What is knowledge?

[stormbind]

Can algorithms, databases, gene pools, or any other non-being possess knowledge?

 

[Perfection]

Yeah sure.

 

[philippe]

those are all mediums you mention.

 

[stormbind]

I know they are mediums, but what is knowledge?

L-systems, cellular automata, neurons, are roughly comparable. Why can neurons contain knowledge but not cellular automata?

 

[philippe]

becuase they are designed to do so.
and if you want an answer on what knowledge is: well a link between a group of neurons enabling you to realise something., so active stimulation through electric impulses causes knowledge, and the connections made between neurons are as the key for an understanding

 

[stormbind]

Please rephrase without using the word "realise".

Link between 'things' allowing the 'things' to discover a solution? That's exactly what a cellular automata is capable of.

 

[Elrohir]

I know they are mediums, but what is knowledge?

L-systems, cellular automata, neurons, are roughly comparable. Why can neurons contain knowledge but not cellular automata?

What knowledge actually is is one of the great philosophical questions. Like the existence of God, the nature of man and the universe, and so on.

So....I expect we'll have the answer in what, 2 pages or so?

 

[stormbind]

Great. Headache and deadline looming...

 

[Mise]

They can contain knowledge, but I don't believe they can "possess" knowledge. I believe that possessing knowledge requires some kind of consciousness to appreciate.

 

[philippe]

Please rephrase without using the word "realise".

Link between 'things' allowing the 'things' to discover a solution? That's exactly what a cellular automata is capable of.

these neurons have more capabilities then a cellular automata due to volume and structure, and so having a more peculair way of data storage.
The sensory impulses translate themself as information due to the electric impulses it releases, these information is stored as links in and between neurons., we already proven that you have less knowledge when you have a lobotomy

 

[El Koeno]

They can contain knowledge, but I don't believe they can "possess" knowledge. I believe that possessing knowledge requires some kind of consciousness to appreciate.

But then the question is what is consciousness? I don't think we can truly answer that question, so it doesn't make sense to me to include it in this discussion.

I'd say knowledge would have something to do with reacting on situations, using past situations as reference. Well, not exactly, but I can't be bothered typing something coherent. But I think DNA and algorithms and such can do this, and thus possess knowledge.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I think the canonical definition is "justified true belief".

 

[philippe]

But I think DNA and algorithms and such can do this, and thus possess knowledge.

hmm
DNA a possesor of knowledge?
Shouldn't DNA be seen as a batch of "options" and certain chemicals trigger or de-trigger those genes? does the nummerlock on your bike contains knowledge? i don't think so

 

[Taliesin]

In the classic formulation, to know X is 1) to believe X, 2) where X is true, and 3) where your belief in X is justified. The history of epistemology is basically an argument about what 3) means and whether it's actually necessary.

If you think belief without justification is insufficient for knowledge, then it's hard to see how an unconscious thing such as an algorithm could know something. If you don't, then you'd still have to revise 1) to something like "expresses X" or "returns a positive truth-value for X".

Even then, you have the corollary problem that knowledge seems to require awareness of X's truth status-- that's where 'belief' comes in. For example, a rock in some reductive sense contains information in its physical structure, simply by virtue of its existence, but you couldn't ascribe knowledge to the rock on that basis. Is a computer any different? It's hard to see how. If one of its circuits contains information, then it can have another circuit that monitors the first (i.e. has 'knowledge' of it), but then the monitoring is simply a physical fact that requires another circuit, etc. There seems to be something unique about a conscious mind that lets it both return truth-values and grasp them, i.e. to have beliefs.

Something of value in there, I hope.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Knowledge is power.

 

[gallego]

Knowledge of something is a very strong faith in the causal relationships of something that, to our best judgment, make that thing work. In that sense, an algorithm can possess knowledge because it takes as given certain causal relationships and derives conclusions from them. We are much smarter than computers, but just because we take into account almost infinitely more causal relationships in a simultaneous equation we call consciousness.

Many times, "knowledge" has been overturned and we find out that we were wrong. And on a more philosophical basis about seemingly concrete things--like the existence of your cup of coffee in front of you--you can't ever really know something, because the only way to measure it is with the same senses that lead you to believe it. You have no way of knowing whether gravity will remain constant, or whether you live in The Matrix or not--just a strong belief. So true knowledge is impossible, and all we can have are beliefs.

 

[El Koeno]

...There seems to be something unique about a conscious mind that lets it both return truth-values and grasp them, i.e. to have beliefs.

Something of value in there, I hope.

I'm not so sure about this... It's not that I disagree with anything you said, it's just that I can't grasp the concept of consciousness. Maybe it's merely an emergent property of our nervous system.

On DNA: Perhaps it has some sort of consciousness, it's hard to know that if you can't talk to it. That is another reason why I don't want consciousness in a definition of knowledge.

 

[warpus]

Can algorithms, databases, gene pools, or any other non-being possess knowledge?

They contain information.

Only sentient beings can possess knowledge.

 

[Mise]

In the classic formulation, to know X is 1) to believe X, 2) where X is true, and 3) where your belief in X is justified. The history of epistemology is basically an argument about what 3) means and whether it's actually necessary.

If you think belief without justification is insufficient for knowledge, then it's hard to see how an unconscious thing such as an algorithm could know something. If you don't, then you'd still have to revise 1) to something like "expresses X" or "returns a positive truth-value for X".

Even then, you have the corollary problem that knowledge seems to require awareness of X's truth status-- that's where 'belief' comes in. For example, a rock in some reductive sense contains information in its physical structure, simply by virtue of its existence, but you couldn't ascribe knowledge to the rock on that basis. Is a computer any different? It's hard to see how. If one of its circuits contains information, then it can have another circuit that monitors the first (i.e. has 'knowledge' of it), but then the monitoring is simply a physical fact that requires another circuit, etc. There seems to be something unique about a conscious mind that lets it both return truth-values and grasp them, i.e. to have beliefs.

Something of value in there, I hope.

You know, sometimes, you just read something that makes so much sense, something that perfectly describes what was in the back of your mind the whole time, and everything clicks. How cool.

 

[punkbass2000]

In the classic formulation, to know X is 1) to believe X, 2) where X is true, and 3) where your belief in X is justified. The history of epistemology is basically an argument about what 3) means and whether it's actually necessary.

If you think belief without justification is insufficient for knowledge, then it's hard to see how an unconscious thing such as an algorithm could know something. If you don't, then you'd still have to revise 1) to something like "expresses X" or "returns a positive truth-value for X".

Even then, you have the corollary problem that knowledge seems to require awareness of X's truth status-- that's where 'belief' comes in. For example, a rock in some reductive sense contains information in its physical structure, simply by virtue of its existence, but you couldn't ascribe knowledge to the rock on that basis. Is a computer any different? It's hard to see how. If one of its circuits contains information, then it can have another circuit that monitors the first (i.e. has 'knowledge' of it), but then the monitoring is simply a physical fact that requires another circuit, etc. There seems to be something unique about a conscious mind that lets it both return truth-values and grasp them, i.e. to have beliefs.

Something of value in there, I hope.

Is everything not information?

Follow-Up Question: Is everything not in formation?