I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:

"Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."

It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.

For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
they are in memory, they must be knowledge? 

Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
information being accepted as true without verification. Still
knowledge.

Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
considered that system's knowledge.

Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
interpret any case.


Gennadi Bedjanian
i'm suffocating from spam, so my  mutilated email is:
gbedja x @ x dsnet x net

"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...
> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>
> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>
> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
>
> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
>
> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
> knowledge.
But scientists can dream as well. Look please at our history. Why wouldn't
we dream now about a lot of things?
>
> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
> considered that system's knowledge.
>
> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
> interpret any case.
>
>
> Gennadi Bedjanian
> i'm suffocating from spam, so my mutilated email is:
> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net

Do you still live?

This is language so mathematical proof is another thing, I think. But we can
give
arguments.

We have had an automation society, information society and a knowledge
society.
So some people think about a difference between information and knowledge.
Some questions:
1. Is knowledge more applicable then information?

2..Is knowledge more a part with context than information

3. Is Informed the same as knowing now?

You informed me about the weather in your country, but is knowledge not
wider
than? When I have knowledge of the weather where you live I maybe know more,
than
just your current weather. What do you think?

The question of knowledge is a very old question as well.

Have a good day

Ed

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:58:21 +0200, "Ed van der Meulen"
<ameulen@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
>news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...
>> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
>> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
>> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>>
>> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>>
>> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
>> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
>>
>> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
>> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
>>
>> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
>> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
>> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
>> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
>> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
>> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
>> knowledge.

>But scientists can dream as well. Look please at our history. Why wouldn't
>we dream now about a lot of things?
I wouldn't venture into the realm of dreams - it's as obscure as
anything. For instance, is it possible that dreaming is a form of KM?
After all, Mendeleev discovered Mendeleev's Periodic Table while
asleep. Go figure.


>> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
>> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
>> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
>> considered that system's knowledge.
>>
>> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
>> interpret any case.
>>
>>
>> Gennadi Bedjanian
>> i'm suffocating from spam, so my mutilated email is:
>> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net
>
>Do you still live?
still cogito, yes

>
>This is language so mathematical proof is another thing, I think. But we can
>give arguments.
>We have had an automation society, information society and a knowledge
>society.
>So some people think about a difference between information and knowledge.
>Some questions:
>1. Is knowledge more applicable then information?
Is there knowledge that is *not* information?

>2..Is knowledge more a part with context than information
>3. Is Informed the same as knowing now?
>
>You informed me about the weather in your country, but is knowledge not
>wider than? When I have knowledge of the weather where you live I maybe know more,
>than just your current weather. What do you think?
When that information entered your memory, it became your knowledge.
Sorry, I lost you on wider knowledge.

>The question of knowledge is a very old question as well.
It is. I'm just trying to find a practical case where the proposed
descriptive definition fails. Preferably in KM.

>I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
>stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
>any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>
>"Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>
>It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
>couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.

I recenlty read a Metalogue by Gregory Bateson where his daughter asks him
"puppa, whats 'instinct'?" to which he replied "'instinct', my dear, is an
explanatory principle", and she said "but what does it explain?" and he said
"what ever you want it to explain!"

You could just as easily say the same thing for explanatory devices like
'information', 'memory' and 'knowledge'. They explain what ever you want them to
explain. Your definition is completely vacous because in and of itself it doesnt
'mean' anything, or, to be more precise, it means precisely what you want it to
mean.


>
>For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
>they are in memory, they must be knowledge? 
>
>Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
>knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
>by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
>only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
>Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
>information being accepted as true without verification. Still
>knowledge.
>
>Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
>them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
>of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
>considered that system's knowledge.
>
>Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
>interpret any case.
>
>
>Gennadi Bedjanian
>i'm suffocating from spam, so my  mutilated email is:
>gbedja x @ x dsnet x net


Glen, if your interested in Knowledge i suggest studying Epistemology.
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with knowledge, i.e., what it
is and how we come into possession of it, asking such questions like 'what can
we know'? and 'how do you know that you know'?. 

peace out


mickeyd

"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
news:q1cmpvk9ts9teou0cjhams6a6093kar2vt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:58:21 +0200, "Ed van der Meulen"
> <ameulen@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> >"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
> >news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...

