Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Feather · 10-02-2002, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
<strong>sweep, data from the senses that are externally linked, and data that comes from the senses that are internally linked. Are they the same? can science show this?

Sammi Na Boodie ()</strong>

Yes, science can show this. Your eyes (for example) consist of light-sensitive tissue bundles that convert photons to electrical impulses (like a CCD) that go to the optics center in your brain. Similarly for the other senses. QED.

Mr. Sammi · 10-05-2002, 06:30 AM

Feather, thanks for the prompts. What I was thinking was not as clear as what I wrote. Additional internal data, is the data formed by the information process of say some process akin to reason, but one can also use imagination as the other example.

ALL, Reason and Imagination would have internally represented Perceptions that should have been generated internally. Do you think these internal perceptions could also be sense data?

* * *

Keith Russell, you are most noticably missing from the philosophical grammer. Quick on the nip, on side issues, but slow on the go, where it hurts the most.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Clutch · 10-05-2002, 07:44 AM

Quote:

What I was thinking was not as clear as what I wrote.

Is that possible?

Keith Russell · 10-05-2002, 08:31 PM

Sammi said:
Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information.

Keith: Knowledge 'has to'? Why? Further, what does it mean for 'Knowledge to step beyond the power of Information'? What exactly is 'the power of Information', and what--exactly--happens when 'Knowledge' steps beyond it?

You see, Sammi, this is simply another one of your claims, given without evidence of any kind.

Sammi: Generally we do not have the responsibility to remember information. Sometimes we remember information for our own purposes. Knowledge on the other hand must posess the characteristic of being a memory which becomes a resident part of us.

Keith: Are you claiming that 'Knowledge' exists independently of human consciousness? If so, I'd love to see your evidence.

Sammi: Having to remember Information is the first quality Information must acquire on itz path to becoming a form of Knowledge.

Keith: Phrased this way, it seems as if you are saying that 'Information' must remember 'Information'--and must do so--if it is to 'become a form of knowledge'. Again, are you claiming that either 'Information' and/or 'Knowledge' exist independently of human consciousness? Again, I'd love for you to present the evidence.

Sammi: When Information makes this change, it becomes a simple/intermediate form of Knowledge. There is more to this I hope...

Keith: I'm sure we're all waiting with breath bated...

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Mr. Sammi · 10-07-2002, 06:52 AM

Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information. This seems like a simple way of saying knowledge and information are not the same things. A simple way of saying OR claiming knowledge is not just information. Evidence, what evidence do you want? I used the idea of knowledge being a resident memory unlike information which can be a transient memory or a permanent memory. Knowledge must be a human memory. Information can be other memories which do not exist in the human head. Information can be stored in computers or books.

Information must be noted, underlined, remembered, coallated, before it becomes knowledge and as I wrote, the information becoming a permanent human memory IS A PROCESS which must be followed, in order to be qualified as knowledge.

The evidence of Information technology rests on reason at this point in our philosophical development. I have no idea why you are constantly asking for evidence. Have you no ideas of your own concerning this?

* * *

Earlier, what was intended for broadcast was, "what I was thinking was not well clarified when I wrote it".

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell · 10-07-2002, 08:30 AM

Sammi said:
Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information. This seems like a simple way of saying knowledge and information are not the same things.

Keith: It is a simple way of saying that Knowledge and Information are not the same things. But, before I'll believe you that they aren't the same, you have to do more than just say that they are different. You need to explain what the difference is, and how you came to recognize this difference.

Sammi: A simple way of saying OR claiming knowledge is not just information. Evidence, what evidence do you want?

Keith: Whatever evidence led you to the realization that Information and Knowledge are different.

Sammi: I used the idea of knowledge being a resident memory unlike information which can be a transient memory or a permanent memory.

Keith: What is the difference, IYO, between a 'resident' memory, and a 'permanent' memory? If memory is all you're concerned with, rather than knowledge or information transmitted by media such as books or recordings, why do you feel the need to employ words such as 'Knowledge' or 'Information' at all?

