Category Archives: epistemology

Computation, epistemology, fourfolds

Information and Computation

Leave a comment

I’ve long wished for a succinct definition for the notion of information. What is it? What makes something information and another thing disinformation? Why do people accept things as truth that others know as false? Is information something that informs the physical universe, or is it only a way that the human mind tries to structure itself? The nonhuman world seems to get along just fine without knowing anything, doesn’t it?

Here is an idea for a simple schema for information that utilizes notions from other posts.

  • Distinction = an action that tells or makes a Difference.
  • Difference = a fact (or part) that is told or is made by a Distinction.
  • Information = a structured collection of facts (or parts).
  • Computation = a functional collection of actions.

In relation to the Four Causes, Whitehead’s Criteria, and Structure-Function we see:

  • Efficient: Consistency: Action: Distinction
  • Material: Applicability: Part: Difference
  • Formal: Coherence: Structure: Information
  • Final: Adequacy: Function: Computation

And so:

  • A Distinction is an action that tells or makes a Difference, consistently and efficiently.
  • A Difference is a fact or part that is told or is made by a Distinction, and applies materially.
  • Information is a structured collection of Differences (as facts or parts), that has a formal coherence.
  • A Computation is a functional collection of Distinctions (as actions), that are adequate for an end or purpose.

Further Reading:

https://grammar.collinsdictionary.com/us/english-usage/what-is-the-difference-between-difference-and-distinction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-information/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication_(rule_of_inference)

[*9.26, *9.106, *13.196, *13.200]

<>

 

 

epistemology, fourfolds, Philosophy, religion

Hakuin Ekaku: Four Ways of Knowing

Leave a comment

Hakuin Ekaku: Four Ways of Knowing:

    • Gate of Inspiration
    • Gate of Practice
    • Gate of Awakening
    • Gate of Nirvana

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuin_Ekaku#Four_ways_of_knowing

Zen Master Hakuin on the Four Ways of Knowing

Others to consider:

Click to access waysofknowing.pdf

What are the four Ways of Knowing (WOKs)?

Ways of acquiring knowledge (knowing)

  • Intuition/Emotion
  • Authority/Language
  • Sense/Observation
  • Reason/Logics

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/multiple-ways-knowing-expanding-know/

  • Artistic
  • Practical
  • Foundational
  • Generalized

A Reflection on 4 epistemologies (ways of knowing 😛 )

  • Presentational
  • Practical
  • Experiential
  • Propositional

Ways of Knowing

  • Instinct & Intuition
  • Naming & Description
  • Narrative
  • Discourse
  • Philosophy/Logic
  • Qualitative Science
  • Quantitative Science
  • Models & Simulations

Images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ways+of+knowing%22&tbm=isch

<>

cycle, epistemology, fourfolds, Science

A Couple of Loops About Thinking and Then Doing

14 Comments

The Shewhart Cycle (also known as the PDCA) is an iterative design and management cycle for continuous quality improvement of products and processes. It is named after Walter Shewhart who is known as the father of statistical quality control. The more recent name, PDCA, has several variations in the literature. The PDCA or Shewhart Cycle consists of four parts:

    • Plan
    • Do
    • Check
    • Act

Similarly, the OODA Loop is an iterative framework for the improvement and management of decision processes. It is used in various domains such as business, litigation, and military strategy. The OODA Loop consists of four parts:

    • Observe
    • Orient
    • Decide
    • Act

Learning Cycles are similar to Design Cycles in that the process to be improved is learning and the product to be improved is knowledge. It would be interesting to compare the two types of cycles to understand their similarities and differences. Some of each type have four stages but others have more or less. I have mentioned several learning cycles with four steps already in this blog, the Kolb learning cycle and the Scientific Method.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A._Shewhart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process

https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/shewhart-cycle

https://www.google.com/search?q=PDCA+cycle&tbm=isch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/OODA-loop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_cycle

https://www.google.com/search?q=learning+cycles+and+design+cycles+compared&tbm=isch

