Necessary and sufficient distinctions: Knowledge is that which determines subsequent action.
Information in that which identifies cause and adds to knowledge. With respect, Steven -- Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://IASE.info http://senses.info On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:32 AM, José María Díaz Nafría <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > De: Rafael Capurro <[email protected]> > Fecha: 6 de octubre de 2009 02:28 > Asunto: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, > Issue 1) > Para: José María Díaz Nafría <[email protected]> > > > dear jose maria and fis colleagues, > > greetings from japan > > I very much agree with pedro's suggestions about naturalizing the > concept of knowledge i.e. of not reducing it to the propositional > traditional (platonic and partly arisotelian) concept (as suggested > also by floridi building a hierarchy where the top is propositional > scientific knowledge). the concept of implicit knowldge or > fore-knowledge in hermeneutic terms is a key issue that links in some > way the 'typical' human propositional knowledge with knowledged in > non-human agents. we should diversify our concepts and avoid > hierarchical and dogmatic human-centered views also through a classic > connection of data becoming information becoming knowledge, where > 'becoming' is some kind of black box that explains nothing. > > kind regards > > rafael > > > > > Zitat von José María Díaz Nafría <[email protected]>: > >> Dear FIS colleagues: >> >> I apologize for being so quiet, considering the interesting topics >> arisen with the occasion of our proposal to the COST open call of >> past >> March, which we thank once again. This proposal as revisited by FIS >> came to coincide in time with a call for themes proposal by the >> European Science Foundation (Eurocores Theme Proposal), which we also >> presented with a short timing. We may not succeed in the first >> attempt, but anyhow it aims at opening a new scientific topic in the >> ESF. If the proposed theme were selected, new projects in the >> delimited field (well fitted to FIS interests) from any European >> state >> could be presented to joint the research network. I say that, to >> justify our silence in the FIS arena, while we were actually working >> on it, although in the background. Afterwards, it was too late to >> answer, when already other issues were under discussion… To keep on >> the argument thread of our COST essays: we were not among the few >> selected proposals, but were given reasons to hope and reworked the >> proposal and applied again one week ago. About the theme proposal for >> Eurocores, we do not have any evaluation yet. >> >> Even if I am not answering straight forward Pedro’s words, I feel >> that >> we should let FISers know our efforts in finding new cooperative >> research scenarios within the realm of FIS interests. Now taking back >> Pedro’s proposal of discussion about knowledge: on the one hand, I >> cordially thank Pedro’s initiative of bringing to this outstanding >> stage a part of our elucidation; on the other hand, before saying >> something about the topic, I feel the need to set the context were >> the >> strive for this definition take place, which also implies giving a >> general idea about BITrum project (see >> <http://www.unileon.es/congresos/bitrum/T_Bitrum_presentation.htm>), >> where we pursue an interdisciplinary approach to the information >> concept from a maximally open perspective, aiming at the mutual >> understanding of all the concerned points of view. As you may see in >> the given link, one of the main means to get such a mutual >> understanding is a glossary of concepts, metaphors, theories and >> problems concerning information. At the first stage, it should help >> in >> the definition of working teams, while in following stages it may >> become an arena of discussion about particular issues, a reference of >> specific themes and crystallization of both research (within working >> teams) and consensus. >> Hence, the elucidation itself will be somehow reflected in this >> glossary, which edition has already started and its first public >> version -although very incomplete- will see the light at the end of >> this year. >> >> Although BITrum members are committed to feed the glossary, any >> interested author is wellcomed to contribute. The managing schema of >> the glossary includes: 1) a coordination board for glossary edition; >> 2) an editor per article, who takes over the integration of every >> contribution to such voice in a non redundant and rather systematic >> article; 3) any other may contribute, as author or coauthor, with >> entries, which will be afterwards integrated by the editor in an >> article. >> As an example, Pedro is editor of the voices: “Action-perception >> cycle”; “Cognit”; “Foundations of Information Science”; >> “Knowledge >> recombination”. Other FISers, like Rafael Capurro, Wolfgang >> Hofkirchner or Peter Fleissner also contribute as editors of other >> voices. >> >> After having given a general picture of the glossary and the projects >> where it is a main axis, I feel free to go to the settled discussion >> about knowledge, in which I contributed with the following entry to >> the voice (I do not bring the other two entries to this voice, since >> they are still in Spanish): >> >> * * * KNOWLEDGE * * * >> NOTE: “>[voice]” denotes that such voice is developed among >> glossary voices. >> >> From the most viewpoints regarding information and knowledge, the >> relationships between these two concepts are close, especially as far >> as the common use of both terms is concerned. As a rule, the position >> of information is lower than that of knowledge, with information >> somehow ‘nourishing’ knowledge. Nevertheless, this connection is >> ignored in case of a radical syntactic vision, where the problem of >> the relationship is avoided to address only its technical dimension >> (as in the >Mathematical Theory of Communication), or also from a >> radical pragmatic point of view, in which only what-is-being-done is >> called into question. If that were the case, information is just >> considered as a mere instrument of the action and, therefore, the >> problem of whether information refers to objects is ignored (be it in >> terms of whether we are dealing with a correct perception or if it is >> known that p is the case). >> >> Although