How does information turns into knowledge?

[STT]

Lets define information and knowledge first:
Information: Formation of a substance
Knowledge: Meaningful relation between a set of concepts which can be comprehended by a conscious agent

I think the first question is where does the information turns into knowledge? To my experience we are only an observer and only receive the knowledge created by brain (conscious mind (intellect) has minor or no contribution). This means that the process of converting information to knowledge is done in brain. The next question is how knowledge is constructed from information?

 

[Vonsalza]

Lets define information and knowledge first:
Information: Formation of a substance
Knowledge: Meaningful relation between a set of concepts which can be comprehended by a conscious agent

I think the first question is where does the information turns into knowledge? To my experience we are only an observer and only receive the knowledge created by brain (conscious mind (intellect) has minor or no contribution). This means that the process of converting information to knowledge is done in brain. The next question is how knowledge is constructed from information?

How about using a more standard set of definitions so the discussion is meaningful to a greater number of people?

Per Oxford:

Information - Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
-or-
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

Knowledge - Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
-or-
Awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

There ya go.

 

[STT]

How about using a more standard set of definitions so the discussion is meaningful to a greater number of people?

Per Oxford:

Information - Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
-or-
**
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
**

That is a good definition.

Knowledge - Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
-or-
Awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

There ya go.

That is a good definition.

I am however happier with my definitions. We can of course discuss them.

 

[GEddie]

When it is outside your head, it is information; inside your head, it is knowledge.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I am however happier with my definitions. We can of course discuss them.

You can make yourself happy by redefining any number of terms. However, this happiness is not based in reality. What’s important to is to work with in the actual definitions, not your made up definitions.

However, as I see nothing inherently objectionable about your definitions, I would say that information turns into knowledge at the point when a person comprehends it well enough to put it to use.

I would, however, say that knowledge is not created by the brain, but rather discovered. Something you come to know is true/false whether you know it or not. 2+2=4 whether or not you know that 2+2=4.

I would also say that there is no conversion. Knowledge is something in addition to information which uses information. If it was a conversion, the information would cease to exist in your mind, and the knowledge would be all that remains. Information allows the discovery of knowledge, and the more information you have the more knowledge you will discover.

I don’t think you can really say that knowledge is constructed of information, more that it is born of it. I read many books, obtaining a lot of information in the process. Then, I come to be able to truly comprehend that information and put it to use, meaning that I now have the knowledge associate with that information in addition to the information itself.

 

[STT]

When it is outside your head, it is information; inside your head, it is knowledge.

ICXC NIKA

I think it is more than that. Information is just formed substance (electromagnetic field for example). We can experience information but that is not knowledge. Knowledge is something meaningful.

 

[Vonsalza]

You can make yourself happy by redefining any number of terms. However, this happiness is not based in reality. What’s important to is to work with in the actual definitions, not your made up definitions.
However, as I see nothing inherently objectionable about your definitions, I would say that information turns into knowledge at the point when a person comprehends it well enough to put it to use.

I only caution in favor of standardized definitions because semantics is the very first step in any proper discussion/debate.

When we use our own definitions, there is often a subtle attempt to nudge them in favor of the conclusions we would like to draw. In that way, the spirit of the author’s desired conclusion is hidden inside the premises (definitions) they use.

This is an unacceptable practice in good, serious rhetoric.

In other posts, it’s why I rail against modern atheists who doggedly try to retcon innovations into the classic understandings of “atheism” versus “agnosticism”. It’s an attempt to subtly redefine words in favor of your predetermined conclusion. The highest of fallacies.

Call it a “pet peeve”.

 

[STT]

You can make yourself happy by redefining any number of terms. However, this happiness is not based in reality. What’s important to is to work with in the actual definitions, not your made up definitions.

I think it is appropriate to sometimes redefine term in order to facilitate discussion.

However, as I see nothing inherently objectionable about your definitions, I would say that information turns into knowledge at the point when a person comprehends it well enough to put it to use.

There is a problem here. Information to me is formed substance (electromagnetic field for example). We receive information through our sensory system and we then can experience them, shape, color, etc. I think an extra process is needed to make information comprehensible to conscious agent. The question is how a process can do such a thing. Lets think of the case that you are reading a book. What you perceive is merely forms. This forms however are meaningful to you which means that your brain does an extra process to allow the passage of content of book to you.

I would, however, say that knowledge is not created by the brain, but rather discovered. Something you come to know is true/false whether you know it or not. 2+2=4 whether or not you know that 2+2=4.

I think we are able to create concepts and on top of that knowledge. 2+2=4 has no meaning outside our heads. We can even create wrong concepts like 2+2=5 therefore what we do is more than discovery.

I would also say that there is no conversion. Knowledge is something in addition to information which uses information. If it was a conversion, the information would cease to exist in your mind, and the knowledge would be all that remains. Information allows the discovery of knowledge, and the more information you have the more knowledge you will discover.

There is a difference between the words you read now and the content of sentence you understand, knowledge. Each alphabet can be considered as a piece of information, each word is a concept and the knowledge is the content of sentence (what you understand from sentence).