Sammi: Knowledge must be a human memory.

Keith: Why? You don't think it is correct to call the knowledge/information contained in libraries (or on my PCs hard drive) knowledge?

Sammi: Information can be other memories which do not exist in the human head.

Keith: I woult not use the word 'memory' to speak of anything which exists outside human mind. Computer 'memory', IMO, is more accurately called 'data' or 'data storage'.

Sammi: Information can be stored in computers or books. Information must be noted, underlined, remembered, coallated, before it becomes knowledge and as I wrote, the information becoming a permanent human memory IS A PROCESS which must be followed, in order to be qualified as knowledge.

Keith: Well, why didn't you say so from the begining? To make sure I have this right, you define 'information' as any kind of data, but 'knowledge' is information stored and processed within a human mind, either as data or memories?

Sammi: The evidence of Information technology rests on reason at this point in our philosophical development. I have no idea why you are constantly asking for evidence. Have you no ideas of your own concerning this?

Keith: Oh, I have my own ideas, but--beleive me--they don't help me understand yours. I certainly am not about to give your ideas the benefit of the doubt, by taking on faith that your ideas are similar in any way to my own.

Sammi: Earlier, what was intended for broadcast was, "what I was thinking was not well clarified when I wrote it".

Keith: Fair enough.

Mr. Sammi · 10-09-2002, 06:57 AM

Keith Russell, your criticism is well taken concerning making points without adaquate references. [I like to restrict references sometimes because of my philosophical bent on Education OR the dispersion of Knowledge.]

There will be times when I will try to qualify my ideas or the concepts which will be presented in the future. The squaring of the bit, is sometimes welcome, I understand, but this should not be something you can count on being done with all my ideas.

* * *

Now we may be past the attraction of memorising information so we can further process it, consciously OR sub-consciously. The qualification of the degree of knowledge gained through various processes or discrete filters may lead us to a deeper understanding of the process of gaining knowledge. Using all this information gained through Knowledge processing we may have a greater chance at better arranging our personal lives.

It is true for all of us which is backed by a philosophical premise that our memories should be in good working condition IF we wish to progress in fields where knowledge of the field is the most important element. Simple jobs do not require vast knowledge resources as we have understood through experience.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2002, 06:30 AM	#12
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Feather, thanks for the prompts. What I was thinking was not as clear as what I wrote. Additional internal data, is the data formed by the information process of say some process akin to reason, but one can also use imagination as the other example. ALL, Reason and Imagination would have internally represented Perceptions that should have been generated internally. Do you think these internal perceptions could also be sense data? * * * Keith Russell, you are most noticably missing from the philosophical grammer. Quick on the nip, on side issues, but slow on the go, where it hurts the most. Sammi Na Boodie ()

10-05-2002, 08:31 PM	#14
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Sammi said: Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information. Keith: Knowledge 'has to'? Why? Further, what does it mean for 'Knowledge to step beyond the power of Information'? What exactly is 'the power of Information', and what--exactly--happens when 'Knowledge' steps beyond it? You see, Sammi, this is simply another one of your claims, given without evidence of any kind. Sammi: Generally we do not have the responsibility to remember information. Sometimes we remember information for our own purposes. Knowledge on the other hand must posess the characteristic of being a memory which becomes a resident part of us. Keith: Are you claiming that 'Knowledge' exists independently of human consciousness? If so, I'd love to see your evidence. Sammi: Having to remember Information is the first quality Information must acquire on itz path to becoming a form of Knowledge. Keith: Phrased this way, it seems as if you are saying that 'Information' must remember 'Information'--and must do so--if it is to 'become a form of knowledge'. Again, are you claiming that either 'Information' and/or 'Knowledge' exist independently of human consciousness? Again, I'd love for you to present the evidence. Sammi: When Information makes this change, it becomes a simple/intermediate form of Knowledge. There is more to this I hope... Keith: I'm sure we're all waiting with breath bated... [ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

