Replying to LO30570 --
Dear LO'ers,
The dialogue on information and knowledge is regular returning subject on
this list.I have thought how to create a soil for breeding new thoughts on
this subject. I have seen that some of us have their own clear
understanding about differences or distinctions between the two, others
are less sure, but have some feelings and still others are completely
unaware of possible differences.Instead of trying to continue the path of
definitions, we might try to overlook the scenery of information and
knowledge from a more distant point of view. From such position it might
be possible to look for congruences in form and content. This activity is
not ment to come to (new) definitions, but to increase our understandings
of this complex subject. I am very pleased if we could start with this
sort of exploration, because I am not font of definitions. Definitions are
based on the idea that this world could be divided and ordered in strict
categories, as if twilight zones between the categories do not exist. The
Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), a subject that has been discussed
earlier on this list. And it is in these grey twilight zones were very
often new discoveries could be made. Meanwhile, also Artificial
Intelligence (AI) and computers act in the background of this dialogue.
I therefor suggest that we make an attempt to investigate the form and the
content of knowledge, information and computers. Perhaps systems thinking
is a good way to do this.
Two brain activities seem important during thinking: 1) making choices; 2)
making connections. It seems that both activities are also activities in
the hardware of computers. The first thing that comes in my mind is
whether information contains also these activities. Or in other words is
information anyhow able to act - potentially active; is information a
being ('dead') and not able to evolve to a becoming, and brain/computer a
being which could evolve in a becoming ('alive')?
I leave this question for further investigations.
Let's explore the two activities further. The first mentioned - making
choices - implies a complex scenery. It has to do with structuring,
ordering, filtering and creating boundaries, and yes, also creating
definitions. Have you ever thought of this subject? What sort of criteria
are involved during a choice? Is it possible to define these criteria in
such a way that they could be programmed in a computer? I don't think so.
If this last question was answered with yes, judges could be replaced by
computers. Right or wrong, guilty or not guilty could be programmed and
defined by hard criteria. Some how, our brains work different than a seive
or filter which could split a a sample in just two fractions. Our brains
seem to be able to mix several criteria in one action, and moreover a mix
of undefineable feelings and emotions influence our choices. Will it be
ever possible to get grip on these 'vague' things and translate them in
computer algorithms? How could we programme the things that beling to the
excluded middle?
Because of so much complexity, we like to simplify things. One of these
simplifications is that we often suppose that boundaries are hair-thin
lines, one-dimensional, without a surface. It was during the birth of
fractal theory that the subject of boundaries became better known. Two
examples of this subject are: a) the length of the coastline of the
Brittish Isles depends on the scale of observation; the 'snowflake' of
Koch, an endless line surrounding a limited area. The 'sharpness' of
boundaries, definitions, criteria of choices, etc. depends on the scale! I
think that our brains think multidimensional and and multiscalar, whereas
computers could act only in unidimensional and on uniscalar.
Making connections is the other brain activity. In a certain sense this
means that our brains deny boundaries and limitations. Our brains are able
to cennect everything with everything, which implies that brains work in a
multi-dimensional space. It means that each piece of data which enters our
brains adds another dimension to the whole. Suppose our brains work in a
10th-dimensional space, the data you have just read increase the dimension
with several numbers. Imagine how much new connections this means. Of
course most of these connections are not avtive or will be ever activated,
but the wireing is there, it IS possible to activate these connections. Is
this possible in a computer, or will it be possible in the future?
Until now I have not much said of knowledge and information. With the
above thoughts I think that knowledge has something to do with this
multidimensionality, and information is a projection of this to 2D, or
perhaps 3D.
Before I will become caught in the trap of definitions, I like to stress
that there are no limits and boundaries between dimensions, despite the
'rigid' outlook of the digits used.
Perhaps there are others who could sketch another distant view on this
subject. Another perspective will help to increase our understandings.
Leo Minnigh
--"leo minnigh" <minnigh@dds.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.