Re: [unrev-II] 2020 Hindsight: A Fictional DKR Narrative (long (sorry))

From: Jack Park (
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 07:54:40 PDT

  • Next message: Bill Bearden: "RE: [unrev-II] 2020 Hindsight: A Fictional DKR Narrative (long (sorry))"

    If I may jump in here, it occurs to me that what we have been calling
    knowledge cannot exist outside the user. What exists in books, computers,
    and so forth, it seems to me, is just a model, a map, whatever you want to
    call a collection of triggers to the model that resides within the user.

    I speak of "apparent IQ," while Doug speaks of "collective IQ." I believe
    we are both speaking of the synergy that occurs when more than one mind gets
    together. Now, I am not speaking of the DKR as another mind; rather, I am
    speaking of it as a model of a giant mind, one that has the capacity to
    trigger mine to work better. Consider this: Al Einstein talking to a 5-year
    old isn't going to get very far explaining general relativity. In fact, the
    Sayings of Chairman Peirce have a similar ring on me, given my lack of depth
    in philosophy. But then, should a computer harbor a relational network of
    ideas related to Peirce, I do have the requisite variety in my own mind to
    make use of that net, and, thus, appear a whole lot smarter than I am.

    From: Bill Bearden <>

    > Rod,
    > You bring up an interesting and valid point with which I am currently
    > struggling. I have been reading (and trying to understand) some of
    > Malhotra's extensions of Churchman, esp.
    > There,
    > Malhotra quotes Churchman:
    > "To conceive of knowledge as a collection of information seems to rob the
    > concept of all of its life... Knowledge resides in the user and not in
    > collection. It is how the user reacts to a collection of information that
    > matters."
    > This sounds very much like what you say.
    > But if knowledge can not exist outside of the mind, how can a DKR be
    > possible? By this definition, neither book nor computer can contain
    > knowledge. I believe in the concept of the DKR. Therefore, I can not
    > a definition which fundamentally prevents its existence.
    > So, with your definition, my previous comment about knowledge being
    > everywhere is not valid. But I would guess that your definition
    > lots of things that have been discussed.
    > Bill

    IT Professionals: Match your unique skills with the best IT projects at

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 07:59:33 PDT