10-07-2002, 06:52 AM	#15
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information. This seems like a simple way of saying knowledge and information are not the same things. A simple way of saying OR claiming knowledge is not just information. Evidence, what evidence do you want? I used the idea of knowledge being a resident memory unlike information which can be a transient memory or a permanent memory. Knowledge must be a human memory. Information can be other memories which do not exist in the human head. Information can be stored in computers or books. Information must be noted, underlined, remembered, coallated, before it becomes knowledge and as I wrote, the information becoming a permanent human memory IS A PROCESS which must be followed, in order to be qualified as knowledge. The evidence of Information technology rests on reason at this point in our philosophical development. I have no idea why you are constantly asking for evidence. Have you no ideas of your own concerning this? * * * Earlier, what was intended for broadcast was, "what I was thinking was not well clarified when I wrote it". Sammi Na Boodie ()

10-07-2002, 08:30 AM	#16
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Sammi said: Knowledge has to step beyond the power of Information. This seems like a simple way of saying knowledge and information are not the same things. Keith: It is a simple way of saying that Knowledge and Information are not the same things. But, before I'll believe you that they aren't the same, you have to do more than just say that they are different. You need to explain what the difference is, and how you came to recognize this difference. Sammi: A simple way of saying OR claiming knowledge is not just information. Evidence, what evidence do you want? Keith: Whatever evidence led you to the realization that Information and Knowledge are different. Sammi: I used the idea of knowledge being a resident memory unlike information which can be a transient memory or a permanent memory. Keith: What is the difference, IYO, between a 'resident' memory, and a 'permanent' memory? If memory is all you're concerned with, rather than knowledge or information transmitted by media such as books or recordings, why do you feel the need to employ words such as 'Knowledge' or 'Information' at all? Sammi: Knowledge must be a human memory. Keith: Why? You don't think it is correct to call the knowledge/information contained in libraries (or on my PCs hard drive) knowledge? Sammi: Information can be other memories which do not exist in the human head. *Keith: I woult not use the word 'memory' to speak of anything* which exists outside human mind. Computer 'memory', IMO, is more accurately called 'data' or 'data storage'.** Sammi: Information can be stored in computers or books. Information must be noted, underlined, remembered, coallated, before it becomes knowledge and as I wrote, the information becoming a permanent human memory IS A PROCESS which must be followed, in order to be qualified as knowledge. Keith: Well, why didn't you say so from the begining? To make sure I have this right, you define 'information' as any kind of data, but 'knowledge' is information stored and processed within a human mind, either as data or memories? Sammi: The evidence of Information technology rests on reason at this point in our philosophical development. I have no idea why you are constantly asking for evidence. Have you no ideas of your own concerning this? Keith: Oh, I have my own ideas, but--beleive me--they don't help me understand yours. I certainly am not about to give your ideas the benefit of the doubt, by taking on faith that your ideas are similar in any way to my own. Sammi: Earlier, what was intended for broadcast was, "what I was thinking was not well clarified when I wrote it". Keith: Fair enough.

10-09-2002, 06:57 AM	#17
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Keith Russell, your criticism is well taken concerning making points without adaquate references. [I like to restrict references sometimes because of my philosophical bent on Education OR the dispersion of Knowledge.] There will be times when I will try to qualify my ideas or the concepts which will be presented in the future. The squaring of the bit, is sometimes welcome, I understand, but this should not be something you can count on being done with all my ideas. * * * Now we may be past the attraction of memorising information so we can further process it, consciously OR sub-consciously. The qualification of the degree of knowledge gained through various processes or discrete filters may lead us to a deeper understanding of the process of gaining knowledge. Using all this information gained through Knowledge processing we may have a greater chance at better arranging our personal lives. It is true for all of us which is backed by a philosophical premise that our memories should be in good working condition IF we wish to progress in fields where knowledge of the field is the most important element. Simple jobs do not require vast knowledge resources as we have understood through experience. Sammi Na Boodie ()

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.