Here are some additional thoughts triggered by your reply on
"From Knowledge Animals to Information Beings".
>> I THINK THAT even THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SUCH INDURATED
>> KNOWLEDGE BEINGS.
>
>I would like to make a generalization here and say that most generally
>accepted knowledge is like that, it is affected by previous knowledge,
>and affects that knowledge themselves. [evolution of knowledge]
The words "THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ...", where *not* intended to refer
to "the scientific knowledge about the laws of physics", but the laws
of physics themselves, independent of the human knowledge about them.
For example:
One of the "mysteries" of physics is the "fine tuning of the
constants of nature". The constants appearing in the laws of
physics are as such that atoms (and all what is built upon it) are
quite stable. When a constant such as the ratio between the mass of
an electron and the mass of a proton would change for example one
pro cent, atoms would not be stable and the whole universe as we
know it would not exist.
In the theory of "Behavior of Information", these constants are
considered as the results of a long evolution. At first these
ratios where not constant but relations with had a large uncertainty.
At that time, the structures formed by these elements (e.g. early
atoms) where fuzzier because of the flexibility that still existed
in these ratios. By their very existence, the most stable of these
structures "pulled" these ratios to very specific values (similar
to the way atoms in a crystal are pulled to specific locations).
As a result, the existence of the structures inter-locked the
ratios.
The relation with PCP ?
When writing the remark above, I had at first some scruples to
bother the PCP with that kind of philosophy. On a second look, that
is all what the PCP is about: the stabilization and further
structuring of knowledge which grows in a fuzzy way in the Internet.
On Internet, structures grow in a fuzzy way, based on evolving habits
and fuzzy rules. Gradually some habits indurate to conventions. The
conventions pull the structures to discrete things (e.g. discrete
newsgroups). This discreteness affects the conventions and finally
the two inter-lock each other.
>> A fundamental thing about "knowledge animals" is that they
>> express themselves in their environment.
>> The more POWER a knowledge animal has in a specific environment,
>> the more accurate the knowledge animal can express itself.
>
>I think it can be quit confusing to talk like the knowledge expresses
>itsselve. Knowledge is no being in the common sense. It can be used,
>and can affect things. To express itsselve usually assumes that there
>is a selve, meaning something conciouss.
I really believe that knowledge beings ARE CONSCIOUS !
Consciousness can be described as the experience of the interaction
between the "self" and the "non-self".
Any form of information can be described as a distinction.
A distinction is the base for a classification.
An abstract class in a classification is mapped (projected) on whatever
it can find in its environment, all what fits is considered (by that
conscious information being) as self, and all what does not fit is
considered as non-self. Between these two is ``the insulation''
or ``the distinction'' which is the surface of experience or
consciousness.
>> For example: Human beings express the way they manage things
>> in the structure of their organizations, e.g. in a company.
>> Through its relations, a company exhibits the way it is
>> organized, and this knowledge is replicated to other
>> companies.
>
>This is part of memetics also [follow the threads from my www-pages].
>It is an intriguing question wether the knowledge replicated is
>understood, altered in some way in the course of replication, and if it is
>possible to forsee what the changes might bring.
Indeed there are a lot of related topics in your home page and
threads. (HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html).
I am glad you mentioned it.
>> WHY WOULD WE BE THE FIRST STAGE IN A RECURSIVE CHAIN ?
>
>Who said we were?
You are right Hans-Cees. Many people are indeed convinced that we
are not the first recursion, but I intended to emphasize this.
At the same time I like to emphasize the difference between evolution
and recursion.
This is similar to the difference between iteration and recursion.
`Darwin' refers only to iteration and `Creation' in the `genesis'
sense refers rather exclusively to recursion in the sense that
knowledge is at once planted in a new environment. When looking only
at the environment where the knowledge appears, it seem to come
from nowhere.
This dual mechanism is of course also externalized in our behavior,
for example:
1) iteration:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A computer program evolves. Improvements and additions are made.
The engineering cycle that lies behind each new version of the
program is the iterating engine behind the evolution of a
computer program.
driving force for recursion:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After a number of modifications, two forces make further evolution
by iteration increasingly difficult:
The first is rather technical, but *very* general:
The structure becomes complex and cumbersome. The nice structure
of a new program is lost because of all the additions and
modifications which did not fit in the original design.
The second reason seems subjective, but is also *very* general:
The experience gathered by performing the iteration of
improving the existing program is ``feed back'' to the abstract
knowledge of the program (in the mind of the engineers). This
gives raise to an improvement of the abstract image, and a new
design is conceived. This embryonic, un-expressed new design in
the mind of the engineer attempts to externalize itself
by influencing the engineer.
2) recursion:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, the egg hatches and the engineer thinks the has just
decided to design a new program. Although the structure can be
quite different, the experience gathered by the previous
iterating evolution is embedded in the main structure.
BTW:
In many cases, recursion of externalization of information
takes place in another ``time-space'', I mean really in a ``different
time axis'', for example we cannot say that sub-atomic particles are
developed in ``our'' past, they seem to have been always there and
seem to stay there. At the same time, the knowledge structures that
we will develop in the future help to inter-lock the properties of
these particles. This really lead us outside the domain of the PCP.
Luc
------------------------------------------------------
Luc Claeys claeys@innet.be
Antwerpen (Wilrijk) Belgium.
In search of new points of view
for better understanding of Nature.
-------------------------------------------------------