Trawlers and trollers are very similar, they traditionally have non-planning, deep hulls, are quite beamy for their length, and cruise around 7 - 9 knots. The difference is in the fishing rig. Trawlers pull a large net behind them, whereas trollers use long lines with multiple baited hooks.

There's some more knowledge for those who didn't know.

Jesus invented these fishing memes, before memes were cool. I don't know if he was about fine lines or wide nets, but he managed to piss people off all the same.

I have a thirst for knowledge.

Whenever i go into a real ale pub and see loads of beers I haven't tried before, I have a need to know what every single one of them tastes like.

Is that what the OP means?

I have no desire to know everything. However I do want to know as much as possible. The latter is a very small sub set of the former. So I operate within the realms of what is possible rather than what is desirable. Although I personally would not wish to know everything anyway as that would be intellectually self defeating from that point on. I am just content to learn at my own pace. Seven years ago I knew nothing now I know a bit more. Not much progress but it is the best I can do so I work with
in that limitation. Long as I am learning then that is all that matters

Arnold Layne wrote:I have a thirst for knowledge.

Whenever i go into a real ale pub and see loads of beers I haven't tried before, I have a need to know what every single one of them tastes like.

Is that what the OP means?

I think he means something more like: "I drink mass produced horse piss and therefore you must too."

You come from Greece,

Arnold Layne wrote:I have a thirst for knowledge.

You studied sculpture at St Martin's College?

I was so close to asking that very same question.

I'm common.

Like me?

As muck, that's me.

Shame you had to waste your time on that quality summary, Thommo. Looks like jamest thinks less of his OP than anyone else in the thread

Thommo wrote:So, shall we all have another bash at the topic?

Okay.

jamest wrote:We aspire to know everything...

We don't. Maybe you do. Maybe you desire to know the experience of having all your nails torn off, but I suspect that most people do not and it would certainly need to be substantiated.

I'm talking about knowledge, not experience. There is no knowledge related to what an experience is. If there were, knowledge would suffice to communicate what an experience was like... which it is not. Secondly, as far as I can tell, only the dead and mentally impaired lose their curiosity about life/things before they reach that condition. In that sense, we are constantly in a sense of wanting to learn about things, or improve our knowledge about the things that we think we know about. Even if those things are judged to be trivial, humans are constantly assessing their situation, and assessment is a means to acquiring knowledge.

Note that I have not stated that we have the capacity to know everything. Merely that we have a "will to knowledge" which keeps us in a constant state of wanting to learn about things or better our knowledge of the things that we do know. This is applicable to individuals, but as a whole we do this on a grander scale. Hence, we specialise and have specialists who focus upon certain realms of knowledge, each seeking to give us the 'whole picture'. And, as a whole, we are also doing this constantly. The will to knowledge never lets up.

In a looser sense (i.e. that we desire to know some things, that we do not necessarily desire to know these things "absolutely" and that this desire is in competition with other desires which will often win out in the moment leading us to relax rather than study) then yes, humans desire knowledge.

Why? Because the desire for knowledge (triggered by various reward systems in the brain) leads to learning things and learning things is evolutionarily advantageous.

I don't buy into that at all, because it is often the case (read your history) where the will to knowledge has culminated with one's head in a noose. People have and still do have a will to knowledge regardless of the 'rewards'. Implying that this will is much more of a force than [even] the fear of death.

So there you have it. Not that it hasn't been given before, but perhaps we should all note that it has been said (again) and that these sensible answers stand in opposition to the bald assertions on everyone's behalf that everyone wants to absolutely know everything and that there are unstated reasons for this that James thinks very much of but can't be bothered, or conceivably lacks the wherewithal to actually explain.

I have answers for everything I think about. If you and your mob didn't treat me with total disdain every time I started a thread, I'd be more inclined to be sensible than give the finger to the scorn.

jamest wrote:I'm talking about knowledge, not experience.

Relevant if you have no knowledge derived from experience.

Care to make that claim about experience of things like words? How, if not through experience did you acquire your knowledge of English? How if not through experience do you know what it is to think, or feel pain?

Even if that was not the case, do you know who the 1977 world series champions were? Do you know who finished third in the men's southern league division six English athletics competition last year? Do you care? I don't - and for the simple reason that the point you've chosen to contest here is wrong.

People don't desire absolute knowledge of everything. If you want to sustain your original claim, go ahead, but pettifoggery of this kind fools nobody.

jamest wrote:There is no knowledge related to what an experience is.

A bold claim, can you provide the least reason to say so?

jamest wrote:If there were, knowledge would suffice to communicate what an experience was like... which it is not.

Obviously not. Communication and knowledge are two entirely different things. The fact that I know my date of birth (or any other thing) doesn't mean you do.

jamest wrote:Secondly, as far as I can tell, only the dead and mentally impaired lose their curiosity about life/things before they reach that condition. In that sense, we are constantly in a sense of wanting to learn about things, or improve our knowledge about the things that we think we know about. Even if those things are judged to be trivial, humans are constantly assessing their situation, and assessment is a means to acquiring knowledge.

Which is entirely different to humans wanting to know everything absolutely. Everyone else spotted this before you, indeed the distinction was made in the post you're replying to, with both more clarity and more brevity.

jamest wrote:Note that I have not stated that we have the capacity to know everything. Merely that we have a "will to knowledge" which keeps us in a constant state of wanting to learn about things or better our knowledge of the things that we do know.