3  =  gen
> >> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> >> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> >> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
> >>
> >> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
> >>
> >> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
> >> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
> >>
> >> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
> >> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
> >>
> >> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
> >> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
> >> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
> >> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
> >> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
> >> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
> >> knowledge.

2  = ed
> >But scientists can dream as well. Look please at our history. Why
wouldn't
> >we dream now about a lot of things?

1  = gen
> I wouldn't venture into the realm of dreams - it's as obscure as
> anything. For instance, is it possible that dreaming is a form of KM?
> After all, Mendeleev discovered Mendeleev's Periodic Table while
> asleep. Go figure.

0  = ed
I don't know if you recognize this. In my sleep I get often a solution
I did find when I was awake.

This is like the twilight of this subject.

Dreams contains maybe partly real experiences but in an own environment.
And of course that environment counts. But what is it.

People can also daydream. We can also be drunk. So yes different
states of us ourselves.

Maybe we are never really completely awake. But suppose we look only at
rational info and radiational knowledge. Can we that skip our feelings?

I'm not sure of it. Maybe we always look with colored glasses. Only the
existing knowledge is already important for we have to interpret what
get as information.
>
>
3  = gen
> >> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
> >> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
> >> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
> >> considered that system's knowledge.
> >>
> >> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
> >> interpret any case.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gennadi Bedjanian
> >> i'm suffocating from spam, so my mutilated email is:
> >> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net

2 = ed
> >Do you still live?

1 = gen
> still cogito, yes
>
0,2  = ed
im Dasein?

> >This is language so mathematical proof is another thing, I think. But we
can
> >give arguments.
> >We have had an automation society, information society and a knowledge
> >society.
> >So some people think about a difference between information and
knowledge.
> >Some questions:
> >1. Is knowledge more applicable then information?

> Is there knowledge that is *not* information?

Information looks to have a sender and a receiver. What do you think.
Knowledge
you have and the other hasn't,

When do you say. I know this or I have information about it?
>
> >2..Is knowledge more a part with context than information
> >3. Is Informed the same as knowing now?
> >
> >You informed me about the weather in your country, but is knowledge not
> >wider than? When I have knowledge of the weather where you live I maybe
know more,
> >than just your current weather. What do you think?

> When that information entered your memory, it became your knowledge.
> Sorry, I lost you on wider knowledge.
>
> >The question of knowledge is a very old question as well.

Gen
> It is. I'm just trying to find a practical case where the proposed
> descriptive definition fails. Preferably in KM.

0  = Ed

Yes, I understand that but is there a sharp difference between them?

And meanings of words are just what we together think of it.

Information can flow from you to me. But knowledge resides in our brains.
Is that true?

Also information looks easier to quantify than knowledge.

A very long quote. Is it more than a language problem? How we will phrase
things?:

This is merriam Webster about information. And you se the word knowledge
appear like a synonym.