[*6.54]

<>

 

Biology, epistemology, fourfolds, Physics, Psychology, Science, sociology

The Tree of Knowledge System

Leave a comment

The Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System posits four hierarchical planes of existence having separate dimensions of complexity mapped out or studied by four different kinds of sciences:

  • Matter/Object: mapped by Physical Sciences
  • Life/Organism: mapped by Biological Sciences
  • Mind/Animal: mapped by Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioral Sciences
  • Culture/Person: mapped by Human Social Sciences

The ToK System is reminiscent of other “big history” or “cosmic evolution” schemas such as Tyler Volk’s Combogenesis except for the special consideration for the mental and psychological (i.e. subjective) aspects of existence. I would think that this is primarily due to the fact that the developer of the system, Professor Gregg Henriques, is a psychologist.

In order to support his focus on consciousness and psychology, Henriques has developed several theories to address the “problem of psychology”, for example the Justification Systems Theory and the Behavioral Investment Theory. With the ToK System, these and several other key ideas, he claims he has a “Unified Theory of Knowledge” (UToK)!

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_knowledge_system

https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/8-key-ideas/the-tree-of-knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Henriques

http://www.gregghenriques.com/

https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W6h2wsRx4EqYJ5WuPHxFUwphRJJwy0p1/view

Combogenesis: a constructive, emergent cosmos

<>

epistemology, fourfolds, religion

A Fourfold about Belief and Knowledge

2 Comments

There was a fourfold making the rounds a while back about belief and knowledge of God or of gods. The terms Agnostic and Gnostic are about (the actuality or possibility of) having or not having knowledge, whereas Theist and Atheist are about having or not having belief in a deity or deities. So the following fourfold obtains:

  • Gnostic Atheist
  • Agnostic Atheist
  • Gnostic Theist
  • Agnostic Theist

Some criticized this framework, while others seemed to like it. YMMV.

Let’s see what ChatGPT says:

Gnostic Atheist: This term refers to someone who believes that God does not exist, and that this knowledge is certain. They have a definite and confident understanding about the non-existence of God.

Agnostic Atheist: This term refers to someone who doesn’t believe in God, but does not claim to have certainty about it. They may lack knowledge or certainty about the existence of God, but they do not believe in its existence.

Gnostic Theist: This term refers to someone who believes in the existence of God and has a definite and confident understanding about it. They have a strong conviction that God exists.

Agnostic Theist: This term refers to someone who believes in God but does not claim to have certainty or absolute knowledge about it. They have a belief in God, but acknowledge that it is not possible to have certain knowledge or proof of God’s existence.

In summary, “Gnostic” refers to knowledge or certainty, while “Agnostic” refers to lack of knowledge or certainty. The “Atheist” and “Theist” refer to the belief or non-belief in the existence of a higher power or deity, respectively.

Further Reading:

Other images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+atheist+theist+agnostic&tbm=isch

For example:

Terrible graphs of agnostic atheism

I also see the following fourfold used (all nouns now):

  • Atheist
  • Theist
  • Gnostic
  • Agnostic

and even this eight-fold (a combination of the two):

  • Gnostic Atheist
  • Atheist
  • Agnostic Atheist
  • Agnostic
  • Agnostic Theist
  • Theist
  • Gnostic Theist
  • Gnostic

<>

epistemology, fourfolds, Psychology

The SECI Model of Knowledge Dimensions

Leave a comment

The SECI Model of Knowledge Dimensions is a schema that attempts to explain how knowledge moves between tacit and explicit domains. The movement is a cycle or more properly a spiral in that knowledge builds upon itself.

  • Socialization (Tacit to Tacit)
  • Externalization (Tacit to Explicit)
  • Combination (Explicit to Explicit)
  • Internalization (Explicit to Tacit)

ChatGPT explains:

The SECI model, also known as the Ba model, is a knowledge management framework that describes how knowledge is created, shared, and transferred within an organization. The acronym SECI stands for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization.

