The Internet and human Knowledge

[Fingers]

When I were a kid (late 70s early 80s) I had a thirst for knowledge but getting it was a bit of an arse which involved the library or NME or Smash Hits. Same with the news.

Now we can get this info in seconds.

Not sure where I going with this but how much more had the net made us more intelligent overall?

 

[TruXta]

How long's a piece of string?

 

[Sirena]

It's making us very front-brain, I think. Information and data is replacing knowledge.

We don't have to work things out so much.

Alchemy is one of my interests and there is a tendency in Alchemy not to tell too much, not to tell people what to do, not to start people too near the end.

The rationale is to make them do the work, to find out for themselves through experience and mistake.

 

[DrRingDing]

It ain't intelligence is it?

 

[8115]

It's making us very front-brain, I think. Information and data is replacing knowledge.

We don't have to work things out so much.

Alchemy is one of my interests and there is a tendency in Alchemy not to tell too much, not to tell people what to do, not to start people too near the end.

The rationale is to make them do the work, to find out for themselves through experience and mistake.

Alchemy as in, making gold?

 

[DrRingDing]

It's making us very front-brain, I think. Information and data is replacing knowledge.

We don't have to work things out so much.

Alchemy is one of my interests and there is a tendency in Alchemy not to tell too much, not to tell people what to do, not to start people too near the end.

The rationale is to make them do the work, to find out for themselves through experience and mistake.

Alchemy!?

 

[keybored]

This is going to be good.

 

[weltweit]

I am waiting for the google direct brain implant.

But it won't help me with my maths!

 

[MrSki]

How long's a piece of string?

 

[MrSki]

Sorry was a bit drunk last night!

 

[MrSki]

Ditto

 

[samk]

The disappointing flipside of this is the dirty bottom of the rabbithole at the end of a bing binge, where one has to conclude no one knows or if they do they aren't telling. Back when secondhand bookshops were more than charity shops dripping in fifty shades, one could rummage imagining the meaning of life was in there somewhere.

 

[bi0boy]

Not sure anyone can convincingly argue that this massively increased availability of information is a bad thing...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think there is an argument that the overwhelming prevalence of Wiki and Google as a first recourse, means that what you might call the 'default definition of reality' for any given fact, is potentially very easy to control.

 

[weltweit]

The rule is : If you know it, you are not permitted to google it ..

 

[Fez909]

It's making us very front-brain, I think. Information and data is replacing knowledge.

There's definitely a change happening with memory and knowledge, but it's not as straight forward as you make it seem here.

In the past, knowing something, having knowledge, meant being able to recall the fact (and understand it etc, of course). Now, knowledge is not knowledge about the thing but knowledge of how to find out about the the thing.

If you know where to find out about something, you can defer actually knowing it until you need it. The memory 'space' required to recall where to find out about something is much lower than that required to hold the information at that location in your head.

By reducing the amount of memory needed to be able to know about a thing, we can fill that gap with knowledge about where to find out about other things. We've essentially outsourced our knowledge about things that can be found online, and replaced them with meta-knowledge about how to find it, and massively increased the amount of things we can know about at the same time.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, except for the fact that information online is transient. If there is one authoritative source for a piece of knowledge and that knowledge disappears, then in this new model, you no longer 'know' about it. And worse, you might not even know that you don't know it, because you don't go regularly checking that all the places you think you can find things are still there. It's only when you do the search when you need it that you find it's gone and then you're fucked. And this isn't just you, it's everyone who outsourced their knowledge of that information to that single source - they've all now 'forgotten' it.

 

[bimble]

" for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. .you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.."

Plato, from The Phaedrus

 

[emanymton]

There's definitely a change happening with memory and knowledge, but it's not as straight forward as you make it seem here.

In the past, knowing something, having knowledge, meant being able to recall the fact (and understand it etc, of course). Now, knowledge is not knowledge about the thing but knowledge of how to find out about the the thing.

If you know where to find out about something, you can defer actually knowing it until you need it. The memory 'space' required to recall where to find out about something is much lower than that required to hold the information at that location in your head.

By reducing the amount of memory needed to be able to know about a thing, we can fill that gap with knowledge about where to find out about other things. We've essentially outsourced our knowledge about things that can be found online, and replaced them with meta-knowledge about how to find it, and massively increased the amount of things we can know about at the same time.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, except for the fact that information online is transient. If there is one authoritative source for a piece of knowledge and that knowledge disappears, then in this new model, you no longer 'know' about it. And worse, you might not even know that you don't know it, because you don't go regularly checking that all the places you think you can find things are still there. It's only when you do the search when you need it that you find it's gone and then you're fucked. And this isn't just you, it's everyone who outsourced their knowledge of that information to that single source - they've all now 'forgotten' it.

