Fifty shades of knowledge (IoH)
When do we say we know something what it means?
- we know how to solve an equatio
- we know how to write a program in C or Python
- we know the physiology of a human lung
- we know Darwin’s theory of evolution.
- we know how to prepare a pizza
- we know the wikipedia address that speaks of the demographic downturn in japan
We always use the same “know”.
Meanwhile, we see what these statements have in common: we could say that in any case we are able to “use” this information to do any material or intellectual activity.
But the word to know takes on a completely different meaning depending on the degree of knowledge we have on that thing (and how use it).
And it depends also with knowldge that is (or not) stored in our minds and those that are present in the environment around us.
For example, if we need to exploit informations about Japan’s demographic downturn studying Asian economies, with link, we must have access to Wikipedia, as that information is contained outside our brain.
We can call this kind of situation to have a “link” or the address where to find a resource.
We can write a python program that calculates the square root of a number and puts it in a database; but again we must use an external source of knowledge that is composed by hardware, of a series of components (processor, memory, screen, etc …) that we call computer, (which encloses in its construction a huge amount of knowledge, and time) to type it . But to write a program in Python (software) I have to load a program on my computer without ever having to write an assembly line, because two great people Guido Van Rossum and before Linus Torvalds (and many others) have raised me from this need. However, to write a program I have to learn a programming language like Python, and how to load the python on a Linux system. In essence, I did not know only the link to download the python, but from python’s page, I have transferring a bigger part of knowledge that we will call instructions to be able to use this “tools”.
Of course I do not have to know every single python routine in C o in assembler , but the amount and complexity of information that I get from the environment is obviously greater than the study of Japan’s demographics. The “reward” of all this, is that the tool now in my mind allows me, not only to calculate the square root, but to have the ability to build a much more powerful tools capable of allowing me to solve a number of complex problems.
I still emphasize : transferring a series of instructions from the environment to my mind (not all python) is rewarded by the creation in my brain of a more general tool. Not only what I need now, not all, but more.
And What if problem after problem, do I realize that there are no such general and fast routines to solve different problems?
I should transfer over time a more complex and articulated series of knowledge from the environment to my mind to write a part of the language in C, or to use the power of parallel computation of the GPU, or in the future use qbits of quantum computers! !!
And if I want to make these resources evolved into my mind available to the environment I publish. But to make it usable I have to write “instructions” that allow it to use it.
If and only if is anyone interested in its development I publish the sources: on demand.
All will therefore return to the environment. .
At this point we have to make some considerations:
- The degree of knowledge of a tool depends on the use of it.
- knowledge comes from the outside environment and only after being passed into our minds can evolve from the inside: for doing it must be structured and simple
- Best knowledge must be general and generative. How many times I use it? Is it important for the next step?
- Knowledge is like an onion and layers must be easily connected
In few words knowledge is learning instructions to generate instructions for doing something more complex. Most abstractive are and more generalistic are (one fits all!) and best it is.
in this eternal rush to knowledge:
the real engine are limits of what our “tools” can’t do. Not simple , generic and developable enough and with too high development and /or learning costs.
And the limits to our tools are generated by the environment around us ultimately.
Most of human knowledge resides out of our minds; and as for our body we must be extraordinarily attentive to its health and its nutrition, we must be attentive to what we learn and the level for use it.
The “inhuman” growth of the internet hardware capabilities has escaped the knowledge ecosystem in it contained from Darwinian natural selection.
We poured everything we knew into an ever larger bucket hoping to self-construct spontaneously, so as to become a human-sized tool.
And as written before we have an “knowledge overload”. It’s time to change. Too much junk web.
And if IoT was created, little was done to create IoH (internet for humans) with a brain still tightly tied to our biological roots has lost the net.
If the internet has to be a useful tool it must be usable by our minds. Until the advent of a destructive neural network like SkyNet, in the hope that it never exists, we must primarily focus on making the network human oriented.
It’s useless to download a movie in a thousandth of a second if it takes two hours to watch it. How to download a treaty or article that takes months to be understood.
We can change.