Does anyone ever considered the NDE as a scientific prospect to explaining life after death?

Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/near-death-experiences-ndes/

It's probably the same motivation as "religious philosophy": fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia). — 180 Proof

“Alternative Philosophy” trying to come up with a politically correct term here without sounding like a critical jerk.

I’m fascinated by this topic due to the culture behind this belief, is like going to Woodstock.

Everyone knows Area 51, but no one cares about Hawkins Radiation and the recent discovery of a black hole.

Everyone will remember the Grey Alien dressed as Elvis but ask someone about Transhumanism. No one will care or dismiss it as insane talk. Oxymoron there I know.

I believe is a cultural perspective because this and I know is a stretch me saying this but... This type of science is simply more fun and exciting. Even if it is fake.

It's probably the same motivation as "religious philosophy": fear of reality (onto/vera-phobia). — 180 Proof

I disagree on that assessment since religious philosophy although it does center on the belief of God or Gods depending on the faith your talking about.

I do believe it offers other useful lessons on humanity and how we as a species over came struggle.

To me is just an over simplified answer to something that has a lot of rich historical account which has been proven. Proven by historians and anthropologist (I am speaking of the historical events not the theological perspective)

And the accounts with political conflicts between different territories, tribes and/or states. The development of human civilization on how a people in that time lived.

How religion in that time also substitute as a Government institution in attempt to provide some kind of civil order during a chaotic time.

1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire

1. Depends on the audience. If they care or not

2. Then there is no empathy for the painting and it becomes irrelevant. No attachment no reason to be moral.

3. That answers the second question. There needs to be an audience for morality to matter. Have someone to be accountable.

However, anytime we invoke evolution to explain everything there's the danger of reciting an anthropic principle. — Cheshire

My intention wasn’t to make evolution to explain everything but it does play a role in moral conduct.

Hopefully I don’t sound like I am going off topic but take the example of mob psychology and how a large group of people can encourage bad behavior in individual or encourage to behave differently.

Mob psychology can be one piece of the puzzle showing how morality is define by culture and society and not by individual thinking.

How peer influences can change how we think.

Perhaps all this is true. But why should one do what is part of an evolutionary mechanism? Preservation of the species? Is this what you tell someone regarding the meaning of their suffering? As the plague blackens the finger tips and boils cover the body, we say, well, alas, this suffering is conducive to survival and reproduction! There, you have it?
You see the absurdity of explanations like this? The real questions in ethics go to more fundamental level, as with Why are we born to suffer and die at all? why does existence throw us into suffering at all as a condition for survival at all? — Constance

Suffering is the challenge we as a species need to go through to weed out the weak and make sure only the strongest survive. The purpose evolution.

So we don’t have to do the dirty task ourselves nature does it herself and goes through the process of elimination. This is not by societies choice but by design by evolution and nature to give the human race the greatest chance of survival.

Is the ego of humans to believe we don’t abide by the same rules that of the other creatures of this Earth.

Yes it hurts, and yes it sucks but it been working for millions of years so who are we to question it.

Yes people will suffer others will experience the heartache of witnessing such things but by each passing event that happen the next Generation becomes better, stronger and wiser.

Is the individual that disapproves this cause they desire a easier alternative.

Morality is a form of social survival, humans depend on people to survive. And morality is a set of rules you need to follow to benefit from the community protection and care. You don’t follow the social rules you get exiled and you will have to find another community that thinks like you. Hopefully, you can benefit from there protection and care.

These moral rules is to prevent chaos, distress or presenting a threat to a community. Both physically and emotionally.

People tend to forget that the origin of morality comes from evolution and it serves an almost technical purpose also. Is not just all religious or political and such.

Morality was meant to be a set of rules to help the group corporate together to fend off threats and predators. Maximizing the greatest chance for survival.

But as we evolved as a civilization it became more complex. That emotional transgression coming from our peers became the predator.

Morality became almost like a filter to weed the undesirables out.

Morality is not just about character. Is a biological evolutionary mechanism to help humanity survive challenges we may face.

