Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all. This contribution is complex. Hit the ESC key to
flee from this complexity if necessary.
I think that this complexity is unavoidable as a result ot the Law of
Requisite Complexity. The more I delved into the topic, the more I came
under the impression how the presentation of "information" evolved through
the centuries to such a level of complexity that it now appears to be like
"knowledge". To distinguish between the two have become almost like trying
to distinguish between an authentic note of currency and an almost perfect
counterfeight copy of it. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to
distinguish between the two, even if it entails that we have to delve deep
into complexity.
We are being flooded with composite nouns like "knowledge management",
"knowledge transfer", "knowledge engineering", "learning organisation",
"learning community", "information technology" and "information society".
The less we know what each of "knowledge", "learning" and "information"
means, the more we will become confused by the meaning of these composite
nouns. This confusion is caused by writers who use these words
indiscriminately, unaware of their present and past meanings.
The fact that we have to deal with these nouns in a COMPOSITE manner,
whether bewildering or meaningful, points that we are now in a profound
bifurcating period which concerns our very intelligence and even
spirituality. Should we desire these composite nouns (or even new words to
rename them) to represent constructive emergences rather than destructive
immergences, we will have to make sure among other things what their
constituent nouns mean (see the essentiality sureness).
Why? In the evolution of every realm like the geosphere, biosphere or the
logosphere, species of a new order generate from species of an older
(which will afterwards function as the genera) in a linked manner. It is
like twigs developing from a branch or branches developing from a trunk.
Twigs have to be linked to a branch and branches have to be linked to a
trunk to come into existence and to remain alive. Twigs and branches
cannot live unlinked in the void because then their "identity" will become
syncategorematic. Likewise an evolutionary species cannot be created in
the void without loosing the "categoricity" of its "identity". Its
emergence has to happen within an "evolutionary tree" to suite sureness.
In this contribution we will consider the evolution of the logosphere.
This evolution of words is better known in linguistics as etymology. We
will focus on the evolution of two words, namely namely "knowledge" and
"information". We will link their present meanings to past meanings so as
to become aware what future meanings we may give to them. This will help
us to avoid confusion as a result of destructive immergences in meanings.
The Anglo-Saxon substrate of Modern English comes from Old English. The
etymology of the word "knowledge" relates to the Old English word
"cnawlec". The "-lec" is a suffix meaning "having resemblance to". The
equivalent of "-lec" in Modern English is "-like". In my own mother tongue
Afrikaans the equivalent of "-lec" is "-lik" while in German it is
"-lich".
The root "cnaw" comes from the verb "cnawan" which means "pretty, well and
lofty thinking". In Afrikaans a remnant of this meaning is still to be
found in the word "knap" (German "klug"). Hence the syntactical evolution
of "knowledge" in Afrikaans from "cnawlec" would have been to the word
"ken(ou)lik". But "kenlik" itself means in English "obvious" (German
"sichtlich"). The actual semantical equivalent of "knowledge" in
Afrikaans is "kennis" (German "Kenntnis"). We also have in Afrikaans the
adverb "nou(geset)" (German "genau"). The word "genau" is a pretty
reflection on the phonology of "cnaw". The word "nougeset" means "within
knowledge".
Should the English people have derived the word corresponding to
"knowledge" from Greek rather than Old English, it would have corresponded
syntactically somewhat to " 'eunoia' " ("eu"=good, "noeo"=think). Compare
this with our recent LO-dialogue on " 'orthonoia' ", "metanoia" and
"paranoia". But should they have derived it from Latin, it would have
corresponded syntactically to " 'bonagnition' " where "bonus"=good and
"nosco"=know. This reminds us of the close relationship between
"knowledge" and "cognition" where "co-"=together. It means that knowledge
has very much to do with cognition. How?
In the "(c)no-" of "noeo" and "nosco" as well as in the "cna-" of
"cnawlec" we are reminded of the ancient Indo-Germanic root "cno"=bulge.
The English word "knob" still retains this ancient meaning for which we
today will use the word "emerge". Thus the word "knowledge" has its
etymological roots firmly in the sense of "that which is bulging or
emerging". In other words, the evolution of the root word for knowledge in
Mesopotamia (Sumer) began with the awareness to emergent phenomena
INCLUDING this very awareness itself as an emergent phenomenon.
It is for this reason that we have to distinguish in learning between its
two asymptotes: emergent learning and digestive learning. The emergent
learning correspond to cladogenesis in biological evolution while the
digestive learning correspond to anagenesis. The emergent learning
requires a high rate of "entropy production" so as to move towards the
edge of chaos. The digestive learning requires a low rate of "entropy
production" so as become close to equilibrium. Cognition is an outcome of
emergent learning. Digestive learning, unlike emergent learning, relies
very much on external sources of information
The word "information" is related etymologically to the Latin prefix
"in"=in and the noun "forma"=form. The suffix "-tio" in Latin transformes
the noun of any material thing into a corresponding abstract concept.
