ROG WROTE:
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 REPLIED:
Isn't my first statement saying that? It is the weights of the knowledge
that change (certainty= weight) not a replacement of knowledge. So
information would lead to a change in weights of knowledge, right?
ROG:
Yes. Your 1st statement did say this. I was adding though that new knowledge
is gained in the process. Do you agree with this?
ERIN:
HMMM (the author's idea applies to us) what if knowledge = cognitive map
(SQ); will = process of updating? exploring? that map (DQ)
ROG
Maybe. I really am getting confused though. I am used to waiting a few days
between posts. This rapid fire pace has me spinning. I need to get off
vacation and get some rest!
ERIN:
I absolutely agree that there doesn't have to be a division BUT I still think
your definition is capturing the WILL better than KNOWLEDGE.
ROG:
You are probably right. But since I find problems in all attempts to divide
these out, I would rather live with a broad concept of KNOWLEDGE and no
distinction of I/not I and no separate concept of will. (which again leads
to the oxymoron FREE WILL, etc) In other words, I can't find any way to take
the SOM out of WILL, but I can take it out of KNOWLEDGE. The net result
though may be entirely too sloppy for someone who doesn't follow me in
initial models. Thoughts? What am I missing?
Ramblin' Rog
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