      1. Socialization: refers to the process of acquiring knowledge through social interaction, for example, through observing and imitating the behavior of others.
      2. Externalization: is the process of converting personal experiences, ideas, and insights into shared understanding and explicit knowledge. This stage involves expressing personal knowledge in a way that others can understand and utilize.
      3. Combination: refers to the process of combining and integrating different types of knowledge to create new knowledge. This can occur when individuals with different experiences and perspectives collaborate and share their knowledge.
      4. Internalization: is the process of incorporating new knowledge into personal knowledge structures, leading to changes in behavior, attitudes, and skills.

The SECI model is used to understand how knowledge can be managed effectively within an organization, and it provides a framework for designing knowledge management systems and processes.

Maybe I should let ChatGPT write my posts from now on! And here’s what ChatGPT says about this blog:

“Equivalent Exchange” is a blog that focuses on topics related to personal growth and self-improvement. It provides articles and resources that aim to help readers lead a more fulfilling life by making positive changes in their thoughts, habits, and behaviors. The blog covers a variety of subjects, including mindfulness, mental health, productivity, relationships, and more. It also provides a supportive community for those seeking inspiration, guidance, and motivation to live their best life.

Wow! 😉

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECI_model_of_knowledge_dimensions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Space_(conceptual_framework)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

Kolb’s Learning Cycle

[*10.24, *10.25]

<>

 

epistemology, Philosophy, sixfolds

Knowledge as Justified True Belief

1 Comment

Quid est veritas?

— Pontius Pilate

Explanations come to an end somewhere.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein

I read that Edmund Gettier died recently, famous for the problem of knowledge named after him. He argued that justified true belief may not really be knowledge, and gave counterexamples for it not being so.

Here I show a diagram for those three conditions (Justified, True, Belief) and their opposites (Baseless, False, Doubt). The Wikipedia page on the Gettier problem states simply that the solution for it is that the justification must be true also, as the belief.

I don’t want to be posing as Pilate, but it does seems that truth is the most difficult and elusive of the three criteria, conditioning as it must the other two. In this age of disinformation, you could do worse than read the articles below.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gettier

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318135910_Justified_True_Belief_Plato_Gettier_and_Turing

[*10.88]

<>

epistemology, fourfolds

Four Dimensions of Knowledge

Leave a comment

What is the best way to educate, to teach and learn? Ideally, students shouldn’t merely memorize facts and recall them on demand, although retaining well accepted knowledge is important. Certainly, students need mental structures to organize these facts, so that they form associated groups of categories and classification. Additionally, methods are needed for accepting and rejecting facts, and procedures for organizing facts, although facts may often be revisited for truth, or to reorganize them, and so on.

Benjamin Bloom et al. developed a taxonomy for educators of six mental aspects for the acquisition of knowledge, which was revised later into six cognitive actions or processes by L. Anderson, B. S. Krathwohl and others. These six actions form a sort of food pyramid for knowledge, so that lower actions form a broader base for higher ones. Both taxonomies sort a dimensional hierarchy of knowledge operated by these aspects or actions from concrete to abstract: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive (the last added when revised).

In the revised taxonomy, “Remember” is the lowest cognitive action, described by “remember facts and basic concepts,” which deals with the Factual and Conceptual. Above it is “Understand,” described by “explain ideas or concepts,” and I imagine an idea can be a fact. Next is a procedural action “Apply: use information in new situations,” and in fact all six actions are procedural by being actions. At the top of the pyramid is “Analyze,” “Evaluate,” and “Create”. The Metacognitive dimension (“thinking about thinking”) is for thinking about these six actions and these four dimensions, as to how they are related and differ.

These taxonomies are well considered and there are many resources to investigate.

