It corresponds to an epistemic cluster in thingspace, comprised mostly of high-probability beliefs, supported by much physical evidence and experience.
What is an “epistemic cluster in thingspace”?
And let’s take, say, a mystic, a Christian mystic as an example. Does she have knowledge of God?
1) The Cluster Structure of Thingspace, an artifact of reality is that similar things are grouped together in gaussian-like distributions in the phase space of observables’ values. We, as humans, have evolved to use that.
2) Subjectively to herself, yes. Subjectively to me, no. A mystic and I most likely have differing opinions on what constitutes evidence; I however describe evidence in such a way that it works when I do things out in the real world. Rationalists should Win and all that.
Knowledge corresponds to the claim “that similar things are grouped together in gaussian-like distributions in the phase space of observables’ values”, really?
So, I know how to ride a bike. How does that knowledge fit into this cluster?
Subjectively to herself, yes. Subjectively to me, no.
Is knowledge subjective, then? Me and you can have radically different knowledge?
Lumifer, you are falling prey to several of the traps detailed in A Human’s Guide to Words. So far I have basically parroted EY’s 102 material.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with riding a bicycle.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with some field of science you are proficient in.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe a religious person’s views on god.
...
...
You and me both know what ‘knowledge’ is in everyday speech. The problem is what constitues ‘knowlege’ in extreme situations.
The thing is that “Knowledge” is ambiguous in everyday speech. We misunderstood each other when I initially answered your question: I thought you were speaking about the tried and tired philosophical issue that have been discussed for ages.
Plato has a famous definition of “Knowledge”: Justified True Belief. Notice how he has moved the problem of explaining “Knowledge” into the problem of explaining “Justification.” (And “True.” And “Belief.” Neither concepts were actually well explained when Plato was alive and kicking.)
“Knowledge” can also be a synonym for “Skill.” Such as knowing how to ride a bicycle. Notice how the grammatical construction “knowing how to .” is different from “knowing to be true.” One could argue that they are the same thing, but I think they are not. So we have at least two types of everyday discussed knowledge: Procedural Knowledge (how to do stuff) and Object Knowledge (facts and stuff).
The distinction between the two is obvious when you really taboo it: Procedural knowledge is like a tool. It is a means to an end, an extension of your primitive action set. Having lots of procedural knowledge is a boon in Instrumental Rationality, but most skills are irrelevant to Epistemological Rationality. (Riding a cicycle will only very rarely tell you the secrets of the universe.)
Object Knowledge, or Facts, are thingies in your mental model of how the world works. This mental model is what you use when you want to predict how the world is going to behave in the future, so that you can make plans. (Because you have goals you want to attain.)
Your world model is updated automatically by processes which you do not control. A sufficiently advanced agent might be able to excercise some control, at least at the design level, of it’s updating algorithms. In short, you take in sensory data and crunch some numbers and out comes a bayesian-esque update.
So my standing viewpoint is: I don’t care what you call it; “knowledge” or “hunch” or “divine inspiration.” I care about what your probability distribution over future events is. I don’t care what you call it “skills” or “knowledge” or “talent.” I care about what sort of planning algorithm you implement.
And on the topic of subjectivity: If I have trained skills or observed evidence different from you, then yes we have subjectively different “knowledge.” I for instance know 12 programming languages and intimate facts about my significant other.
But the thing is that there is only One Correct Way of updating on evidence: Bayes Theorem. If you deviate from that you will have less than optimal predictive power.
I really suggest you go and read some of the core sequences to refresh this.
I think the dichotomy between procedural knowledge and object knowledge is overblown, at least in the area of science. Scientific object knowledge is (or at least should be) procedural knowledge: it should enable you to A) predict what will happen in a given situation (e.g. if someone drops a mento into a bottle of diet coke) and B) predict how to set up a situation to achieve a desired result (e.g. produce pure L-glucose).
Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with riding a bicycle.
Sure. I have the ability to manipulate the physical object commonly known as “bicycle” to perform actions which roughly correspond to my wishes.
Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with some field of science you are proficient in.
Sure. I am familiar with a commonly accepted (in this particular field) set of facts about the reality and I can use the usual (to this particular fields) methods to explore the reality further and/or use the methods to figure out the outputs/consequences knowing the inputs/conditions/actions.
Taboo “Knowledge” and describe a religious person’s views on god.
Sure. I specifically mentioned mystics, so a mystic has had direct, personal experience of being in the presence of God and of communicating with God.
To continue, I am aware of the difference between procedural knowledge and object knowledge. It’s not absolute, of course, and can be argued to be an artifact of the map, not present in the territory. Note that both are subtypes of knowledge.
You can think of both of these types as knowing which levers of reality to press and which dials to turn to get the results you want. You say that object knowledge is “mental model of how the world works”—but isn’t this exactly what procedural knowledge is? You can make the argument that procedural knowledge is “active” and objective knowledge is “passive”, but that doesn’t look like that major a difference.
Your world model is updated automatically by processes which you do not control.
Partially. My world model is updated both consciously and subconsciously.
So my standing viewpoint is: I don’t care what you call it; “knowledge” or “hunch” or “divine inspiration.” I care about what your probability distribution over future events is.
Well, just because that’s the only thing you care about doesn’t mean the rest of the humanity is limited in the same way.