So then information is like a stream and knowledge stays at a place and can
grow there
for instance.
Main Entry:information
Pronunciation:*inf*(r)*m*sh*n
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:Middle English informacioun, from enfourmen, informen to inform
+ -acioun -ation * more at INFORM
1 a obsolete   : an endowing with form  b obsolete   : the act of animating
or inspiring  c obsolete   : TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, INSTRUCTION  d : the
communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence *the function of a
public library is information* *we enclose a price list for your
information*
2 : something received or obtained through informing: as  a : knowledge
communicated by others or obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
b : knowledge of a particular event or situation : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS,
ADVICES *latest information from the battle front* *securing information
about conditions in the upper atmosphere* *information bureau*  c : facts or
figures ready for communication or use as distinguished from those
incorporated in a formally organized branch of knowledge : DATA *reliable
source of information*  d : a signal (as one of the digits in dialing a
telephone number) purposely impressed upon the input of a communication
system or a calculating machine
3 : the act of informing against a person or party
4 a : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer on
information brought to his attention as distinguished from an indictment
presented by a grand jury : COMPLAINT  b : a pleading by an attorney general
or other public officer setting forth a civil case or relief in which some
public right of the state is asserted  c : the document containing the
depositions of the witnesses against one accused of crime
5 : the process by which the form of an object of knowledge is impressed
upon the apprehending mind so as to bring about the state of knowing
6 : a logical quantity belonging to propositions and arguments as well as
terms and comprising the sum of the synthetical propositions in which the
term, proposition, or argument taken enters as subject or predicate,
antecedent or consequent   see QUANTITY 5c
7 : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an
experiment to be performed *when an event occurs whose probability was p,
the event is said to communicate an amount of information log (1/p)
W.F.Brown b. 1904* *the amount of information is defined, in the simplest
cases, to be measured by the logarithm of the number of available choices
C.E.Shannon & Warren Weaver*
synonyms see KNOWLEDGE


Main Entry:2knowledge
Pronunciation:*
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English knawlage, knowlage, knawlege, knowlege, from
knawlechen, knowlechen, v.
1 obsolete    a : ACKNOWLEDGMENT  b : COGNIZANCE
2 : the fact or condition of knowing  a (1) : the fact or condition of
knowing something with a considerable degree of familiarity gained through
experience of or contact or association with the individual or thing so
known *a thorough knowledge of life and its problems* *has a fair knowledge
of the people of that country* *a remarkable knowledge of human nature* (2)
: acquaintance with or theoretical or practical understanding of some branch
of science, art, learning, or other area involving study, research, or
practice and the acquisition of skills *knowledge of advanced mathematics*
*has little knowledge of the techniques of drawing and painting* *a
knowledge of foreign languages*  b (1) : the fact or condition of being
cognizant, conscious, or aware of something *was elated by knowledge of
their success* *the knowledge that it was really important* *his knowledge
of what she had had to endure* (2) : the particular existent range of one's
information or acquaintance with facts : the scope of one's awareness :
extent of one's understanding *said that to the best of his knowledge the
matter had not yet been attended to*  c : the fact or condition of
apprehending truth, fact, or reality immediately with the mind or senses :
PERCEPTION, COGNITION *intellective knowledge* *the nature of knowledge* :
COMPREHENSION, UNDERSTANDING *intuitive knowledge* *proceeding from the
lower to the higher degrees of knowledge*  d : the fact or condition of
possessing within mental grasp through instruction, study, research, or
experience one or more truths, facts, principles, or other objects of
perception : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
or erudite *a man of great knowledge* *always seeking after more and more
knowledge*
3 archaic   : CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
4 a : the sum total of what is known : the whole body of truth, fact,
information, principles, or other objects of cognition acquired by mankind
*adding to the vast store of knowledge* *all branches of knowledge*  b
archaic   : a branch of learning : ART, SCIENCE
synonyms KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE, LEARNING, ERUDITION, SCHOLARSHIP, INFORMATION,
and LORE agree in signifying what is or can be known. KNOWLEDGE applies to
any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or
accepted as truths on good grounds *a knowledge of languages* *a knowledge
of the habits of snakes* *a knowledge of modern chemistry* *to benefit by
the accumulated knowledge of centuries* SCIENCE still sometimes interchanges
with KNOWLEDGE but commonly applies to a body of systematized knowledge
comprising facts carefully gathered and general truths carefully inferred
from them, often underlying a practice, usually connoting exactness, and
often denoting knowledge of unquestionable certainty *must bear in mind that
geographic discovery also is science, and it was a scientific theory that
impelled the venture of Columbus I.M.Price* *the defense of nations had
become a science and a calling T.B.Macaulay* *the science of administration
A.S.Link* *the art of feeding preceded the science of nutrition by many
centuries F.B.Hadley* *the diagnosis of disease is no longer primarily
guesswork but rather a science* LEARNING applies to knowledge gained by
study, often long and careful and sometimes connoting comprehensiveness and
profundity *to expose children to as much learning as possible* *a full,
rich, human book, packed with information lightly dispensed and fortified
with learning easily worn Honor Tracy* *a man of great and profound learning
but little common sense* ERUDITION usually stresses wide, profound, or
recondite learning, sometimes suggesting pedantry *often flabbergast their
elders with their erudition   a scholarly but lively sense of words, a sound
background in history and economics, the ability to translate or even to
speak two or three foreign languages Stanley Walker* *all the encyclopedic
erudition of the middle ages J.L.Lowes* *balancing an immense load of
erudition upon a precarious foundation of fact Times Literary Supplement*
SCHOLARSHIP implies the learning, careful mastery of detail, especially of a
given field, and the critical acumen characteristic of a good scholar *the
immense and rapidly expanding scholarship not only in psychology but in
history, sociology, and anthropology as well, which illuminates the study of
the family Lynn White* *unusually equipped in both scientific and classical
scholarship in addition to his command of his own field, a brilliant and
powerful lecturer E.S.Bates* *his learning and general scholarship were
universally recognized, and in his special sphere of law he had no peer in
this country T.D.Bacon* INFORMATION generally applies to knowledge, commonly
accepted as true, of a factual kind usually gathered from others or from
books *this book, packed with information of the life and movements of big
game Times Literary Supplement* *to seek information about a man from
friends and credit records* *a book of information about early river boats*
LORE suggests special, often arcane, knowledge, usually of a traditional,
anecdotal character and of a particular subject *fairy lore* *one of the
most bizarre occurrences in railroad lore Bennett Cerf* *bird lore* *taught
the lore of medicinal herbs American Guide Series: Louisiana*


