The unit of knowledge

[eMTe]

Recently, I had a heated debate with a couple of friends about the possibility of creating the "unit of knowledge". Imo, such an unit would describe the amount of theoretical and/or practical "knowledge" (once you define what is knowledge you must also define what is ignorance of course) humankind gathered during its existence.

/Zyx mode on/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol

/Zyx mode off

According to Wikipedia, in 2009 internet contained approximately 1/2 zettabyte of "data".

But.

I am of the opinion that majority of "informations/data" humans exchange are self-replicators and rarely (NEVER?) we create something new. More, we can't create something that doesnt self-replicate, because Universe is physical and limited to periodic table we all are like needles tracing the vinyl lines. Yeah, The Discworld.

Everything else on subject is Cracow drowned in the ocean of morning fog vodka poetry, so

[Zyx]

Well, to truly engage Zyx mode, you would first need to differentiate between data, information and knowledge and instead link to the DIKW Pyramid instead of Google's discontinued epic fail.

Then, as, the article points out, you have the very difficult task to define "knowledge" before you can measure it. Also, as the article points, out we have many ways to measure information, and data is also pretty easy.

[eMTe]

My friend sent me an interesting link.



Updated versions exist.

What's funny, the numbers grow, but I have this odd feeling that they are used merely to incite an emotion in the audience. Numbers+music+video=emotional response - gosh! Of course, emes will probably define the future human and elite will be simply the people who will find the inner power to stay away from this emotional chemo-digital madness. They will move to Greenland or something.

Thx for the link. The article seems to be the work in progress and is subjected to the heavy criticism and this is what truly interests me - how things are born.

[eMTe]

I think (however it may change of course) that knowledge must be understood not as an outside thing, but as an inside thing. In this interpretation knowledge is what your brain is capable of acquire and maintain. Also, it is important to know what and why it "deletes".

Take, for example, your ability to ride a bike or to use pen. These abilities, when you grow up, become automatical, you no longer divide everything into stages like the kid does when it learns. So, basically, knowledge is simply everything that with time is being imprinted in the brain as the activity necessary for survival in society.

Take, as another example, childhood trips with your father, let's say to the nearby forest. Do you remember all forest trips with your father? Probably not. You remember only the broad outline, that you've been taking trips. You don't remember where you made stops, what did you eat, you don't remember exact dates etc.

I think, and it's a temporary wild interpretation, knowledge simply equals to survival. Everything else is erased or partially erased.

[Pager]

So, basically, knowledge is simply everything that with time is being imprinted in the brain as the activity necessary for survival in society.

I would say more in line with survival itself. You could base knowledge on the activity that is necessary, or you could base it more on the steps taken to get to that solution. Knowledge gained through failure is far greater than knowledge based upon success. Sure if you were to get it right the frist time, you wold have the knowledge about how to do it right until the circumstances change, but if you gained knowledge through failure, you would be more in tuned to know the circumstances by which the activity failed rather than how to solve it only once.

So, if you were to give knowledge a unit of measurement, I think it would be something like (not defining it only proivding an example) "options". You base your knowledge on the amount of "options" you have in solving the problem at hand, with the outcome of avoiding the zero option state, or the state of being unknowledgable about the task.

[eMTe]

So, if you were to give knowledge a unit of measurement, I think it would be something like (not defining it only proivding an example) "options". You base your knowledge on the amount of "options" you have in solving the problem at hand, with the outcome of avoiding the zero option state, or the state of being unknowledgable about the task.

What you said gives me an idea of a tree.

[Pager]

I'm talking about a tree with an "almost" unlimited number of branches that can spur at anyone moment. But only has as many branches available to that person as they can perceive. ie. The branches exist, but the person might not see them.

[eMTe]

If you're close to saying that hypothetical unit of knowledge equals to quantity of neurotransmitter n kept by neuron N during time t then say it. I'm with you.