But the thing is that there is only One Correct Way of updating on evidence: Bayes Theorem. If you deviate from that you will have less than optimal predictive power.
The Sacred Truth Not To Be Doubted! :-D
I think you’re confusing some basic statistics and real life which is, to put it very mildly, complex.
What is an “epistemic cluster in thingspace”?
And let’s take, say, a mystic, a Christian mystic as an example. Does she have knowledge of God?
1) The Cluster Structure of Thingspace, an artifact of reality is that similar things are grouped together in gaussian-like distributions in the phase space of observables’ values. We, as humans, have evolved to use that.
2) Subjectively to herself, yes. Subjectively to me, no. A mystic and I most likely have differing opinions on what constitutes evidence; I however describe evidence in such a way that it works when I do things out in the real world. Rationalists should Win and all that.
Still not making sense to me.
Knowledge corresponds to the claim “that similar things are grouped together in gaussian-like distributions in the phase space of observables’ values”, really?
So, I know how to ride a bike. How does that knowledge fit into this cluster?
Is knowledge subjective, then? Me and you can have radically different knowledge?
Lumifer, you are falling prey to several of the traps detailed in A Human’s Guide to Words. So far I have basically parroted EY’s 102 material.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with riding a bicycle.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe your relation with some field of science you are proficient in.
Meditation: Taboo “Knowledge” and describe a religious person’s views on god.
...
...
You and me both know what ‘knowledge’ is in everyday speech. The problem is what constitues ‘knowlege’ in extreme situations.
The thing is that “Knowledge” is ambiguous in everyday speech. We misunderstood each other when I initially answered your question: I thought you were speaking about the tried and tired philosophical issue that have been discussed for ages.
The answer in the Philosophical Issue of Knowledge is: “You philosophers are all morons; you are using the same word to mean different things.”
Plato has a famous definition of “Knowledge”: Justified True Belief. Notice how he has moved the problem of explaining “Knowledge” into the problem of explaining “Justification.” (And “True.” And “Belief.” Neither concepts were actually well explained when Plato was alive and kicking.)
“Knowledge” can also be a synonym for “Skill.” Such as knowing how to ride a bicycle. Notice how the grammatical construction “knowing how to .” is different from “knowing to be true.” One could argue that they are the same thing, but I think they are not. So we have at least two types of everyday discussed knowledge: Procedural Knowledge (how to do stuff) and Object Knowledge (facts and stuff).
The distinction between the two is obvious when you really taboo it: Procedural knowledge is like a tool. It is a means to an end, an extension of your primitive action set. Having lots of procedural knowledge is a boon in Instrumental Rationality, but most skills are irrelevant to Epistemological Rationality. (Riding a cicycle will only very rarely tell you the secrets of the universe.)
Object Knowledge, or Facts, are thingies in your mental model of how the world works. This mental model is what you use when you want to predict how the world is going to behave in the future, so that you can make plans. (Because you have goals you want to attain.)
Your world model is updated automatically by processes which you do not control. A sufficiently advanced agent might be able to excercise some control, at least at the design level, of it’s updating algorithms. In short, you take in sensory data and crunch some numbers and out comes a bayesian-esque update.
So my standing viewpoint is: I don’t care what you call it; “knowledge” or “hunch” or “divine inspiration.” I care about what your probability distribution over future events is. I don’t care what you call it “skills” or “knowledge” or “talent.” I care about what sort of planning algorithm you implement.
And on the topic of subjectivity: If I have trained skills or observed evidence different from you, then yes we have subjectively different “knowledge.” I for instance know 12 programming languages and intimate facts about my significant other.
But the thing is that there is only One Correct Way of updating on evidence: Bayes Theorem. If you deviate from that you will have less than optimal predictive power.
I really suggest you go and read some of the core sequences to refresh this.
I think the dichotomy between procedural knowledge and object knowledge is overblown, at least in the area of science. Scientific object knowledge is (or at least should be) procedural knowledge: it should enable you to A) predict what will happen in a given situation (e.g. if someone drops a mento into a bottle of diet coke) and B) predict how to set up a situation to achieve a desired result (e.g. produce pure L-glucose).
Sure. I have the ability to manipulate the physical object commonly known as “bicycle” to perform actions which roughly correspond to my wishes.
Sure. I am familiar with a commonly accepted (in this particular field) set of facts about the reality and I can use the usual (to this particular fields) methods to explore the reality further and/or use the methods to figure out the outputs/consequences knowing the inputs/conditions/actions.
Sure. I specifically mentioned mystics, so a mystic has had direct, personal experience of being in the presence of God and of communicating with God.
To continue, I am aware of the difference between procedural knowledge and object knowledge. It’s not absolute, of course, and can be argued to be an artifact of the map, not present in the territory. Note that both are subtypes of knowledge.
You can think of both of these types as knowing which levers of reality to press and which dials to turn to get the results you want. You say that object knowledge is “mental model of how the world works”—but isn’t this exactly what procedural knowledge is? You can make the argument that procedural knowledge is “active” and objective knowledge is “passive”, but that doesn’t look like that major a difference.
Partially. My world model is updated both consciously and subconsciously.
Well, just because that’s the only thing you care about doesn’t mean the rest of the humanity is limited in the same way.
The Sacred Truth Not To Be Doubted! :-D
I think you’re confusing some basic statistics and real life which is, to put it very mildly, complex.