I am just trying

Sorry for the length of this reply.

Ed

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:36:28 GMT, gen <no@adspam.net> wrote:

>I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
>stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
>any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>
>"Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."

Let's say that the system is a computer, that we have included some
information 'i' in a message 'c', that we have encrypted the message
with a secret key 'k' and that we have put the encrypted message 'e'
in the memory of the computer. To rule out brute force attacks, it is
also important that the system doesn't have any information about the
symmetric algorithm 'a' that we used to encrypt 'c', because there is
an infinity of possible decrypting algorithms.

To the system, 'e' is just (meaningless) data, because we keep 'k' and
'a' secret, so 'e' can't represent any knowledge. 

We can check, scientifically, that 'e' contains real information (we
can decrypt 'e' at any time to try to falsify the theory that it
contains 'i'). So it seems we have a case here where "some of the
information residing in a system's memory is not the system's
knowledge"


Pat

 

<Bouh> wrote in message news:td6mpvg654lukqtm724ddf2c926c6tcauh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:36:28 GMT, gen <no@adspam.net> wrote:
>
> >I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> >stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> >any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
> >
> >"Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>
> Let's say that the system is a computer, that we have included some
> information 'i' in a message 'c', that we have encrypted the message
> with a secret key 'k' and that we have put the encrypted message 'e'
> in the memory of the computer. To rule out brute force attacks, it is
> also important that the system doesn't have any information about the
> symmetric algorithm 'a' that we used to encrypt 'c', because there is
> an infinity of possible decrypting algorithms.
>
> To the system, 'e' is just (meaningless) data, because we keep 'k' and
> 'a' secret, so 'e' can't represent any knowledge.
>
> We can check, scientifically, that 'e' contains real information (we
> can decrypt 'e' at any time to try to falsify the theory that it
> contains 'i'). So it seems we have a case here where "some of the
> information residing in a system's memory is not the system's
> knowledge"

Yes, I like your answer Pat.