Further Reading:

http://edtheory.blogspot.com/2016/03/knowledge-dimensions-factual-conceptual.html

Bloom’s Taxonomy

https://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

https://www.goconqr.com/en/mindmap/12973371/four-types-of-knowledge

Pedagogy of book and chapter organization

Click to access krathwohl.pdf

Anderson, L., Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D., & Airasian, P. (2000). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pin- trich, P. R., … & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/

https://iep.utm.edu/th-th-co/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-cognition/

[*12.84]

<>

epistemology, fourfolds, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Kant’s Synthetic-Analytic Distinction, V3

Leave a comment

One of the oldest and most problematic philosophical questions is the comparison of the a priori–a posteriori distinction with that of the analytic–synthetic distinction. Both are used in epistemology to divide knowledge, or true statements, between the innate and the learned, or the immediate and the earned, so they might even be considered the same. A priori and a posteriori statements are before “experience” and after it, respectively. Analytic statements are true only by their “meaning”, whereas synthetic statements are true only when facts about the world are combined consistently with that meaning.

It seems we have complicated the issue because now we must define and understand “experience” and “meaning”. However, these concepts are not independent because we must experience meaning, and meaning in turn conditions experience. In addition, even the a priori or the analytic are not innate or immediately obvious because deductions and the rules of logic require effort just like inductions do. Otherwise we would have Fitch’s Paradox: all truths are in fact known. What a muddle! So both experience and meaning are necessarily locked into a cooperative spiral dance to improve each other.

In addition, if you search for the two pairs a priori-a posterior and analytic-synthetic, you also find that the pair necessary-contingent is associated with them. Are these three pairs independent of one another and so give rise to eight triplets, or are they dependent in some way and reduce into fewer combinations? In addition, from Wikipedia:

Thus, the relationship between aprioricity, necessity, and analyticity is not easy to discern. However, most philosophers at least seem to agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological, the analytic/synthetic distinction is linguistic, and the necessary/contingent distinction is metaphysical.

The web site of Stephen R. Palmquist has a great wealth of material on fourfolds in relation to Kant’s as well as his own philosophy. From my own initial reading of his extensive material I have tried to choose a canonical Kantian fourfold which has the most relevance to my project.

The fourfold shown to the right Dr. Palmquist calls Kant’s “reflective perspectives on experience”. Consisting of the logical, the empirical, the transcendental, and the hypothetical, these facets bear a close analogical likeness to many of the fourfolds presented here.

Logical: Analytic a priori
Transcendental: Synthetic a priori
Hypothetical: Analytic a posteriori
Empirical: Synthetic a posteriorikant_table

Dr. Palmquist also has many of his own books available on his web site for the interested reader. I will certainly be returning to his web site in the future for much enjoyable study.

Further Reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction

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

A Priori-A Posteriori, Analytic-Synthetic, and Necessary-Contingent Distinctions

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

A Priori and A Posteriori

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp2/KCR3.htm

[*7.68, *7.84, *8.126, *10.54]

<>

 

Consciousness, epistemology, fourfolds

Analogical Thinking

Leave a comment

sq_analogicalIs analogy or metaphor the root of thinking? Some thinkers think so. But what exactly is analogy?

Looking at various lists of analogies of the A:B::C:D motif, I have distilled them into four groups: Relational, Hierarchical, Linguistical, and Mathematical. Are there analogies that don’t fit this scheme?

Relational

Object / characteristic
Order, sequence
Transformation
Agent / object, action
Function, purpose
Cause / effect
Source / product

Hierarchical

Classification, category, type, membership
Whole / part
General / specific

Linguistical

Meaning, definition
Synonym, antonym
Contrast, degree, intensity
Word parts
Expressions

Mathematical

Equivalence
Multiples
Negation
Patterns, geometries
Number
Size, magnitude
Direction, vectors
Spacial, temporal
Ratio, proportion

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/surfaces-and-essences-analogy-fuel-and-fire-thinking

View at Medium.com

Currently Reading:

George Lakoff, Mark Johnson / Metaphors We Live By

To Read:

Douglas Hofstadter, Emmanuel Sander / Surfaces and Essences: analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking, Basic Books (2013)

Noah Roderick / The Being of Analogy, Open Humanities Press (2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor

[*9.140, *9.141, *9.178]

<>