Re: The Doing Affector

"Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >                       The Doing Affector
> > >
> > >  Understanding the human mind is easy if you know the different parts
> > > of an intelligent system. The two major parts are knowledge and
> > > understanding. Knowledge directs how the system is to operate and
> > > understanding does the operating. It's the old cause and effect thing;
> > > knowledge is the cause and understanding is the effect. Its important
> > > not to get these mixed up when studying how the mind works.
> > [snip]
> >
> > To my knowledge, causes and effects are the domain of understanding,
> > not of knowledge. Knowledge shows understanding when intelligence
> > works with significant and causal data. But then, I am not studying how
> > the mind works, just how intelligence works. I suppose imparting the
> > proper knowledge (as a program?) into a machine will cause it to
> > understand, but who gave us our knowledge to cause our minds to
> > understand?
> >
> > My understanding of knowledge [when I try to converse intelligently
> > about it] has it related to the capacity and inter-relationships of the
> > things it can understand (have causes and effects with [the
> > environment]).
> >
>
> Knowledge is a bit mysterious. Knowledge of the direct type is processed
> data from our senses. Indirect knowledge comes from information carried
> by language.

I find this simple, but not deep. I would simply say that knowledge comes
from understanding the usage of information; or more precisely, that
knowledge comes from intelligence. Information could then be typed as
direct or indirect. This usage of information would include all the I/O or
cause and effects. It is typical here to overlook the consequences of
usage. We may directly or indirectly effect the environment, and likewise,
directly or indirectly understand the environment's affects on us
(consequences). The combinations may appear mysterious looking.

Your philosophy shows it's roots in programming. In programming we
implement an intelligence where the scope of usage and consequences
is extremely narrow; that is, our programs are very narrow minded.
Programming is the simplest way that a machine can acquire and
apply knowledge. Or more simply put, programming is a simple
form of intelligence. Of course, you can implement learning programs
where their knowledge increases, but not their intelligence, or where
their information increases but not their knowledge.

> Today's computers [...]

Regards,
Rick