I don’t think you can really say that knowledge is constructed of information, more that it is born of it. I read many books, obtaining a lot of information in the process. Then, I come to be able to truly comprehend that information and put it to use, meaning that I now have the knowledge associate with that information in addition to the information itself.

I think we are using different definition for information and knowledge. Could we please stick to the definition provided in the example in the last comment?

 

[Gorgias]

I think it is appropriate to sometimes redefine term in order to facilitate discussion.

Sometimes. However, the redefinition must be agreed upon by the interlocutors; it cannot be imposed by only one of them. Part of the discussion, then, becomes the process of agreeing upon a mutually-accepted definition.

There is a problem here. Information to me is formed substance (electromagnetic field for example).

We’ve been around this one before: information is not the particular encoding. Whether I represent your birthday in electromagnetic pulses, patterns of chalk on a blackboard, or three piles of little pebbles, the information is the birthdate, not the substance of the encoding.

We receive information through our sensory system and we then can experience them, shape, color, etc.

I would assert that what we receive through our senses is data, not information. It becomes information once we process it. It becomes knowledge once we understand it.

For example: your ears pick up vibrations in the air. That’s not info – it’s just data. These vibrations are transformed and encoded in your body – they’re now information. You recognize what you’ve heard as Beethoven’s Fifth – now, you have knowledge.

The question is how a process can do such a thing. Lets think of the case that you are reading a book. What you perceive is merely forms. This forms however are meaningful to you which means that your brain does an extra process to allow the passage of content of book to you.

I would take it a step further. The content isn’t passed from the book to you: it’s passed from the author to you. The book is just one means of encoding the information. So, again: you perceive data with your eyes. That data is encoded and processed in your mind. It becomes information. You take that information and process it further: it’s now become knowledge that you possess.

 

[ericc]

We can experience information but that is not knowledge. Knowledge is something meaningful.

That is very true. A person may received a string of organized data (name removed by moderator)uts i.e. a foreign language. He knows it contain information but not knowing how to decipher it, it remains unusable information. To another who is familiar with the language, the information contained constitute knowledge to him. Whether it constitute information, knowledge or garbage depends on the recipient’s capability.

 

[Gorgias]

Whether it constitute information, knowledge or garbage depends on the recipient’s capability.

In this case, sure. However, there’s more at stake than that.

In your example, the person presumes that there’s usable information – he presumes that the data he’s looking at is information. That is, he’s making a presumption about the signal itself.

Sometimes, though, the signal is garbled, and although (in its original form) it’s knowledge that someone has encoded as information through a data signal, the recipient will never be able to decode it into information, let alone glean knowledge from it.

Other times, the signal is just that – a simple stream of data. No information, no encoding, just quanta of data. In this case, at best, a recipient will look at it and conclude “no information present.” At worst, the recipient will create spurious information from the data stream. (After all, we are pattern-matching animals; we create “false positives” of information out of non-informational data all the time!)

 

[STT]

Sometimes. However, the redefinition must be agreed upon by the interlocutors; it cannot be imposed by only one of them. Part of the discussion, then, becomes the process of agreeing upon a mutually-accepted definition.

Cool.

We’ve been around this one before: information is not the particular encoding. Whether I represent your birthday in electromagnetic pulses, patterns of chalk on a blackboard, or three piles of little pebbles, the information is the birthdate, not the substance of the encoding.

We just have two components not three (please see the following).

I would assert that what we receive through our senses is data, not information. It becomes information once we process it. It becomes knowledge once we understand
it.

What we perceive in general is shape (what I call it information and you call it code) and knowledge. I don’t understand what information is in your perspective.

For example: your ears pick up vibrations in the air. That’s not info – it’s just data. These vibrations are transformed and encoded in your body – they’re now information. You recognize what you’ve heard as Beethoven’s Fifth – now, you have knowledge.

That (bold part) is data too.

I would take it a step further. The content isn’t passed from the book to you: it’s passed from the author to you. The book is just one means of encoding the information. So, again: you perceive data with your eyes. That data is encoded and processed in your mind. It becomes information. You take that information and process it further: it’s now become knowledge that you possess.

Hmmm.

 

[o_mlly]

Knowledge is information organized.
Wisdom is knowledge understood.
Senses gather the info; reason makes the conversions.

 

[STT]

Knowledge is information organized.

No. Think of a sentence. That is information organized. You however cannot understand the message behind the sentence if you are not familiar with language.

Wisdom is knowledge understood.

No. Wisdom a sort of knowledge. We are missing instinct, rational thoutghts and intuition.

Senses gather the info; reason makes the conversions.

I don’t understand the bold part. The first statement is correct.

 

[o_mlly]

No. Think of a sentence. That is information organized. You however cannot understand the message behind the sentence if you are not familiar with language.

No. Think of a declarative or knowledgeable sentence which connects two pieces of information with a verb.

No. Wisdom a sort of knowledge. We are missing instinct, rational thoutghts and intuition.

No. Instinct are not learned therefore they are not knowledge.

