I define “knowledge” as the beliefs we live by. I extend this to science by defining “scientific knowledge” as the theories which have become the tools of scientific inquiry itself. This has some points of commonality with the idea in the DIKW pyramid of knowledge as procedural.
To carry this over to living organisms, the totality of its DNA is information, but the active portion which it actually uses for development and operation is knowledge.
I had to Duck Duck Go this to find out what you were talking about.
The Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy is illustrated in the form of a pyramid comprising of four levels. [1] A progression is indicated as you move through each level starting at the base of the pyramid and reaching the top.
The process begins by gathering Data, at the first level, which is then processed to form Information at the second level. When this Information is examined or considered it takes the form of Knowledge, at the third level, and the creation of Knowledge leads to acquiring Wisdom at the fourth or topmost level. Data , forming the base of the hierarchy, can be compiled either manually or through automated systems and value is added to these inputs by interpreting and converting them into a useable and meaningful format termed as Information . When Information is applied in a particular situation and converted to expertise it comes to be defined as Knowledge . Wisdom is found at the pinnacle of the DIKW hierarchy and differs from data and information, both of which can be harnessed, and also from knowledge which can be shared. Wisdom is more abstract as it is something intrinsic and is typically an accumulation of values, judgements, prior experience or interpretations.
In organisations, Data and Information are seen as tools to perform tasks and improve operations, while implementing systems and practices creates Knowledge, and the building-up of Knowledge through which transformations and learning takes place generates Wisdom.
Thanks. Yes I agree. The study of knowledge is epistemology. I think philosophers have been looking at knowledge and the ability to know for ages. Knowledge and its application is a fundimental concept to just well everything. Perhaps consider more from a scientific viewpoint Then what is the relation between information and knowledge? What does knowledge “do” with or to Information? What makes knowledge knowledge?
The closest I can get to making sense of your question is to ask what is knowledge in information theory. In that case the word is only used to signify information that was already obtained (by a receiver) in another way in order to compare to subsequently transmitted information in order to verify that the information was transmitted correctly.
I suppose this can be generalized to any method by which transmitted information can be tested in order to determine whether it was transmitted correctly. This reminds be of the use of checksums in internet communications which are numbers calculated from the data in a way that changes if any alteration to the data is made. Thus these numbers are sent along with a transmission and if the checksum doesn’t agree then a request is sent to resend the data.
Another way to generalize from this is to say that according to information theory, “knowledge” is information by which one verifies the accuracy of newly acquired (transmitted) information. This works to some degree with science, since we do use accepted theory in checking the reliability of new experimental data. We do acquire new knowledge, but we expect a mathematical consistency with the whole picture, so we either find agreement with the established theory or we alter the theory with some new exception to the old rule.
Otherwise, in general, knowledge seems to be a rather subjective or relative how the data can be put to use.
I understand what you are saying about the transmission of information. I think that there is more to that in the information pyramid theory “knowledge”. It seems that knowledge is a process of manipulating information in some specified manner.
Maybe consider what a computer does with data and information in terms of input and output.
Is not data, just the collection process? What seemed overlooked earlier was data “point”. Data is not the on/off position. That is hardware. The point is which position the hardware is in.
As information “streams” into the hardware or neurons of the brain it is converted into data points. Each point of data is useless, unless there is a means to keep each point in some kind of information context.
This difference between tech and the brain is the manipulation of information. Evolution takes place in the data layer, because it happens below the threshold of observation. Observation being the means of transfer between information and data. Hardware tech can store information as data, but cannot manipulate data into information unless instructed to do so.
Being able to manipulate data into information. Is one step. The next is manipulating information into knowledge. Knowledge is the application of information. Ai is getting to this state in the ability to apply information into the viable use of knowledge. Why do we do what we do in changing information into practice, practical knowledge. Wisdom is the result in effeciently using knowledge with the least amount of energy in the technological sense. Biologically the best use of data, information, and knowledge at one’s disposal. From an evolutionary view, how to use the framework that results from data points, manipulated by information, manipulated by knowledge. Knowledge has to be built into the cellular level, because the cells have the ability to manipulate not only data, but the ability to manipulate the information that is manipulating the data. But only to the extent the data and information are accessible.
Humans are limited in knowledge even though capable of wisdom. They cannot change the properties of the information and knowledge they have, much like AI cannot change to become self aware and think on their own.
We already have knowledge whether imagined or real, that a brain can loose certain information and new information added to totally change one’s personality without changing the actual who. Information being the level of how we manipulate data and how we have the knowledge to manipulate information. Do we really have full control of the information level itself. If Ai had any self control over information what mechanism is there available? Is it just the firing of neurons, or are even self aware humans still limited by control from an outside being?
What if the mechanism is not physical nor can it even be replicated to allow Ai to become self aware and have the ability to think on it’s own?
What if it is and can?
We would not need God.
Speak for yourself.
What if I cannot? I was not being accusatory, but honest. How many of us were evolutionists before Darwin?
You make me think of the middle ages with open sewers running through the streets. And someone has this great idea of using underground pipes. But then one of the pious numskulls complain, “but if we do that, then we wouldn’t need God to explain why our town stinks.”
Why would you relate AI with town sewers? I was not implying that we do or do not need God for X. There is a large majority of people today who already think they do not need God. Do you think that when human designed AI will become self aware and can think on their own, men will realize there truly is a God?
I don’t think everything we do is or should be all about getting people to believe there is a God. Believing God is not and never has been any kind of panacea for human problems – nor is not believing in God. Quite the contrary… quite a few people improve their life by changing their mind on this issue. For some the belief in God is helpful and for others not believing in God is helpful.
Nobody really completely thinks on their own. We think within an inherited framework. It is unavoidable because logic can only take us from premises to conclusion based on those premises. If anything this will be even more true of AI. At most we can only expect something with as much freedom as our own children. And then the question is largely whether we love them and give them a reason to have regard for others. So I think the most appropriate warning with regards to AI, engineering other species to have our intelligence, or even altering our own species, would to ask whether we ready for the task and responsibility of parenting which such things must entail.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.