I see that notion only as functional. Like biologists see it. They are our
senses, isn't
it, so we have to listen to them, I think.

I look often more at results. For they count. But that's partly also
functional. Something
can function or not function. Can't we not easy be mistaken?

Is e then information, Pat. What can you do with it? We can think further
now.
You say, e contains information, that is true, I think as well, but is it
information for us.
You can be right.

So information can exist in a container or a trailer moving it to another
place..
Knowledge is more in our head.

There's so much info about things as knowledge and nothing of it is really
popular.
It's not wrong to read some things. But is that good opinion? We will never
leave
opinions.

> Pat

Ed

But one is not observing "information that resides in a system" when one
applies the term "knowledge." The meanings of terms are to be found in their
usage and what that ultimately tells you about the variables controlling the
utterance as a piece of behavior.

"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...
> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>
> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>
> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
>
> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
>
> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
> knowledge.
>
> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
> considered that system's knowledge.
>
> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
> interpret any case.
>
>
> Gennadi Bedjanian
> i'm suffocating from spam, so my  mutilated email is:
> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net

First, replies

>mickeyd
My question was originally without context, like a 1st search in
Google with one keyword. Hope it'll be in a more explanatory framework
a bit later in this message.

>Ed
The dictionary definitions seem to support my viewpoint by
cross-mentioning the terms, though they are of course philologically
descriptive, and I'm looking for more precision.

>Pat
Yes, "'e' is just (meaningless) data" for the system. But to 'know'
and to 'understand' is not the same. I can know a mantra but not
understand it. 
The system would need more knowledge to make 'e' meaningful. Aren't we
often like that, knowing only a part of something and not
understanding the whole?

Now, to add a bit of a context to the definition. My case was about
knowledge editing within a Knowledge Management System. As an example,
product information may be stored in a system. A salesrep accesses the
system and gets what he needs. It's quite smooth in repeated daily
operation, but when things get out of the usual routine and an extra
effort is needed to figure out how and what to retrieve, the user may
become frustrated. The system does not distinguish between the
different states of information (in memory and not in memory) and
therefore, in terms of the proposed definition, it is an
'information', not 'knowledge' management system. It's semantically
misleading to call it KMS.

As another example, there is an understanding in Adaptive Educational
Hypermedia that a learner's exsisting knowledge should be taken into
account in developing courseware. It's obvious, but every
implementation is accidental and intuitive, more of an art than
science. And it will remain tentative until the distinction between
'in memory' and 'not in memory' is generally accepted.

The proposed definition puts a few dots over i's and, hopefully, makes
the KM system design picture a bit less fuzzy.

Thanks for your input!
Gen

"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...
> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>
> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>
> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
>
> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
>
> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
> knowledge.
>
> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
> considered that system's knowledge.
>
> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
> interpret any case.
>
>
> Gennadi Bedjanian
> i'm suffocating from spam, so my  mutilated email is:
> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net

How about this:  Knowledge consists of facts that have a basis in reality,
and the interrelationships among those facts.  I can't pin down exactly what
the term "information" that you suggested means, but the word "facts" seems
more concrete.  I think that a basis in reality is a significant factor in
determining what is knowledge.  The simplest type of knowledge is the
accumulation of facts.  The next level is to draw the relationships among
them.  Maybe you could also say that the ability to use those facts and
their interrelationships is another type of knowledge.

Gary Frank




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Mr Michael Bibby" <s4032484@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<bnffal$l2l$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> >I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
> >stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
> >any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
> >
> >"Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
> >
> >It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
> >couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
> 
> I recenlty read a Metalogue by Gregory Bateson where his daughter asks him
> "puppa, whats 'instinct'?" to which he replied "'instinct', my dear, is an
> explanatory principle", and she said "but what does it explain?" and he said
> "what ever you want it to explain!"
...............


