2 Responses to “Knowledge”

1. Anthony Says:
   August 5th, 2006 at 3:28 am

   I just noticed this post, and it reminded me of the contrast between syntax and semantics. Some other splits which have a similar flavor are: specification versus implementation; structure versus function; static versus dynamic.

   When Claude Shannon initiatied the study of what came to be known as “information theory,” he was explicit about stripping all semantics out of the problem and focusing entirely on the syntax. The task, as he framed it, was to communicate a message reliably, and a message was, roughly, a specification of one possibility out of many. It doesn’t matter what the sender means with the message, and it doesn’t matter what the receiver will do with it; all that matters is that if the sender wanted to send ‘A’, that the receiver is able to receive the message and know that ‘A’ was sent. ‘A’ could be, or mean, anything at all as far as the information-theoretics go.

   The bit, being the basic unit of information storage in computers, epitomizes this. It’s either 0 or 1, specifying one of two possibilities. Anything stored in a computer is ultimately stored in this form, in other words has ultimately been reduced to information, in other words has been stripped of its knowledge content (in a manner of speaking). One might argue that the code which makes a computer do something is also stored this way, and since it’s “doing” there’s some kind of knowledge at work. But imagine there were no people around — would the actions of that computer mean anything? Maybe if we had intelligent computers, but at this point, not really The computer might do something, and that might cause other computers to do something, but the whole action would look something like a Rube Goldberg machine unless people were involved and were effected by what was happening.

   To my way of thinking, the meaning of the word ‘knowledge’ is bound up in how people utilize information. I say ‘utilize’ instead of ‘use’ to emphasize the creative or non-obvious uses to which information can be applied. Computers are good at storing information and exrapolating to generate new information, but they’re awful at the sort of creative application which we take so much for granted it’s routine and unnoticed. We don’t think twice about using a coffee stirrer as a bookmark, say, but that kind of mundane leap is nearly impossible for a computer which hasn’t been pre-programmed to make such leaps. I think that when we say a person “knows” something, we’re implicitly saying we believe they can creatively apply their knowledge in a variety of non-obvious ways. Someone who routinely applies rules is a novice/neophyte/apprentice.

   To put it another way: trying to encode knowledge in a computer is like trying to encode the concept of ‘leverage’ in a lever. A lever produces or enhances leverage, but is not the same as it. Mixing up the two is absurd in the case of levers, but for whatever reason a lot of people make the same category error when it comes to information and knowledge.

2. Natalie Shell Says:
   August 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

   Thank you for this post, Anthony.

   I am not sure how this is related Anthony, but in reading your post I was especially struck by how, yet again, our tools (machines, media) and systems are further alienating / seperating us from the process / from what it means to be human…in putting our knowledge into a computer we too function as instruments rather than knowledge makers and sharers…

   This does not mean that I want to see computers gone, however it does mean I would like to see far more critical thinking around knowledge management system and so forth…ancient tools, like stories, are still far better at transferring knowledge… however when large organizations invest in knowledge management systems, there seems to be very little thinking around teaching/reminding people to share the stories of what worked, to answer questions, to share - learnings etc.

   McLuran’s the medium is the message as a slogan continues to haunt me. If we are choosing to spend our resources and measurement on the tool over and above the utilization of the content contained within the tool then we are doing ourselves and humanity a disservice.

   A question that has been plaguing me recently is that we have so much knowledge AND information about better/other ways of doing things, why then is it that they aren’t being disseminated…or when they are disseminated, why are they not used? I wonder if inherent in our current tools and media there is the intent / design for a closed system…

   This is also why I am enjoying the growth of the open source movement - though on a whole other level I recognise that its growth is the result of utilizing tools in opposition to the current status quo…

   your thoughts?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website