Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

When does the information become knowledge?

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:37:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.

Riwaaz, there are multiple philosophical takes on this, but I think there's good consensus on it scientifically.

Science considers information to be structure in a signal. A signal is just some detectable medium -- like light, or a radio-wave, or sound, or even ink on a page. Structure means it's not all the same, however it doesn't mean the structure is intentional, or has any meaning. It's still information, even if only about itself.

In science, knowledge is the product of observation. More formally, it's winnowing all the information down to what you can predict reliably with -- so reliably that other diligent observers can and confirm your predictions. So information becomes knowledge when it's either confirmed observation, or you have turned it into some reliable predictive model. That doesn't make it complete or absolute -- it's just the stuff you work with to make better decisions.

As I said, that's scientific take; philosophers have disagreed wildly on this for thousands of years, and a cultural/traditional understanding of information and knowledge is often quite different. Culturally, information is often thought of as a communication (i.e. it's intentional and meaningful), while knowledge is frequently whatever the culture enshrines in tradition -- even if it's demonstrably false. So culturally, information becomes knowledge when your elders make you learn it. :D That's what we now call myth: stuff you have to learn by virtue of being a member of the culture, whether or not it's true. :)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:37:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.

Riwaaz, there are multiple philosophical takes on this, but I think there's good consensus on it scientifically.

Science considers information to be structure in a signal. A signal is just some detectable medium -- like light, or a radio-wave, or sound, or even ink on a page. Structure means it's not all the same, however it doesn't mean the structure is intentional, or has any meaning. It's still information, even if only about itself.

In science, knowledge is the product of observation. More formally, it's winnowing all the information down to what you can predict reliably with -- so reliably that other diligent observers can and confirm your predictions. So information becomes knowledge when it's either confirmed observation, or you have turned it into some reliable predictive model. That doesn't make it complete or absolute -- it's just the stuff you work with to make better decisions.

As I said, that's scientific take; philosophers have disagreed wildly on this for thousands of years, and a cultural/traditional understanding of information and knowledge is often quite different. Culturally, information is often thought of as a communication (i.e. it's intentional and meaningful), while knowledge is frequently whatever the culture enshrines in tradition -- even if it's demonstrably false. So culturally, information becomes knowledge when your elders make you learn it. :D That's what we now call myth: stuff you have to learn by virtue of being a member of the culture, whether or not it's true. :)

Unlike what you believe -

Knowledge comes first,

information 2nd.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 12:23:03 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:37:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.

Riwaaz, there are multiple philosophical takes on this, but I think there's good consensus on it scientifically.

Science considers information to be structure in a signal. A signal is just some detectable medium -- like light, or a radio-wave, or sound, or even ink on a page. Structure means it's not all the same, however it doesn't mean the structure is intentional, or has any meaning. It's still information, even if only about itself.

In science, knowledge is the product of observation. More formally, it's winnowing all the information down to what you can predict reliably with -- so reliably that other diligent observers can and confirm your predictions. So information becomes knowledge when it's either confirmed observation, or you have turned it into some reliable predictive model. That doesn't make it complete or absolute -- it's just the stuff you work with to make better decisions.

As I said, that's scientific take; philosophers have disagreed wildly on this for thousands of years, and a cultural/traditional understanding of information and knowledge is often quite different. Culturally, information is often thought of as a communication (i.e. it's intentional and meaningful), while knowledge is frequently whatever the culture enshrines in tradition -- even if it's demonstrably false. So culturally, information becomes knowledge when your elders make you learn it. :D That's what we now call myth: stuff you have to learn by virtue of being a member of the culture, whether or not it's true. :)

Unlike what you believe -

Knowledge comes first,

information 2nd.

Can you change the word ( information ) to another word so I can try to understand it. ?
It's pretty broad. Thanks.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 2:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 12:23:03 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:37:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Science considers information to be structure in a signal.

In science, knowledge is the product of observation. More formally, it's winnowing all the information down to what you can predict reliably with -- so reliably that other diligent observers can and confirm your predictions.

Culturally, information is often thought of as a communication (i.e. it's intentional and meaningful), while knowledge is frequently whatever the culture enshrines in tradition -- even if it's demonstrably false. So culturally, information becomes knowledge when your elders make you learn it. :D
Unlike what you believe -

Knowledge comes first,
information 2nd.

That seems consistent with the cultural take I mentioned above, Riwaaz: elders have knowledge, which they impart to you as information, which you then enshrine as knowledge.

That's not how I think of things, nor the way science thinks of it in general.
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 4:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.

To my understanding, information becomes knowledge when it is accepted as truth and learned. And in turn knowledge becomes understanding when you know the underlying principles and ideas behind a piece of information.

ex: the earth revolves around the sun.

i accept this as truth, and commit it to memory.

I now know that the earth revolves around the sun.

The sun creates a distortion in spacetime with it's mass, essentially bending gravity and pulling the earth towards it. the earths trajectory causes it to orbit the sun.

i accept this as truth and commit it to memory.

Therefore, i now understand WHY the earth revolves around the sun.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 2:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:37:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:26:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
If you don't understand the question, feel free to ignore it.

Riwaaz, there are multiple philosophical takes on this, but I think there's good consensus on it scientifically.

Science considers information to be structure in a signal. A signal is just some detectable medium -- like light, or a radio-wave, or sound, or even ink on a page. Structure means it's not all the same, however it doesn't mean the structure is intentional, or has any meaning. It's still information, even if only about itself.

It's "not all the same" as what? Isn't what you're referring to a detectable 'difference' against a background of 'sameness'? And how is that difference detectable unless both it and the background are expressing different forms/patterns of organization?
How is ANY form or pattern identifiable without exhibiting some form of conceptual 'intent'? Even if the intent is only to be itself? Let alone being identifiable against the background of other forms/patterns of organization.

I think information becomes knowledge when we "recognize" it (as in 'cognition'). When we identify it against and apart from all the other information we are experiencing, and we've put it in context with all the information we remember experiencing before now, and have previously contextualized.

Knowledge is contextualized information.

In science, knowledge is the product of observation. More formally, it's winnowing all the information down to what you can predict reliably with -- so reliably that other diligent observers can and confirm your predictions. So information becomes knowledge when it's either confirmed observation, or you have turned it into some reliable predictive model. That doesn't make it complete or absolute -- it's just the stuff you work with to make better decisions.

As I said, that's scientific take; philosophers have disagreed wildly on this for thousands of years, and a cultural/traditional understanding of information and knowledge is often quite different. Culturally, information is often thought of as a communication (i.e. it's intentional and meaningful), while knowledge is frequently whatever the culture enshrines in tradition -- even if it's demonstrably false. So culturally, information becomes knowledge when your elders make you learn it. :D That's what we now call myth: stuff you have to learn by virtue of being a member of the culture, whether or not it's true. :)

There are a number of ways we humans contextualize the information we acquire from the experience of being. I suppose that if our goal is the accurate alignment of our contextualization with physical reality, science would be the way to achieve it. But if the goal is something else, let's say finding a sense of meaning and purpose in our experience of existence, then the method of achieving these would not likely be science, but perhaps religion, or art. Or if we were seeking some sort of ontological truth from our experience of existence, then maybe the better method would be philosophy. Or a combination of contextual goals determining a combination of methods of achieving them.

But in any case, I would say it's the contextualizing of information (cognition) that changes it to what we call 'knowledge'.