Along this vein, it's clear that solving everyday problems involves
many forms of knowledge representation within the human mind. A single
definition may be too limiting for the purposes of AI.

The following paper discusses a range of knowledge representation
domains:

"An Architecture for Combining Ways to Think"
http://web.media.mit.edu/~push/WaysToThink.pdf

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:44:15 -0600, "Gary Frank"
<garyfrankNOSPAM@itol.com> wrote:

>
>"gen" <no@adspam.net> wrote in message
>news:852mpvo7jdq5j3o5dlpm32kg1ni2hq350q@4ax.com...
>> I've been working on a knowledge-related project and continually got
>> stuck for lack of an adequate definition of knowledge. Couldn't find
>> any to work with. Eventually I came up with my own:
>>
>> "Information residing in a system's memory is the system's knowledge."
>>
>> It looks so simple that just asks to be challenged. Up to now I
>> couldn't find a case where the definition doesn't work.
>>
>> For instance, beliefs are often contrasted with knowledge. But since
>> they are in memory, they must be knowledge?
>>
>> Here's an interpretation. Beliefs *are* a kind of knowledge. It's
>> knowledge in a narrowed meaning, that is in a meaning that is created
>> by combination with other words. Often such words are not said and
>> only implied, ex. just "knowledge" instead of "scientific knowledge".
>> Then a belief would be knowledge with an additional meaning of
>> information being accepted as true without verification. Still
>> knowledge.
>>
>> Human knowledge, corporate knowledge, even insect knowledge - each of
>> them is information residing in a system's memory. If the boundaries
>> of a system are clearly defined, so is the information that can be
>> considered that system's knowledge.
>>
>> Can anyone prove this definition wrong? I'd be willing to try to
>> interpret any case.
>>
>>
>> Gennadi Bedjanian
>> i'm suffocating from spam, so my  mutilated email is:
>> gbedja x @ x dsnet x net
>


>How about this:  Knowledge consists of facts that have a basis in reality,
>and the interrelationships among those facts.  I can't pin down exactly what
>the term "information" that you suggested means, but the word "facts" seems
>more concrete.  I think that a basis in reality is a significant factor in
>determining what is knowledge.  The simplest type of knowledge is the
>accumulation of facts.  The next level is to draw the relationships among
>them.  Maybe you could also say that the ability to use those facts and
>their interrelationships is another type of knowledge.
>
>Gary Frank
>
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


I'm trying to limit the proposed definition to the KM domain. Then
'knowledge' is more manageable.

I don't know what the definition of 'information' is, even in the
narrow KM domain, but there seems to be a consensus that knowledge is
a kind of information. For now, 'information' has to be defined
empirically, and I see no problem with it (again, in the said domain)
since in every significant case information is typed by an attribute,
ex. 'business information', 'product information', etc. 

I also think that facts are the simplest type of knowledge, and
there's an interesting point in it. 'Knowledge' is assumed to be based
on reality. If somebody thinks that they hunt tigers in Africa, it
doesn't *seem* to be knowledge. (BTW, not everybody knows that there
are no tigers in Africa, they are in Asia).

According to the proposed definition, that false information about
hunting tigers is 'knowledge' since it's in the memory of the person.
False knowledge? Not for the person who believes it. It's an external
judgement, and judgemental, emotional, or other attributes don't
change the fact that information resides in the memory.

At least, the definition offers something 'tangible', and what's more,
it has helped me disentangle a few entanglements. 

Aside from your remark. Perhaps the most important first step in
considering the applicability of the proposed definition is to
establish the boundaries of the system that owns knowledge we are
talking about. Most misunderstandings come from misplaced boundaries.