Hence it is as if the word "information" is saying literally "in abstract
form". Perhaps this is why the word is so easily misused for knowledge
because the "in abstract form" of information cannot exist without some
or other "physical representation" of it in a dazzling diversity.
Knowledge is abstract too, but it requires physically the "functioning
brain". This "functioning brain" cannot ever act as the "physical
representation" for "information", despite the dazzling diversity
otherwise.
In my mother tongue Afrikaans the semantical equivalent of "information"
is "inligting" where the "in"=in, "lig"=light and "-ing"=ing. It is as if
"inligting" says "to bring into light so as to be able to look at it".
However, should we focus on the "abstract" aspect of information as the
suffix "-tion" ought to tell us, one semantical equivalent of "abstract"
in Afrikaans is "uittreksel" where "uit"=out, "trek"=pull and "-sel"=
-xxx. This suffix "-sel" is a peculiar construct in Afrikaans by which a
verb is transformed into a noun which will refer to the OUTCOME of that
verb. It functions like the suffix "-ment" in English with respect to
verbs from Latin origin like "achieve-ment" and "state-ment".
The Afrikaans word "inligting" would correspond syntactically to the
English word "enlightenment". This perhaps suggests another reason why
"information" has been inflated. The increased availability of
"information" since some three centuries ago sustained a period of major
digestive learning of which the outcome was called the "enlightenment".
Many outcomes of knowledge or facets of it may be described by words
ending with the suffix "-tion". The following list contains only lesser
complex synonyms of knowledge like apprehension, cognition, comprehension,
erudition, information, intuition, perception and recognition. Because
they are simpler synonyms it means that each tells about some facet of
knowledge. Therefor it also means that not one of them, not even
information, can be semantically equivalent to knowledge. In other words,
using the word information when meaning knowledge or vice versa is a grave
immergence in meaning.
Let me now attempt to give a short description of knowledge. In this
description knowledge will be refered in the manner of an irreversible,
spontaneous, self-organising system.
Knowledge comprises the whole of all acts and outcomes of conscious
thinking. Knowledge places no restriction on its sources, whether internal
or external. It employs them by way of authentic learning so as to
complexify continually. Knowledge functions within the human independant
of technology. It is a processing structure (whole becoming-being). It is
rich in diversity and aware of its limitations. It is open to new inputs
and eager to connect effectively with them so as to increase in sureness.
As an irreversible, spontaneous, self-organising system it is a subsystem
of human spirituality.
Allow me also to attempt a short description of information.
Information is a collection of abstract forms represented (carried, coded)
by any artifact outside the human mind. Information is produced by
knowledge so as perhaps to assist some mind in its future
complexification. Information itself has no implicit knowledge, but can be
recognised by a knowledgeable person as information. Information is unware
of itself, its aggregate nature, its limitations and poverty, its closure
by the very artifacts signalling it and its inability to self-organise
irreversibly and spontaneously. It can be manipulated (engineered) outside
the mind with technology (another artifact of knowledge), but without
feasible artifical intelligence the outcome will not gain in any
knowledge, not even implicitly. Even present information management by
way of information engineering will not add any knowledge to the outcome,
since it happens outside the mind and lacks substantial artificial
intelligence despite all attempts so far.
We can compare the two descriptions above. But let us rather make
comparisons with respect to definite issues.
Perhaps the most profound difference is that knowledge resides
"inside-the-person" whereas information is "outside-the-person".
Knowledge is closely linked to personality whereas information is by way
of speaking "faceless". A person can be profoundly knowledgeable without
ever having written any book. Yet people study the information in books so
as to evolve in knowledge. People with much or little knowledge, except
for a basic literacy, can write books. The information in such a book will
be telling of the knowledge with which the person had written the book.
But this information "in the book" can never be equated with the knowledge
"in the author".
The advent of computers removed an important restriction on information
"in the book". Book based information is static (being). Computer based
information can also be represented dynamically (becoming). Despite this
active representation of information "in the computer", it is still not
knowledge. It lacks the irreversible, spontaneous, self-organising nature
of knowledge. The lack of this very nature when even copying human
learning into computerised models of artificial learning, artificial
intelligence or even artifical life still makes it not knowledge.
Knowledge has many layers in it so that we can speak of its top layer as
"sapient knowledge" (wisdom) and a couple of layers down as "tacit
knowledge" (intuition). Although information can also have many layers
created on purpose in it, it has neither wisdom nor intuition in them.
Thus the thinking mind needs its own intuition and wisdom to deal
knowingly with information as one of its sources. In contrast wisdom and
intuition can be expressed as information, but lose their very nature by
this expression. Hence the "information on wisdom" appears to be folly for
some people while the wise recognise their own wisdom with it. Likewise
the "information on intuition" appears to be ignorance for some people
while the experienced recognise their own intuition with it.
Knowledge evolves (complexifies) spontaneously. Engineering attempts to
force the growth of knowledge non-spontaneously result in its degradation
(simplification). No matter how massive any collection of information has
become, every increment in it was the result of reduction of knowledge.
