Ken et al,
There was a decade or so effort in AI during the 1980s to discuss Knowledge that was motivated by an attempt to move away from representational implementations to get close to human problem solving and towards a representation-free framework for analyzing "what the agent knows". This effort was highlighted by the AAAI Inaugural address by Newell.
Those discussions of two decades ago may be relevant to this thread at least in terms of what some other folks have discussed. You can find citations easily in Google Scholar by using the search term
Knowledge Level
The first hit is Newell's 1982 Presidential address. The abstract starts...
As the first AAA1 presidential address, this paper focuses on a basic substantive problem: the nature of knowledge and representation. There are ample indications that artificial intelligence is in need of substantial work in this area...
Best,
---jon---
_______________________________________________
Jon Sticklen
Director, Applied Engineering Sciences Program
Director, Center for Engineering Education Research @ MSU
College of Engineering
Michigan State University
Engineering Building
428 S. Shaw Lane, Rm 1410
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
voice: 517-353-3711
On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Kari,
>
> Thanks for your response. We agree on most of the key issues, though I’d like to refine on aspect – the issue of knowledge.
>
> Epistemologically, and ontologically, I’d prefer to say that artifacts contain information: artifacts represent knowledge or contain representations of knowledge rather than containing knowledge itself. In the same sense, I propose that a book represents knowledge or contains representations of knowledge. In my view, only a knowing being can “contain” knowledge – once knowledge leaves a human being or another knowing creature, it is no longer knowledge. It is information.
>
> There are probably arguments as to what kind of creature can “know” something. I’d say that horses, dogs, and higher primates can “know.” There is probably some boundary at which we can say that creatures on one side of the boundary “know,” and creatures on the other side of the boundary do not “know.”
>
> For me, this has much to do with the issue of what kinds of creatures may design, in the sense that a creature that designs must be able to choose preferred future states. These issues are closely linked to questions of agency and knowledge. This has echoes across several threads – I’m still working on the question of speculative realism and flat ontology.
>
> Our vocabulary has gaps in it where it comes to talking about what we can learn from artifacts and how we can understand them, as well as the issue of the role that artifacts can play in what we know and how we represent what we know.
>
> The issue fascinates me. I appreciate your reflections.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
> --
>
> Kari Kuutti wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> Although we in principle and in general can say that artifacts contain knowledge (“power of knowledge” like Marx it aptly put), that knowledge is not directly available to us. To become a subject of academical research discussion, it has to be articulated, reflected upon, and communicated. We do not really have such aresearch genre, and not even a good vocabulary to discuss directly about the novelty and significance of artifacts in practices. (That is why the “annotated portfolio” idea by Bowers and Gaver is important, it is an attempt to improve our vocabulary in this respect). We now have to go around beating the bushes and use “surrogate measures” such as efficiency or user experience (which themselves are of course relevant and important).
>
> —snip—
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|