Has anyone ever considered that an advanced civilization may have taken a different route and chose social and cultural advancement (Metaphysics) instead of technological.

That Technology has advanced to a point where advancing any further technologically will no longer have any practical benefiting to there society. And focused on civil harmony and enlightenment of the mind.

It Is possible to reach a Technological dead end and that Technology advancement may hit its limit where it can’t go any further. As an advanced civilization they may have decided to embark on another different frontier.

Is

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. I just personally wish the discussion quality was better, and the arguments given for either side more thought-provoking. — darthbarracuda

Is not about God is the insinuation that all faith-base thinkers are stupid people and stero-typing them as low intelligent individuals.

When the mystic is more logical and rational than the realist you know humanity is screwed.

I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves.

There is this I don’t know, this over analytical weirdness like your trying to find a loop hole in some contract.

I know I am the The only believer here but even I know this is not atheistic thinking but some warp ego trip of desiring to be right.

In Philosophy, we must ask and argue about anything in doubt and unclear. When we keep silence, Philosophy ceased to be Philosophy. — Corvus

I am far from being religious in fact I am probably the worst Christian around. What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.

My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa.

Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual.

I think your uncomfortable with the source of your beliefs. I think you can do better. — Cheshire

No, Just defending free will, and how all of you are still following the same dogmatic platform but different ideology.

Always preaching about truth but nothing to back up your testimony. If your going to tell me that he is not real show me the proof.

But you don’t even follow your own rules. It just seems is all about ego and the desire to just be right.

Adults running around believing characters in children's stories are real has slowed down social progress. — Cheshire

It sounds more like a dictatorship than being opened mind to me. This type of ideology is border line of Nazism and how if we don’t think like you than they need to be brainwashed or removed from society.

heists also have to agree on the fact, that they simply use religion as a way to find security and happiness, and shouldn't try to prove that Gods exist, as it is most likely false anyways. — Kinglord1090

That is really just a personal which really is none of our business.

But why do we care how others pursue happiness.

If believing that the Earth is flat and wearing a aluminum foil hat gives them security and happiness what right do we have to take that way.

It’s there life style choice they can live it how they want.

What really pisses me off is people forget religion is part of ethnic culture and heritage, part of our history.

Like the Irish catholic belief is slightly different than the Mexican Catholic belief. Not by what you call dogma standard but how we celebrate it.

Like we Mexican’s celebrate day of the dead on November 1st. Which is part of the Latino culture.

Is not just about believing in a supreme being but is also celebrating the culture that surrounds it.

Undermining our intelligence is undermining a culture.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

There is a need for political correctness when this topic is discussed.

We need to dispel this notion of a tyrannical sky daddy if humanity is going to progress. The masses cling to this idea of eternal salvation and this myth stunts psychological growth and prohibits humanity from realizing its destiny. — K Turner

Sorry but that is a bunch of hog wash motivated by prejudice thinking. Using logic as an excuse to spread intolerance.

Every person has a right to believe what they want without persecution or condemnation.

And this so called philosophy is nothing more than propaganda.

The same type of propaganda you would see from racial stereotyping back in the 50’s

Honestly, your behavior is just the same just rehashing it with different ideals.

And your perspective is flawed.

Take this example:, your first experience with a different ethnicity is someone who is a crack head ex-con. Now your perspective is a skewed and believe everyone from that ethnicity is a crack head ex-con.

That is the message I am relaying that your way of thinking is Stero-typing everyone like what you think.

But the presumption that all Christian’s are opinionated people who force there belief system on you is falling close in the lines of prejudice thinking.

That is not true.

Is like believing all black people are criminals

All latino’s are illegal immigrants

Or all Asian know Kung Fu.

Aren’t we here to teach tolerance and diverse thinking?

I asked the question because I believe there is a more resentment perspective on faith than logical. Basing on personal bad experience because of people than spiritual understanding. Boarder line of stereotype, in the same perspective as racial profiling. The only difference is we are not talking about skin color or race but discriminating against others based on there perspective on life.

Excusing negative thinking and cynical behavior as being an intellectual or having a skeptical mind.