conceptions of knowledge are and have been very different, >> such as for the opinions regarding its definition, possibility, basis >> or its modes, we can say that two fundamental models have prevailed: >> the iconic one, according to which knowledge is an accurate picture >> (of mental nature) of the object of knowledge, and the propositional >> model, whereby knowledge is a real proposition. The problems of the >> iconic model, where perception and apprehension play a key role, lies >> in the specification of the limits between object and subject, as >> well >> as in the explanation of non-iconic knowledge (such as logical, >> mathematical and relational “truths”). However, in the propositio >> nal >> model, where the scientific statement plays an exemplary role, the >> inevitable circle, which comprises the justification of knowledge, >> becomes problematic (>Gödel´s incompleteness theorem). But, whate >> ver >> the model of representation, there would be a difference between >> knowledge and a true opinion, insofar as only that one knows how to >> justify himself (although its justification is only partial or >> problematic). >> >> According to what is said, it is clear that in all those ideas on >> information in which semantic dimension is considered, its link with >> knowledge must appear. Normally, a more analytic concept for >> information is adopted and a more synthetic one for knowledge, as >> well >> as a bigger proximity to the object on the part of the information >> and >> to the subject on the part of knowledge. >> >> For >Dretske “knowledge is belief produced by information”, and >> belief >> always relates to a background of knowledge. From a naturalistic >> perspective, in which a casual dependence occurs among the internal >> states of a living being and external conditions, information for >> Dretske creates experience (sensory representations) and causes >> beliefs (cognitive experiences), which underlie the sedimentation of >> knowledge. >> >> According to Floridi’s semantic approach, knowledge is constituted >> in >> terms of justifiable semantic information, i.e. information >> constitutes the elements for further inquiry. In its turn, >> information >> is the result of a data modelling process, which unlike the Dretsk >> e’s >> naturalistic assumption does not necessarily represent the intrinsic >> nature of the studied system (or is not necessarily directly linked >> to >> it by a causal chain), instead, it will depend on the development of >> the data by knowledge. In turn, the data are conceived as resources >> and restrictions that allow for the construction of information. >> Therefore, one can say that Floridi proposes an architectural >> relationship between knowledge, information and data, where the first >> one is situated on the summit and the data on the base. At the same >> time, and as a result of this interrelationship, he replaces the >> requirement of truth of Dretske (who also endorses the situational >> semantic theory) by a requirement of truthfulness, so that instead of >> searching for a correspondence between the statement and the content >> of the information, a correspondence is rather being sought between >> what is reported and the informant. >> >> In the >Unified Theory of Information, knowledge is constituted by >> means of interpreting the data (or assigning meaning), which, in >> turn, >> is the basis for decision-making that makes up “practical >> wisdom”. In >> this case, we are talking about different levels of information >> rather >> than a dependency relationship, so that information is gradually >> processed: first, at the syntactic or structural level, then at the >> semantic or state level, and, finally, at the pragmatic or >> behavioural >> level. The information processing is performed by means of >> interrelationship between the adjacent strata and not in terms of a >> casual progression (as in Dretske’s naturalism). >> >> * * * >> Sorry if it was too long: I just wanted, besides contributing to >> Pedro’s opened discussion, to show how we are developing the gloss >> ary, >> to which all of you are very kindly invited. I thank again Pedro for >> giving us this opportunity. >> >> Best regards to all, >> >> José María Díaz Nafría >> BITrum project Coordination board >> Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio >> Madrid (Spain) >> >> >> >>> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:16:12 +0200 >>> From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge? >>> To: fis <[email protected]> >>> >>> Dear FISers, >>> >>> I was asked several months ago, in the context of the Leon >>> conference >>> (BITrum & interdisciplinary elucidation of the information >>> concept, last >>> June) to participate in the definition of some info-related >>> concepts. >>> "Knowledge" was one of them (if I am not wrong). After some trials I >>> have realized that the task is outside the bounds of my competence >>> --except in a rather trivial, anthropomorphic sense, one gets >>> caught in >>> regressions almost inevitably... Maybe one has to take care >>> simultaneously of the whole lot of basic characteristics >>> pertaining to >>> informational entities ("concepts" included...). Well, sorry to >>> the Leon >>> colleagues that I have failed to fulfill the compromise, but I think >>> there is interesting discussion to be advanced behind it. >>> >>> best >>> >>> Pedro >>> >>> PS. We are starting the firs steps in the neurodynamic central >>> theory >>> proyect (NCT). Interested parties might have openings yet, contact >>> Fivos >>> Panetsos ([email protected]) and me ([email protected]). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fis mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> > > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro > Hochschule der Medien (HdM) - Stuttgart Media University, > Wolframstr. 32 > 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany > E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected] > Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182 > Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21) > Homepage: www.capurro.de > Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de > Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net > Information Ethics Senior Fellow, 2007-2008, Center for Information > Policy > Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee, USA > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