Gennadi Bedjanian

>
> >How about this: Knowledge consists of facts that have a basis in reality,
> >and the interrelationships among those facts. I can't pin down exactly
what
> >the term "information" that you suggested means, but the word "facts"
seems
> >more concrete. I think that a basis in reality is a significant factor in
> >determining what is knowledge. The simplest type of knowledge is the
> >accumulation of facts. The next level is to draw the relationships among
> >them. Maybe you could also say that the ability to use those facts and
> >their interrelationships is another type of knowledge.
> >
> >Gary Frank

Hello Garry

I will do my best to answer you.

You say " Knowledge consists of facts that have a basis in reality"
When you mean we can't think without knowing something. A child has ben born
with brains with a memory already. The start we can call chaotic or fuzzy if
you prefer that. But most what a normal human perceives is just coming out
the brain itself. Only an amount of signals come from the outside. So I can
agree with you. But I can't see it as a productive start. In any case I
don't see it as simple. Brains are enormously complex.

You say "The simplest type of knowledge is the accumulation of facts" My
question is what facts, where are they coming from? Accumulation? The brain
doesn't accumulate what already fits (is recognized) will be extended, some
things are unprocessable and thrown away. Where is your accumulation then?
>
> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Hello gen,

> I'm trying to limit the proposed definition to the KM domain. Then
> 'knowledge' is more manageable.

Knowledge is closer to the brain that information.. We say we know things, I
know it for sure.

>
> I don't know what the definition of 'information' is, even in the
> narrow KM domain, but there seems to be a consensus that knowledge is
> a kind of information.

Information is maybe data with a meaning and meaning in the sense it's
processable
Our brain can manage it.

> For now, 'information' has to be defined
> empirically, and I see no problem with it (again, in the said domain)

Indeed. Like data that functions.

> since in every significant case information is typed by an attribute,
> ex. 'business information', 'product information', etc.

Ecxactly.
>
> I also think that facts are the simplest type of knowledge, and
> there's an interesting point in it. 'Knowledge' is assumed to be based
> on reality. If somebody thinks that they hunt tigers in Africa, it
> doesn't *seem* to be knowledge. (BTW, not everybody knows that there
> are no tigers in Africa, they are in Asia).

Do you have a zoo with tigers in Africa. It's a large continent. So data,
information and knowledge can be wrong, But it was thinkable. That is a
vital notion I think. And thinkable is a combination of direct or indirect
experiences and all that rumor in our head that distorts it.

> According to the proposed definition, that false information about
> hunting tigers is 'knowledge' since it's in the memory of the person.
> False knowledge? Not for the person who believes it. It's an external
> judgement, and judgemental, emotional, or other attributes don't
> change the fact that information resides in the memory.

Yes, our believes are private and what shows up well what can that be When
we confront our knowledge in the reality like an athlete demonstrates
his of her power.. Then it can be fake, or losing a game, or false like we
say here.

So I think you are right in this paragraph of you.
>
> At least, the definition offers something 'tangible', and what's more,
> it has helped me disentangle a few entanglements.

You mean this definition: "Information residing in a system's memory is the
system's knowledge."

When you mean our brains. What do you see as residing then in let's say the
neurons for a burnt skin is also a kind of memory. And suppose you don't
want the notion of information, what is this definition than. And if
information is like knowledge, then your definition becomes an information
system is a knowledge system and people already agreed upon that.

>
> Aside from your remark. Perhaps the most important first step in
> considering the applicability of the proposed definition is to
> establish the boundaries of the system that owns knowledge we are
> talking about. Most misunderstandings come from misplaced boundaries

Certainly, or wrong formulations as well. Just a wrong environment where we
look from or an object in an environment. I could be drunk. The lights were
dimmed. There was too much smoke. Much is just a language problem. Find the
productive formulation. When you look at behavior, then you can measure
knowledge, In Quizzes and tests, you can show your knowledge. This is more a
functional approach I think. Don't think of behaviorism, that's a whole
building.
>
> Gennadi Bedjanian

Nice discussion, thanks

Ed