This reductionistic property of information disqualifies any part of it as
well the sum of it from representing knowledge. But knowledge self
overcomes this reduction by a continual migration through emergences from
sensory inputs to experience, then to intuition, followed by
formalisations and finally by wisdom. Even further emergences from wisdom
to higher orders of spirituality are possible. However, information does
not sustain higher order such as faith or caring love. It is rather
infamous for making faith and love banal.
Knowledge has an ordinate cyber loop in it so as to manage its evolution
in a changing world. The upwards action begins in the physical world with
sensory inputs while the downward action begins in the spiritual world
with caring love. Information has no (and perhaps will never have) an
implicit means to guide its own evolution. Consequently it depends on
knowledge to make its growth feasible and valuable. It means that
information management depends fully on knowledge. Information management
is often confused with knowledge management, even though the latter only
happen within the mind itself spontaneously. Knowledge management can also
be described as double loop learning, i.e. learning to learn. The
counterpart for information management, namely informing to inform or
"double loop informing" is actually meaningless. Forcing knowledge
management by external means such as information management, sometimes
called knowledge engineering, is detrimental to the evolution of knowledge
The mind can store information by memory, but information cannot ever
store knowledge. Not even informative books on knowledge as their topic
can store knowledge. Such books will have information on knowledge, but
they do not have any knowledge self since then they would have evolved on
their own as a result of such knowledge. Electronic Based Information
Technology (EBIT) are replacing more and more books because in certain
aspects EBIT is superior to paper based information technology. One such
an aspect is the economy and feasibility of storing information by devices
called electronic "memory" devices. Despite their name as "memory"
devices EBIT is not any knowledge. Nowadays EBIT allows dramatic
simulations of the dynamics of the mind, yet despite all this dynamics in
the information presented by EBIT, this sometimes glorified information is
still not knowledge.
Knowledge is like an organism. The faculties of knowledge are like the
organs of an organism. Each faculty of knowledge has like an organ a
morphology (structures) and a physiology (processes). Although information
itself can also be presented with structures and processes, it is still
not more than a mere simulation of knowledge. Any simulation of knowledge,
impressive as it can be, cannot transcend itself as information so as to
match the actual knowledge itself. Thus information remains a puppet of
which the strings are pulled by knowledge. Information, like the puppet,
is often a mere caricature and sometimes a grotesque monstrosity of the
knowledge which it supposedly images.
The aggregation of information upon information may become far more than
that which one person can ever cover knowingly. Thus we are tempted to
equate information with knowledge or even consider it as superior to
knowledge. However, we should bear in mind that knowledge itself also has
a collective ("mitsein") dimension when learning individuals transcend
together into a learning organisation. This seldom explored "collective
knowledge" of a learning organisation is more than a match against all
percievable aggregates of information.
Perhaps the composite noun "information source" causes the most confusion
because it has become fashionable to use it. Like all fashion it changes
continually in its meaning. The etymology of the English word source goes
back to the Latin "surgo"=rise. Hence this word has strong connotations
with the concept "emergence". Information has always a "physical model"
which "carries" it. Only humans can become aware of the "information"
carried by the "physical model" by way of a mental emergence. Other
living species, plant or animal, seem to have no awareness to the
"information" carried by the "physical model". Perhaps this "physical
model" repesenting the "information" ought to be the only thing which may
be called the "information source".
Reality in all its realms serve as the "source of knowledge". Hence the
"knowledge source" is physical and spiritual, i.e. the
"world-inside-the-person" as well as the "world-outside- the- person". On
the other hand, all "information sources" are cultural artifacts. They
have been created by humans to codify with protocols some facets of
knowledge. They can be perceived only by knowledgeasble humans and not,
for example, other kinds of animals. It is not possible to codify all
knowledge into information because of the "measurement problem" -- the
advanced reduction of patterns of the wave packet when explicating some of
them as information. Thus "information sources", despite their sometimes
massive and enticing nature, are inferior to the knowledgable mind which
has produced them as measures of itself.
The way in which I think of "information" is that it is a source of data.
To perceive bits of "data" in "information" itself also requires a mental
emergence, the so called "analytical faculty of mind". Many people seem to
speak of "source of information" when they actually deal in their minds
with a "source of data", something which I consider as "information"
itself. Knowledge on the other hand, is not a source of data, but a
producer of sources of data in any required form. Knowledge can produce
and digest data, but information can neither produce data nor digest them.
By now my own personal contemplations on what information and knowledge
mean for me, may have become as confusing as the many composite names
involving "information" or "knowledge" in them. Thus I should rather end
these musings on "information" and "knowledge". But I cannot end by
stressing once again that knowledge lives within me with mental "cno"s
essential to it whereas information is documented outside me, devoid of
any "cno"s (emergences), except telling about them.
Knowledge is like the country side and information like a map depicting
the country side. Let us not confuse the map with the real thing which it
represents.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.