I don’t understand the bold part. The first statement is correct.

Yes. You do not yet understand because your information remains disorganized. Understanding can only follow from knowledge which proceeds from correctly organized information.

 

[Gorgias]

What we perceive in general is shape (what I call it information and you call it code) and knowledge. I don’t understand what information is in your perspective.

Your “shape” is really just a perception of data, right?

‘Information’, then, would be data that’s been recognized as having content, and has been decoded (regardless whether the ‘encoding’ is natural or man-made) to reveal the content. Apprehension of the content makes it ‘knowledge’.

STT:

Gorgias:

For example: your ears pick up vibrations in the air. That’s not info – it’s just data.** These vibrations are transformed and encoded in your body**

– they’re now information.
That (bold part) is data too.

I’ll have to think about that. I’m not certain I fully agree.

The distinction I’m making is that the progression tends to move ‘upward’ (although not monotonically): data → information → knowledge.

Along the way, data is both decoded and encoded, in a variety of ways. At all times, it remains ‘data’; however, once recognized, it also becomes ‘information’ (while continuing to be retained and/or stored as ‘data’). Once understood by the conscious agent, it becomes ‘knowledge’ (which, itself, must be stored by the agent, no?).

So… it’s not a simple progression, but one that has twists and turns. I’m trying to assert, though, that the difference between the three notions has to do with content – in particular the recognition and understanding thereof.

 

[ericc]

In this case, sure. However, there’s more at stake than that.

In your example, the person presumes that there’s usable information – he presumes that the data he’s looking at is information. That is, he’s making a presumption about the signal itself.

Depends. Someone may see some information in seemingly random noise. And we employ statistics to filter out such noise to see whether there are underlying patterns. Sometimes we see patterns in an inkblot. Supposingly after cleaning up the noise we see patterns emerging from the data. But because of insufficient knowledge one may not be able to figure out what it means although he may know the pattern convey some sort of information.

Sometimes, though, the signal is garbled, and although (in its original form) it’s knowledge that someone has encoded as information through a data signal, the recipient will never be able to decode it into information, let alone glean knowledge from it.

An example of data being not able to be transformed by the recipient to knowledge. An example would be a database being encrypted by ransomeware. I know my stuff is in there but I don’t have the decryption key.

Other times, the signal is just that – a simple stream of data. No information, no encoding, just quanta of data. In this case, at best, a recipient will look at it and conclude “no information present.” At worst, the recipient will create spurious information from the data stream. (After all, we are pattern-matching animals; we create “false positives” of information out of non-informational data all the time!)

Aha! That would be when an honest person would say I don’t know enough to make a claim. It could be data (or not) depending on whether the problem was tackled with the right algorithm, technology. A code breaker is basically looking for that key to unlock that seemingly random data. It also depends on the recipient. A “caveman” and a statistician looking at the same data may come to different opinions.

 

[STT]

No. Think of a declarative or knowledgeable sentence which connects two pieces of information with a verb.

I don’t understand what you are talking about.

No. Instinct are not learned therefore they are not knowledge.

It depends how do you define knowledge. Instinct is a sort of knowledge given the definition in OP.

Yes. You do not yet understand because your information remains disorganized. Understanding can only follow from knowledge which proceeds from correctly organized information.

Organized information still is a sort of information given the definition in OP.

 

[STT]

Your “shape” is really just a perception of data, right?

Yes.

‘Information’, then, would be data that’s been recognized as having content, and has been decoded (regardless whether the ‘encoding’ is natural or man-made) to reveal the content. Apprehension of the content makes it ‘knowledge’.

Whatever which is the result of decoding still have specific shape in a brain.

I’ll have to think about that. I’m not certain I fully agree.

The distinction I’m making is that the progression tends to move ‘upward’ (although not monotonically): data → information → knowledge.

Along the way, data is both decoded and encoded, in a variety of ways. At all times, it remains ‘data’; however, once recognized, it also becomes ‘information’ (while continuing to be retained and/or stored as ‘data’). Once understood by the conscious agent, it becomes ‘knowledge’ (which, itself, must be stored by the agent, no?).

So… it’s not a simple progression, but one that has twists and turns. I’m trying to assert, though, that the difference between the three notions has to do with content – in particular the recognition and understanding thereof.

 

[animalis]

Knowledge is something meaningful.

It doesn’t have penetrating meaning unless you understand it. It has the potential to mean much, for that reason it is in your head. It is turned into practicality by understanding, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever.” (Ps 111:10, vulg.)

First, comes the actual grace of repentance. Knowledge is raw and brings a particular from a general concept. ex. the car has four wheels, there is value in the four cardinal virtues. Understanding is made when you grasp how the wheels spin, or that the seven-fold gift of the Holy Spirit perfects the virtues and so I come closer to reality.

Understanding is wise when we direct our knowledge and understanding to its source and realize that source brings us to the supreme good.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom - that I know
A good understanding to all that do it - uh! I have to do something only by the supreme good, now I understand!
his praise continueth for ever and ever - I ultimately found myself as participating in the eternal God, what wisdom!