Hi Platt -- > Knowledge presumes a knower, just as a piano presumes > a pianist. There's no need to emphasize the obvious.
Apparently there is such a need here. Knowledge and intelligence are being attributed to libraries, cities, genetics and vaccines, none of which are "knowers". I'm sorry Platt, but conscious awareness is the 'sine qua non' of experienced reality, and I can't let this distorted word usage pass without voicing my objections -- even to Horse, who has yet to respond to my latest post. Incidentally, I wouldn't say that a piano necessarily presumes a pianist. One could conceivably constuct a device that is "unplayable". How 'bout we say, "music presumes a composer"? > 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?". No. The price of gasoline, as you well know, is a variable piece of information determined by the market. Its exact value at any particular time is probably not known, hence does not presume a "knower". Information coming in over the news wires is known only to the originator until it is acquired and interpreted as knowledge by those who receive it. The distinction is a very important one, especially when presenting an epistemology. > 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. "World of knowledge" is a euphemistic expression which suggests that everyone can absorb the totality of information printed in your encyclopedia. Of course this is impossible, and the expression is misleading. As you would argue, individuals put this information together, and not one of them knows it all. A body of information is not intelligence until it becomes part of an individual's knowledge. > 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) It is the conscious mind, not "growing patterns", that discerns differences and similarities. The dissemination of "knowledge patterns" is an objective process, like distributing newspapers. Publishing information, or passing it down from one generation to the next, is no assurance that it will be transformed into knowledge. You of all people should realize this, Platt. > 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. Common sense, no, though it may feel good. But you've just explained why the MoQ author found it expedient to promulgate a myth. I fear the end is nigh. Thanks, and best regards to you, Ham 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/