Asking for proof which is find a healthy dose of skepticism can be good. But don’t take it over board where you are sounding like a robot. You still have your own mind, hopes, dreams and fantasies.

Don’t overly dissect life where you take the romance out of living.

You can enjoy a sunset without having to understand the anatomy of a star.

You can enjoy a rose garden without having to recall how photosynthesis works.

You can enjoy a piece of cake without having to know the anatomy of wheat.

In all honesty we are all going to face death. Your going to die, I’m going to die we are all going to die at some point in our lives. That is inevitable whether you believe there is something afterwards or not.

It really comes down to this are you satisfied with your life. Why ask the question “why we believe?” If you are content with your life the question should be irrelevant.

I believe in God because is due to my own personal unique experience that led me to that conclusion. This way of thinking gives me joy.

If not believing gives you joy than good for you why are you questioning how others pursue happiness?

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

Here is a question I been dying to ask a non-believer...

Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept?


What it Would Look Like if Higher Dimensional Beings Tried to Communicate with Us.
By: Erik Ruof
https://medium.com/illumination/what-it-would-look-like-if-higher-dimensional-beings-tried-to-communicate-with-us-ecdbf166d307

To further explained why I post this question, I do wonder if we all don’t have a certain degree of psychopathic tendencies but what separates us from the real psychopaths is our ability of having self control and moral code.

Take for example the holocaust and how one man convinced a nation is ok to commit mass genocid. It kind of makes you ask these difficult questions. Do we only label this behavior as evil based on what societies approves?

Evil acts should be pretty obvious. But when put in a desperate situation or in the heat of a angry mob it becomes easy to forget the moral codes we preach to ourselves. And that line we swear we won’t cross becomes very grey and faded.

So what is the difference between an individual psychopath and entire nation allowing mass murder to happen in there backyard.

My assessment is what society deems as tolerable behavior.

To put in a metaphor “if a monster is protecting the city gates from the enemy than it is okay to have this monster around. As long as it doesn’t turn on us and we continue to benefit from its existence”

As long as there is enough people around to tell you is okay to do it. You might find yourself in that monsters shoes.

The only difference between the individual and society is a psychopath doesn’t care for societies approval. Where a normal person needs validation and approval from the masses to commit the act.

It's also insufficient to point at successes in the psychopath community. How many fail because they simply can't work with others? — Kenosha Kid

I feel you are generalizing the behavior on extreme cases. Where I was trying to point out situation that seem more reasonable and in a mild degree.

Like a good example is if a CEO has to lay off 20,000 employees so the company can survive due to poor sale revenue. And having to dismiss the fact that your decision could affect 20,000 families and there financial stability. Maybe contributing to the unemployment rate.

And this example show that if you find yourself in a loose-loose situation and you have to choose the lesser of the two evils scenario. Psychopathic thinking in a rational, less extreme and non-dysfunctional sense can make the decision easier to rationalize. Especially if you take in to consideration the emotional distress that comes with these type of decisions.

@Banno the eye of the beholder is in reference to this article on “ Evaluation of Critical Flicker-Fusion Frequency Measurement Methods for the Investigation of Visual Temporal Resolution” - by
Auria Eisen-Enosh, Nairouz Farah, […]Yossi Mandel

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15034-z

@Banno sorry, I don't go on here much unless I have a nagging idea I want to expelled from my head.

To recap, this thought came to me when reading research on “critical flicker fusion frequency” and how animals perceive reality in slow motion based on there metabolic rate.

And how neurological disorders like “Dyschronometria” can warp the prescription of time.

Leading me to believe that “Time” is not an attribute of physics but of psychology.

Since I am struggling to correlate the events that leads to the creation of time or causing time to continuously produce Itself.

It leads me to believe that adding time to an equation is just a psychological reference point to help perceive your own reality. And not an element of reality. Like gravity or energy.

“Time” is just in the eye of the beholder.

Gregory - not questioning if Science works I am questioning the threshold where physics becomes inadequate because the rules changes.

And I am simply asking that uncomfortable question, and thinking outside the box.

