (without progress), and the way he uses imagination requires observation, stimuli (Se & Ne), inspiration. 

So there's a static mindset that looks at the current collection of knowledge e.g. Newtonian Physics, and think, that's that... there's nothing more to it than that. Whereas the growth/imaginative mindset would say "there might be more to what we know than meets the eye. Let's keep looking for deeper understanding."

The topic should be reframed to reflect Einstein's attitude:
Static Mindset vs Growth & Possibilities Mindset
Where Static Mindset = What we know is it. There's nothing more to it. Just accept it and move on.
Growth Mindset = There might me more to what we know. Observe more. Make progress.

Therefore it's better to adopt a growth & possibilities mindset than a static one so you can make progress.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Joe Black said:


> So without knowledge you can't synthesise anything new.


I agree. One has to learn knowledge and based on what is known, making good use of imagination becomes more likely. Imagination is valued by society mainly because it leads to innovation and invention, so we can say that (rational) imagination is closely linked to creativity. No one can create anything out of thin air. Some knowledge has to be there, serving as a foundation or starting point of innovation.



Joe Black said:


> I find that Einstein gets quoted as if everything he says is true. Sure he was ground breaking in a specific area, but that doesn't automatically make him the master of all areas. Elon Musk is starting to be quoted and treated like he knows everything now.


True. Einstein and other historical figures/celebrities of today get quoted a lot as if what they have said is the truth. They have followers, and worshippers even. This more or less reflects a particular reality in human society - the tendency to appeal to authority. Those who are famous and influential tend to be seen as perfect and get treated as natural leaders who can tell people what and how to think. Many, if not most, people follow authority without questioning. Authority, to them, becomes the source of truth. They would agree, not because something is reasonable but rather, because it comes from authority.



Joe Black said:


> So there's a static mindset that looks at the current collection of knowledge e.g. Newtonian Physics, and think, that's that... there's nothing more to it than that. Whereas the growth/imaginative mindset would say "there might be more to what we know than meets the eye. Let's keep looking for deeper understanding."


I agree with this point as well. Reality seems that most, if not all, academic/scientific disciplines are dominated by big names and their theories/inventions. Big names' contributions to various fields should be acknowledged, but science and discovery do not stop there. The (over)emphasis on the mainstream theories and the need (sometimes, even requirement) to 'align' your ideas with those major theories can be detrimental to scientific progress. New ideas are dismissed and/or suppressed, or forced into an existing framework as if they have to belong.

Two examples came to mind: in the field of physics, Einsteinian theories (Theory of Relativity, etc.) have dominated the field for over 50 years now, and there has not been a breakthrough, in particular, physicists expect new theories that can contribute to the quantum field. They seek to understand quantum gravity, for example, but from what I've read, they do not seem to be confident in going beyond Einstein's legacies.

In biology, there is Darwinism. Biologists have questioned the theory of evolution and some/many call for a re-examination or even a replacement of the theory but still, there is little progress. The 'mainstream' biologists fear that the rejection of Darwinism may lead to a collapse of the entire discipline, so they are willing to go as far as making revisions to it. Those who hold alternative perspectives, tend to be marginalized.

It seems that, imo, many academic disciplines are filled with experts who know a lot about their respective fields but can hardly think out of the box and invent something new. Those so-called 'mainstream' theories have become more or less obstacles that block innovation and creative thinking. Conformity to the established ways seems to take priority.

Some further thoughts -
Knowledge helps answer our questions and keep our curiosity alive. Creative and critical thinking can hardly grow out of a lack of knowledge. However, knowledge, as of today, seems more of a double-edged sword. Why?

Most people today generally gain knowledge from school as well as their personal experiences. The more abstract and theoretical types of knowledge, perhaps, come largely from school education. We can learn many things from the educational system, from kindergarten to grad school, and benefit from the knowledge gained. However, perhaps many, if not most, of us are unaware of the reality/fact, that school education is limited and can even be biased.

Have you wondered where the school knowledge (what schools want us to learn) comes from, how the knowledge is taught, and what is left out?

My observation is that school education often teaches what the elites want us to know, what is promoted by certain groups in society, and what has been filtered by ideological lenses. Who are those elites then? What I mean here are those who have dominated the school educational system and scientific fields around the globe. In other words, mostly, the progressive elites. They control the educational system, the mainstream media, and part of the business world. They have wealth, power, and global influence. When we receive education from such a system, we learn only limited knowledge, one side of the debate, or part of the story. What is left out, perhaps is for you to find out, and there is much more out there.

