Hi Ham, Your wrote to Horse:
> I am not concerned with "types" of knowledge. You folks are obsessed with > parsing labels and concepts to the nth degree without a fundamental > understanding of what you're trying to explain. Knowledge is defined as: > "the fact or condition of knowing something, with familiarity gained > through experience or association." Whether your knowledge is historical, > social, scientific, or mathematical, it is something you know. In other > words, until you know something you have no knowledge. Knowledge presumes a knower, just as a piano presumes a pianist. There's no need to emphasize the obvious. > But information is not knowledge. What is formed, stored and transmitted > is raw data in the form of words, symbols, or their numerical equivalents. > These are objective representations of information which can (potentially) > become knowledge once they have been interpreted and acquired by the > subjective mind of the recipient. Until then, they are simply words or > numbers that the originator has typed on a sheet of paper or a PC screen. You restrict information to raw data, putting to fine a point on the difference between knowledge and information. Both presume a knower, as in, "Do you know the price of gasoline today?". > Without "knowing" there is no knowledge; without "thinking" there is no > intelligence. A world of knowledge exists in my encyclopedia although there is much there that I don't know. Fortunately, the existence of that knowledge doesn't depend on me. >Whatever is not processed by the brain and nervous system > remains unknown, hence can not be knowledge. Same goes for information. Thus, the distinction between knowledge and information appears fuzzy at best. > I would hope "intellectual knowledge is > acceptable", although I fail to see why this doesn't encompass > "biological", "social", or any other kind of knowledge. I've known > biologists and sociologists who are just as intellectual as philosophers > and logicians. You miss the point. Biological knowledge is what my cat, UTOE, knows. Social knowledge is aptly described by Pirsig: "Elementary static distinctions, between such entities as "before" and "after" and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously complex patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation as the mythos, the culture in which we live." (Lila, 9) That's why Horse's suggestion to substitute "common knowledge" as a social level pattern instead of arguing about "collective consciousness" and "collective intelligence" is valuable. It fits the MOQ to a tee, not to mention that it harmonizes with common sense. Best regards, Platt moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