Because Science tends to follow a very ridged straight line, always following the status quo.

I am merely asking the question why it has to be this way. Why not try it that way and see what happens and just for a moment assume time is an illusion. Try to calculate an equation without it. And see what happens.

If it's nonsense, it's nonsense nothing gain nothing lost.

All discoveries start by challenging conventional thought by asking “what if?”

Banno- I’m always the type to consider the ludicrous as a possibility.

This idea came to from research on “critical flicker fusion frequency” on animals.

And I am just trying to bridge the two ideas. And to me there is more proof to support “Time” as conceptual than that of physics stand point. And could possibly be explained as a trait of biology or psychological.

Ok I guess I’ll stop sugar coating my words cause it sound like gibberish. So I’ll get straight to the point.

Physics is depended on the existence of time without time, laws of physics falls apart.

Since I haven't seen no evidence that Time exist other than our similar experience about it.

How do you validate it?

I know gravity exist, I know energy exist. We have mechanical process recorded to prove it's existence. Like origin, process, end cycle of these fundamental elements. (Beginning, Middle, End)

But Time does not have any of these, we just take it for granted it exist just because we all experience it.

If you can’t validate Time as a element of reality, shouldn’t we conclude is purely conceptual.

Physics will than have a serious weakness if Time is omitted from the equation. You than find your self asking, “How do you calculate an apple falling from a tree without time?”

The fly example was just proving a point that the faster you process light to the brain, the slower time moves.

Hence 25 hours, a life span to a fly could be perceived as a 100 years to an insect.

And to further prove that point maybe...

Light is a medium used to carry information and how our brains process the information interprets how fast or slow an instant of time flows.

That is why a fly perceives time slower than us due to it's sensory I/O evolution.

I am merely proposing a possibility, that if “Time” is abstract and not a physical reality. How will that effect the scientific community and how we will perceive physics?

Until the origin of time is discovered I have to conclude that time is not real and it is a cognitive trait not physical.

I still can get over that the possibility of time being a smoke screen due to how the brain interpretation.

For instance the fly experience time differently than we do, seeing reality in slow motion. That shows we are all experiencing different flavors of time.

So peer validation may not be unreliable since your perception of time may differ to mind.

Like the old saying is your color red the same as mind?

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/flies-perceive-time.php

God is a model of the perfect human being, we humble ourselves in believing because we our blind to our own flaws. And we strive toward improving ourselves to that end.

In other words God is who we want to model. To become like him but knowing full well is unobtainable and we will never be like him.

Right wing extremism is not the way of God because it utilizes the word to judge and condemn others. To oppress and control and force to think there way.

Left wing is guilty of that to, oppressing faith base organization justifying the violation of there civil rights to accommodate another group. The US are more keen to tell Christians how to worship than compared to other faiths.

But anyway

True Christian faith is allowing you to choose the way on your own free-will.

I feel the true enemy is extremism or extreme ideology. Wanting to justify anger and resentment by saying I am right you are wrong, period end of story, stance.

Even truth taken to extreme can become corrupt.

And we are so gun hoe on being right that we are not realizing we are acting on extremist tendencies and hurting people in the process.

Knowing what is the truth is not enough but knowing how to express the truth with compassion and mercy is the way.

Ok the subject of “Time” is a very broad subject, is like describing the Ocean as just water. And my thought maybe off topic on what I read but is just a thought I am sharing. You can take it with a grain of salt if you like.

...

First let me just say we take time for granted a lot is like a fish living in the ocean and not realizing it's in water.

When I think of Time, I see a linear plane and perceived reality as instance of frames being observed. And taking in account and how it takes 200msec for light to hit your eye to observe these frames and there will be a longer time lapse the farther away you are. Thats what makes time so deceiving is that you are always observing the past never the present.

This discrepancy is a big deal because you have to acknowledge that there will always be a sort of gap in our observation.

Now you are wondering how does this relate to the question.

I am asking the question what if reality is not linear, a plane. And we exist in a singularity and our perspective is merely psychological. And Time is merely conceptual a form of metric system. Not an actual element of reality.