That's not all you said, no. I suggest you read the OP. You seem unfamiliar with it.

jamest wrote:I don't buy into that at all, because it is often the case (read your history) where the will to knowledge has culminated with one's head in a noose. People have and still do have a will to knowledge regardless of the 'rewards'. Implying that this will is much more of a force than [even] the fear of death.

As condescending as it is stupid. Try harder.

It is obviously moronic to suggest that "heads in nooses" is an argument against evolution.

jamest wrote:I have answers for everything I think about. If you and your mob didn't treat me with total disdain every time I started a thread, I'd be more inclined to be sensible than give the finger to the scorn.

A very lame excuse. If you can't even be bothered to supply the reasoning for the things you claim then you should expect more scorn, and indeed deserve it.

jamest wrote: I have answers for everything I think about. If you and your mob didn't treat me with total disdain every time I started a thread, I'd be more inclined to be sensible than give the finger to the scorn.

If you provided an insight to whatever topic you start that wasn't a tossed salad of ideas randomly strung together you wouldn't get so frustrated with the replies your receive.

Face it, your philosophy is so poorly thought out that you shouldn't call it a philosophy but ramblings. With a philosophy I expect an attempt at sound logic. When you're called out on that you avoid the rational discussion and turn your thread into a childish rant.

If I may steer bit off topic, jamest, do you reckon its possible, even in theory, to know everything?

tuco wrote:If I may steer bit off topic, jamest, do you reckon its possible, even in theory, to know everything?

That entirely depends upon whether ALL data/information acquirable for assessment is provided by the self. Since I hold that it is, then my answer to your question is a resounding 'yes'.

However, contingently, the other factor to understand is that knowledge - in terms of communicable utterances - cannot assess all facets of existence. For instance, I've already touched upon its inability to communicate an experience of pain [to Thommo]. Of course, this is why the explanation of sight to a blind-man with a view to providing him with sight, is impossible. Hence, even if idealism is true, it is important to note that 'knowledge' is only used here in reference to [observed] 'things'.

... Knowledge is facts we acquire from observing things. Full stop. However, there is a different kind of knowing which I'm aware that Kant knew of [without having read much of his stuff] which is the knowledge not contingent upon knowing things. A priori and a posteriori, etc.. Obviously a smart chap, but probably the kind of guy who wouldn't have endured in this forum. Nevertheless, his ultimate conclusions pertaining to metaphysics/God were bollocks as he actually failed [ultimately] to accommodate the notion of his own divinity within the sphere of his own metaphysical deliberations. I'm not berating him for that, any more than I would berate Newton for not knowing what Einstein came to know from the likes of him. BUT what you MUST do as a metaphysicist is entertain ANY possible solution to one's initial neutral adventure. I don't think that he did that, since I am of the opinion that his philosophy was initially based upon the notion that he and God were separate from the outset.

jamest wrote:... Knowledge is facts we acquire from observing things. Full stop. However, there is a different kind of knowing...

Have you ever bothered to wonder what self contradiction is?

jamest wrote:Of course, this is why the explanation of sight to a blind-man with a view to providing him with sight, is impossible.

This would suggest that there is knowledge only attainable through experience, the literal antithesis of what you previously said - that no knowledge is attainable through experience.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:... Knowledge is facts we acquire from observing things. Full stop. However, there is a different kind of knowing...

Have you ever bothered to wonder what self contradiction is?

How can that be a contradiction when I've classified it as a different kind of knowing? Thus implying that it is totally unlike 'knowledge' as we know it. I mean, really, have a fuckin' word squire. I'm merely trying to educate you here after you suggested that we try having a serious go at discussing this, and within an hour it's back to piss-taking and thumbs-ups. Stop wasting my fucking time.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:... Knowledge is facts we acquire from observing things. Full stop. However, there is a different kind of knowing...

Have you ever bothered to wonder what self contradiction is?

How can that be a contradiction when I've classified it as a different kind of knowing?

Maybe you simply don't know the meaning of "full stop".

jamest wrote:I'm merely trying to educate you...

Trying and failing because you blatantly don't know what you're talking about and are in no position to educate anyone.

If you want to discuss the matter, stop imagining a role of teacher for yourself and focus on justifying your claims. That's philosophy.

You were the one who claimed that "We aspire to know everything", nobody has forced you to slip-slide away from that or to not justify your claims about absolute knowledge. No amount of thumbs up would prevent you presenting the claimed (but as ever absent) knock down reason for these things.

Your response to evolution as a plausible mechanism is "I don't buy it" and you try and claim a role as teacher and demand that people not waste yourtime. Laughter is a kinder response than that honestly deserved.

Mm, James, ability to educate starts with a clearly defined topic and the wherewithal and understanding to communicate this effectively to others. Unfortunately you are doing nothing but taking us all on a runaway steam train ride starting at Unevidenced Claim Parkway, passing through Fallacy Central and arriving at Temper Tantrum Circus, bewildered, desperate for a wee and covered in soot. Even though you have behaved abysmally towards me in the recent past, I have no issue with learning something from you I didn't know, providing you can show that you do actually possess knowledge. Unfortunately once again the cart is before the horse, and you are first making the assumption that you should be listened to as a teacher before demonstrating your qualifications. If someone tried this approach with you, would you even give them the time of day? Be reasonable.