To: Erin and Info seekers (join in on this one team, I think Erin and I need
help)
From: Rog
ROG WROTE:
[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 REPLIED:
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?
ROG:
Your initial question seemed to contend that within my definition knowledge
does not increase when we learn something of value, if we drop something of
lower value ie gain in knowledge of round earth comes at expense of knowledge
of flat earth. I disagree that this is the effect. The effect is to gain
knowledge of an idea with value AND to gain knowledge of an idea with low
value. You learn of two theories and their relative values. Knowledge and
survival/quality increase. This relates to my comments to Horse. Even
knowledge of noise is knowledge, as you know where the noise is/isn't.
ERIN:
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).
ROG:
This article always gets me confused. It seems that Heylighen jumps in with
both feet into the Cartesian world of I/not I. I refuse to follow him there.
He separates out the selection mechanism from knowledge and then gets right
back into the SOM trap. Free will determinism, subject/object etc.
Certainly I agree that the SOM division can be made and can be of value, but
it's limitations are well known. I lean more toward there being no
fundamental division between I/Not I and Knowledge/will. So, in answer to
your Q, YES my definition of knowledge crosses firmly into the realm where
western philosophers would carve out "will". I make no such carving.
HEYLIGHEN WRITES:
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.
ROG:
I understand the customary SOM divisions above, but disagree that they are
fundamental. I DO NOT THINK OF KNOWLEDGE JUST AS A REPRESENTATION IN THE
MIND. I think of knowledge as that which increases value. The best train
destination is that which will increase your ability to
survive/thrive/learn/etc.
But I very well may be wrong, or at least confused
Rog on skinny branches
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