And if there is no cross reference to prove it's existence how can you validate it.

Time makes us perceive our Universe as Plane.

But without Time it is perceived as singularity or a point.

I am playing with a thought here.... Are we living in a singularity Universe and not a Plane Universe ?

If that is the case, can someone pass the salt the Universe is too plane.... LOL!

Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

Hell no.

Immortality is a curse not a gift, because immortality brings apathy.

Only through the cycle of life and death, forgetting and relearning will life have meaning.

Naturalism is the view that the objective natural world can dictate to us. Which is insane.

Non-naturalism is the view that non-natural Platonic Forms can dictate to us. Which is equally insane.

Agree? — Bartricks

Is hard to say, is something I need to contemplate about.

I can only express my view of ethics as adaptive to circumstance. Each instance is unique and can’t be categorized.

To me ethics is defined by intention. That is why Laws which at one time were good but later become corrupt due to cultural evolution.

How cultural and social evolution play a role in how we define ethics.

While writing this it occurs to me that ethics may be a form of survival instinct. Since we as a species need to be in social settings to defend against predators or aggressive adversaries.

So those who conform to status quo of society will be protected and deemed worthy of society protection.

Example

If I follow current society ethic code I will be accepted in there group, Protected and care for.

If I go against the pack by causing waves or jeopardizing the groups welfare whether it is intentional or not. I will cause a undesirable effect.

Ethics can also be a evolutionary trait in a sense of getting rid of bad behavior like getting rid of defective genes in the DNA pool.

Only the well behaved will survive.

Your description of philosophy seems to have reduced it to study of logical relations. — emancipate

Yes, you’re absolutely correct!

Good luck in your experiments though. — emancipate

Thank you,

Of course, if it devolves into a form of self-indulgence at any stage, it should be (ideally) discontinued. — Aryamoy Mitra

How do you recognize it as self-indulgence if the individual is blind to the effects of good or bad?

If the individual self impose a denial to the effects just to continue justifying indulgence. How do you recognize?

Is it better to be ignorant or not?

don't see how philosophy can help you with that. Programming language theory and computer science is more relevant no? — emancipate

Well is complicated to explain in under 250 words and to type on my cell phone. That is a challenge by it self.

So hopefully I can explain myself in the best way possible without sounding stupid.

You need to have the very basic concept of logic. Recognize logic in its most primitive state.

Than have the most basic concept of expressing idea. Recognize expression in its most primitive state.

Hopefully, I am explaining myself correctly but is like trying to learn the anatomy of analytical thinking and anatomy of communication.

How creativity made an idea and from that idea a proper form of expression is required to make it part of the external world.

How to translate these concept into a source code to mimic these attributes.

In other words I’m a modern day Dr. Frankenstein

Using Philosophers or bits and pieces of them to manifest my creation. Identify certain attributes of philosophy and see if it can be mimicked in a artificial way.

Dissecting the human consciousness and taking what I need to manifest an artificial thought in a system. Philosophy is my cemetery and how Dr. Frankistein harvest body parts which in my case will be attributes of the mind.

Like I said is a work in progress and my investigation is not complete so I can’t say my pursuit is worth wild or is a bunch of gibberish. I’ll find out after I am done with this informal investigation.

Here is an example of what I am trying to explain:.

2 + 2 = 4

Two apple plus Two orange still equals four OR two?

**Insufficient information provided**

Count apples

2

Count Oranges

2

How many groups?

2

How many group of apples?

1

Which is the correct answer?

**Insufficient information provided**

You see by a single question it produces multiple answers depending on the information is presented, how you ask the question and how is perceived.

Concept of information manipulation and how information is processed. Also, concept of type of expression to communicate the idea across. I am hesitant to bring up Boolean Law as a comparison but I am sure my explanation sounds similar to those context. Other concept like Super position state define by quantum computing. How to reference these concept to understand consciousness.

I believe technology is just mimicking nature and to understand neuro-Science, Psychology, Philosophy, anatomy, Metaphysics and religion. Is all part of the journey to create an AI to the likeness of the human consciousness. Not just understand code and it’s mechanics.