So I think that Einstein was right at least in this respect - We think we have learned knowledge but tend to be less aware of the limit of such knowledge. We are less able to see the big picture and the different perspectives, especially those that disagree. Such knowledge, as it gets reinforced through different levels of formal education, becomes somewhat inherent in people's thinking and when a different view is presented, the first reaction is not to try to understand but to condemn, labeling it as wrong or evil, and it becomes a matter of moral judgment, not informed by reason.

I'm not talking about politics or conspiracy theories here. My focus is on knowledge: People may think they have knowledge but tend to be unaware of the limit and weaknesses of that knowledge. They are taught to think in a particular way, approving something and/or rejecting something else. It is as if their minds have been programmed. Ideas are no longer valued for their own merits but rather, the discussion/debate of many ideas become matters of politics, in which there have to be winners or losers.

In order to overcome such constraints and biases, imo, imagination, creativity, and curiosity become crucial. They can help us take everything with a grain of salt and keep questioning the already established and especially, those that have been taken for granted and considered 'right'. 

Gaining knowledge can be helpful, but what is more important, perhaps, is to find the constraints of the known and get out of the trap of the established/conventional ways of thinking. Imagination keeps the human mind dynamic and thriving, and can prevent us from thinking in the same way, or thinking about the same thing.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Both are important. A simple thought: wondering what and how much we'd be able to imagine at all if we were born as blind, deaf and dumb or if we were isolated since beginning to completely dark room without any external information coming in.

Would we be able to imagine anything as we won't have any knowledge? Would any intuition work in such conditions as it still bases a lot on tangible information sources?


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

tarmonk said:


> Would we be able to imagine anything as we won't have any knowledge? Would any intuition work in such conditions as it still bases a lot on tangible information sources?


------------------
Perhaps to most people, imagining anything without prior knowledge could be hard or even impossible. Knowledge is needed as a starting point for any innovation to occur.

Recently I read this piece about Jung's view of intuitives, and his experience with the Ni doms seems quite intriguing.








Conversations with Carl Jung on the "Intuitive Extrovert" and "Intuitive Introvert."


Ever since I have started studying Psychology back in school, I have always had this fascination towards Carl Jung's ideas towards Cognitive functions. That how people perceive and judge the world from their own subjective lenses.




www.linkedin.com





Somewhere in the middle of the article, Jung talked about Ni doms and how mysterious their mindscape can be. Especially, he mentioned that an Ni dom was able to discover the inner world of a person they just met, based on the images flashing in their mind. To me, it seems that the Ni dom, at least in that particular case, had some psychic power, and they were able to know people without having tangible experience.

Ni doms, according to Jung, are very special, since their perception comes from within, and their dominant Ni keeps sending messages from the subconscious, so they are able to understand things just by contemplation. Their database lies in the subconscious so the external reality seems of little importance to them. I'm not an Ni dom, so I find it somewhat unbelievable. I think only people with psychic powers can know things without established knowledge and experience, due to their unique ability to reach into the subconscious to get various information, and such information can be accurate. Different from other types, they mostly rely on the Ni data to live their lives, but because their perception seems so unusual, they tend to be seen as eccentric. If they talk about what they perceive, others might hardly understand them.

Most people learn from the outside world, both by knowledge and by experience. They require reasonable contact with the world and others to build up the database. From there, they can imagine and innovate. The Ni doms, according to Jung, and those psychic people (perhaps almost all of them have dom Ni), do not seem to require the outside world to understand things, and they can know before all the others do.

To answer your question - Some people do not seem to need tangible sources of data and their intuition works in the inner world, bringing to their attention various messages that only they themselves can understand. Sounds like magic but believe it or not, psychic people do exist, maybe very small in number. Have you watched Stephen King's _Doctor Sleep _(2019)? it tells the story of a group of psychics. Very interesting.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

lww23 said:


> ------------------
> Perhaps to most people, imagining anything without prior knowledge could be hard or even impossible. Knowledge is needed as a starting point for any innovation to occur.
> 
> Recently I read this piece about Jung's view of intuitives, and his experience with the Ni doms seems quite intriguing.
> ...


Yes, Ni doesn't seem to require direct link with actual data but if we consider that Jung example about seeing inner world of the person they just met - this requires at least meeting them first, which already does provide at least some tangible data as a starting point 

If the information they intuit out of that didn't actually exist there at all in any form, it would easily introduce considerable risk of delusional thinking I guess. And the outcome wouldn't always be useful or even near desirable / applicable in reality. Fortunately it's not the case with average normal person of those types, so logically taken, there must be at least some link with some data that really is there, despite that it's invisible to most other people and the connections that are created, don't necessarily need to happen in real time


----------

