>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>>ROG:
>
>Yesterday I quoted Dr. Heylighen that knowledge is:
>
>"That which allows a control system to select the actions that will make its
>survival and replication more likely in a given environment."
>
>The opinion that the word is flat would lead to error. At least some
>predictions based upon this would fail. Any social organization (Us vs USSR
>let's say) or intellectual pattern that espoused a flat earth would be at a
>serious disadvantage... especially when launching satellites.
>
>
ERIN : No of course they are not equal. But because you are basing your
predictions on a range of possiblities isn't it still part of knowledge?
In the website Cybernetica Principia that you had mentioned I came across an
article that expresses what I was trying to say. The article is called
"knowledge and will" Isn't your definition crossing the boundary into will a
wee bit much (although I do see how both are related).
Knowledge and Will
As discussed in sections \ref{knowledge} and \ref{will}, we understand
knowledge as a model, or recursive generator of predictions; while will is
that agency which selects, or resolves uncertainty, in systemic processes.
Knowledge and will are intimately related in the actions of all neural
systems: the availability of knowledge acts as an {\em a priori} constraint on
the range of possible actions; while the will selects a final action from that
set.
In our thought and language we distinguish two different classes of elements
which we say exist: our {\bf beliefs}, expressing what we think we know; and
our {\bf desires} or {\bf intentions}, expressing what we are striving for and
intend to do. We can describe the elements of the first class collectively as
knowledge, and the elements of the second class as will. They are not isolated
from each other. Our goals and even our wishes depend on what we know about
our environment. Yet they are not determined by it in a unique way. We clearly
distinguish between the range of options we have and the actual act of
choosing between them. As an American philosopher noticed, no matter how
carefully you examine the schedule of trains, you will not find there an
indication as to where you want to go. We think about knowledge as a
representation of the world in our mind.
Another way to describe the relation between knowledge and will is as a
dichotomy between not-I and I, or between object and subject. The border
between them is defined by the phrase ``I can''. Indeed, the content of our
knowledge is independent of our will in the sense that we cannot change it by
simply changing our intentions or preferences. On the contrary, we can change
our intentions without any externally observable actions. We call it our will.
It is the essence of our ``I''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Copyright> > >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net > >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:43 BST