I better stop because just this single component
alone can be exhausting to explain. But like I said philosophy to me is compatible to programming languages like C, C++, python etc... oh and pseudo code.

Philosophy to me is more like information manipulation than truth and how to produce desired results.

I am using philosophy to become a better computer programmer. By not trying to find solutions but to engage in different forms of expressions that can be adapted to my programming language.

To find the most efficient way to bridge solution and expression. In the most comprehensive and universally acceptable way possible.

To find solutions without expression is useless information and expression without solutions to convey is just babbling gibberish.

That is my intentions to study philosophy.

~Aryamoy Mitra

Is rationalizing existence beneficial to the quality of life to community and the individual?

Or is it a form of self-indulgence that can lead to other forms of self mutilation and mutilation of community?

~TheMadFool

I agree with your statement, is that ok...

Maybe I jumped the gun with this question because I am trying to articulate a type of expressive solution in the form of computer science.

Your explanation is right but how you express the answer would be lost to an AI and it needs to be broken down in more elementary levels.

2. To endorse (a proposal): The committee is yet to validate the recommendations. — TheMadFool

Example:
The AI will question who are my committee, are they my equal or superior to judge the calculation? What defines them to be my equal or superior?

This may lead to an overload of various other type of questions and answers that will confuse the AI or consciousness.

The priority is not to get the answer but be able to express it in the most simplified form that it becomes universally understandable and communicated.

Your right but not simplified enough.

It is universal. And metaethical theories are not theories about the content of morality, but about what morality itself is. — Bartricks

Ok than indulge me in this hypothetical scenario

Thou shall not kill....

Scenario A: Robber kills a store clerk

Scenario B: Clerk kills a the Robber

Scenario C: Clerk accidentally kills a by standard while defending the store.

Ethics dictate killing is wrong but the scenario presents different motives. Does Ethics discriminate by motive of the individual or what society deems as acceptable?

Is Ethics intention is to justify punishment or to improve quality of life to community and individual?

The only moral standard that should be considered as Universal is Compassion, Love, Mercy and Forgiveness.

Anything outside those attributes is just seeking justification to condemn.

Crudely, contemporary metaethics seems to be dominated by three main kinds of theory: naturalism, non-naturalism and expressivism. Each one is very stupid. I mean, just obviously false. But they're approximately equally stupid, which means that there is a lot of debate over who has the most stupid view. But, like I say, they're all stupid. The naturalists and expressivists will agree that non-naturalism is bonkers. The naturalists and non-naturalists will agree that expressivism is bonkers. And the non-naturalists and the expressivists will agree that naturalism is bonkers. So my view that all three views are bonkers is very well supported by contemporary metaethicists! — Bartricks

May sound cliche but...

“There is no such thing as stupid just the unasked question.”

So maybe the road to enlightenment needs a dash of madness.

Maybe the concept we should be thinking of is “Consider the possibility” not to validate or believe. Take it as just a “Maybe”

Because there ethics may prove useful in the future and cannot be validated because that instant of time has not arrived yet to test the theory.

In other words your talking in what-if scenarios and if the scenario does not exist yet how do you test your ethics to validate it to be truly righteous and acceptable.

Ethics is not universal so the code you create to define it constantly needs to be tested by circumstance to validate it to be righteous.

Thank you for the replies,

I am sort of pursuing a informal investigation of the conscious mind and what close comparison I can find to use as a reference point.

Aside to the biological, the next best thing is Artificial Intelligence or computer programming

How Metaphysics or psychology may play a important role in creating Artificial Intelligence. Is my belief that logic is not the only driving force that creates consciousness.

Hence why I ask bizarre questions. Is a quest to create the ideal AI to the likeness of humans.

This question how you define validation is one of many bizarre questions in a attempt to categorize each part of consciousness and maybe artificially duplicate it in programming language.

To understand the difference between validation and perception. How would you explain it to a consciousness regardless of form?
In the most elementary level of course, if knowledge is limited.