:-j
PS: I hope you are suggesting that I am a nice person.
PPS: I've changed the subject to create a new thread, so as not to distract from the OP and his thread.
On Mar 30, 7:43 pm, Adrian Miley
> Joseph,
> I've a feeling that you do exist but it might only be in the
> metaphysical sense as I've not witnessed a physical manifestation
> yet.
> However, if you don't have phyiscal manifestation then hopefully you
> can take comfort in the fact that your existential existence is on a
> par with most of the interesting things in the multi-verse. Even
> concepts can be nice people to.
> I on the other hand definitely do exist - I've created an entire sub-
> reality for myself just to support my manifestation. Unfortunately the
> knowledge transfer mechanism necessary to communicate the proof of
> that doesn't yet exist outside my sub-reality so hopefuilly you'll
> take my word for it :-)
> Adrian
> On 30 Mar, 09:26, Joseph George
> > Wow... this metaphysical stuff is really deep and interesting!! IMHO,
> > definitely deserves its own thread...
> > :-j
> > PS: Do I exist? What does your sensory perception indicate? Do you??
> > On Mar 30, 8:47 am, Adrian Miley
> > > Geoff,
> > > “Knowledge cannot be shared as it is highly contextual based.”
> > > All Knowledge is (a type of) Information and all Information is (a
> > > type of) Data with the additional characteristics essentially being
> > > Context and Purpose. So given that Data can be transferred then both
> > > Knowledge and Information can also be transferred providing that the
> > > Context and Purpose can be suitable captured and transferred.
> > > So you correctly point out (and contradicting your own original
> > > assertion) the issue is not that Knowledge can’t be transferred but
> > > that it can only be transferred as accurately as the chosen knowledge
> > > transference mechanism allows. Unfortunately for this we appear to be
> > > using a token-based language which are notoriously imprecise because
> > > the meaning of each token is not unambiguous and has different meaning
> > > to different people (as Bertrand Russell said “It’s possible to be
> > > both clear and precise but not at the same time!”)
> > > In mathematics, on the other hand, accurate and complete knowledge
> > > transference takes place regularly but that’s mainly because the
> > > language of mathematics is well-defined and unambiguous so
> > > consequently not open to local interpretation by the recipient of the
> > > knowledge.
> > > You yourself allude to a potential solution to the problem and once we
> > > develop Telepathy for the masses then knowledge transfer will be both
> > > complete and accurate. (Though I do hope that happens after I’m dead
> > > because if anyone poked around the chaos-realm I call “my mind” they’d
> > > probably question my sanity.)
> > > Hence, to conclude, it’s not impossible to transfer knowledge just
> > > very difficult and if you’d made that assertion then I’d agree with
> > > you but to say it CANNOT be done is inaccurate because a potential
> > > solution is conceivable.
> > > That last point also challenges your assertion that systems do not
> > > exist. To quote Paul Adams (Cambridge University, 1920’s) “Physical
> > > manifestation is not a requirement for existence” that is, the act of
> > > thinking about something brings it into existence therefore something
> > > called a “system” exists simply because. Philosophy, both physical or
> > > metaphysical, is full of existential concepts that have unproven
> > > physical manifestation but proven behaviour.
> > > Both systems and the ability to transfer knowledge are conceivable so
> > > therefore are both possible.
> > > Just my opinion…
> > > On 29 Mar, 16:24, "Geoff"
> > > > HI Kevin
> > > > See the work of polyani. Knowledge cannot be shared as it is highly
> > > > contextual based. In KM one also has to differentiate between know what and
> > > > know how's
> > > > At the same recognized that people know more than they can tell. I can give
> > > > you some information, i.e point you in the direction of Polyani and also
> > > > point you in direction of mode 1 and mode 2 knowledge but I cannot transfer
> > > > my experiential learning into some ones head. In other knowledge cannot be
> > > > transferred, information yes. I get information from books but not
> > > > knowledge.
> > > > I can also list the basic principles behind systems theory. As for doing the
> > > > knowledge a la a London cabbie tyhgis is highly contextural and read ing his
> > > > book does not tell me what he knows. If knowledge can be held in an IT
> > > > system then why have only 2 may be 3 companies built a KM system?
> > > > Thoughts
> > > > Geoff
> > > > PS
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin (PragmaticEA.com) Smith
> > > > Sent: 28 March 2010 21:27
> > > > Subject: Re: Using EA to dis-integrate an enterprise architecture?
> > > > @Doug: "I will think about how to position a separate thread around
> > > > cybernetics and
> > > > systems theory."
> > > > Cool. I'm always looking to expand my horizons.
> > > > And a discussion about it in this group would be a great way for yours
> > > > (and others) knowledge to be shared with those that currently do not
> > > > have the knowledge, such that in one sense the knowledge will be
> > > > transferred from one place (aka you and others) to another place (aka
> > > > me and others) in a way that could probably be defined as knowledge
> > > > transfer ;-)
> > > > @Doug: "On the point you raise about talking to clients of EA about
> > > > such things, I generally don't."
> > > > Yep - I was kind of getting that feeling. It's more an internal anchor
> > > > and sextant I guess.
> > > > @Geoff: "Please explain how knowledge can be shared? Data and
> > > > Information yes but not knowledge, absolutely NO. See the work of
> > > > Polyani. Knowledge is not found in Books on or the net and cannot be
> > > > transferred."
> > > > Please see my response above. That should give you a small example of
> > > > how knowledge can be shared. Of course, I am but a simple man and am
> > > > using the definition of the word "knowledge" as described in the
> > > > dictionary (Websters in this instance) and how it has been used
> > > > throughout my life which may not be what you understand to be the
> > > > definition of "knowledge", and if so please let me know your
> > > > definition so we can have a meaningful dialogue otherwise we are
> > > > talking apples and pears.
> > > > By the way, I am sure you are aware of the act of "Doing the
> > > > Knowledge".I would be interested in observing a conversation between
> > > > you and a London Cabby. (The best in the world).
> > > > Geoff, I can see by your comments and your previous groups that you
> > > > regard yourself as a bit of an anarchist. Interestingly so do I. I
> > > > have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and have
> > > > taken arms against a sea of troubles and all my sins will be
> > > > remembered.
> > > > Brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of
> > > > paper..
No comments:
Post a Comment