I think the shift from knowing the fact to knowing how to find it happend long before the Internet. Human knowledge got far to vast so knowing how to look stuff up became more important that actually knowing stuff. People just need to know enough to go about looking for information in an informed way.

I also think that there is a difference between knowing something and understanding it. It seems to me that the the whole point of university level education is not so much to impart a deep level of understanding about the subject (which would be impossible) but rather to provide the basic knowledge and tools necessary to locate and understand material relating to the subject.

I think with the internet people have more access to facts, but it does not really help with understanding as people can only absorbed and take on board information at a certain rate.

 

[Fez909]

I think the shift from knowing the fact to knowing how to find it happend long before the Internet. Human knowledge got far to vast so knowing how to look stuff up became more important that actually knowing stuff. People just need to know enough to go about looking for information in an informed way.

I also think that there is a difference between knowing something and understanding it. It seems to me that the the whole point of university level education is not so much to impart a deep level of understanding about the subject (which would be impossible) but rather to provide the basic knowledge and tools necessary to locate and understand material relating to the subject.

I think with the internet people have more access to facts, but it does not really help with understanding as people can only absorbed and take on board information at a certain rate.

Yep, you're right. Even Plato was worried about it, as per the quote from bimble. It's been happening for a long time. The internet has just sped things up. Accelerated change.

And yeah, being able to find information and not understand it means it can't be regarded as knowledge. Knowledge is information + understanding by definition.

I'm not sure about what you say about university though. I think that used to be true. And it probably is still true about masters/post-graduate education, but I'm not sure a degree aims to do that any more. My uni course was definitely just about giving a deeper understanding on the subject rather than teaching you how to learn, and I'd be surprised if I was alone here.

 

[Sirena]

" for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. .you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.."

Plato, from The Phaedrus

In Jamaica, there is still a sense of pre-literacy among the older generation. I don't mean they are illiterate - in fact, Jamaica has had top schooling for all for a long time - but that they have a strong oral tradition where, for example, people can remember vast reams of complicated family lineage though it is never written down.

 

[emanymton]

Yep, you're right. Even Plato was worried about it, as per the quote from bimble. It's been happening for a long time. The internet has just sped things up. Accelerated change.

And yeah, being able to find information and not understand it means it can't be regarded as knowledge. Knowledge is information + understanding by definition.

I'm not sure about what you say about university though. I think that used to be true. And it probably is still true about masters/post-graduate education, but I'm not sure a degree aims to do that any more. My uni course was definitely just about giving a deeper understanding on the subject rather than teaching you how to learn, and I'd be surprised if I was alone here.

I was thinking as I wrote it, that it will possible vary by subject quite a bit. I would imagine that more vocational course have a greater emphasis on learning just what you need to get stuff done.

 

[Argonia]

I have written two pieces about this, one called "Optimism" and the other "Hyper-Literacy in the Exponential Epoch" here:

Henry Kannberg (HKannberg) 2 uploads | Scribd

 

[ViolentPanda]

Alchemy as in, making gold?

Alchemy, as in the transformation of self.

 

[krtek a houby]

Sometimes I feel bewildered by the internet. The intense hatred (hello, Youtube!) was quite a revelation to me.

 

[Santino]

Alchemy, as in the transformation of self.

Thank God for that. I thought it was just going to be some nonsense.

 

[Sirena]

Alchemy, as in the transformation of self.

I'll get round to the other stuff too, eventually....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thank God for that. I thought it was just going to be some nonsense.

Yes, dear.

 

[Falcon]

The process of thinking is the joining up of information in your mind. Accessing information in the world is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Greeks had a long debate about the role of writing in their society, specifically the corrosive impact it would have on memory and - therefore - knowledge as they understood it.

I definitely have the feeling that the benefit to me of the internet is nowhere near in proportion to its size. My visits to the library as a younger man were highly productive within the narrower range of material available to me. I seem to recall carrying a lot more around in my head, particularly factual material, and being able to integrate it during the actual process of thinking much moe easily. Ironically, I’ve forgotten if that’s the case or not.

As a related matter, I have ditched electronic todo lists, agendas, and diaries and gone back to pencil and paper. When I write it down, I remember it and rarely have to consult it. I gather this is a well documented phenomenon. If so, the practice of handing out iPads and laptops to school kids is likely a mistake.

 

[Santino]

No one ever handed me an iPod when I was at school. I didn't get where I am today by sitting around waiting for someone to hand me an electronic device.

 

[Pickman's model]

When I were a kid (late 70s early 80s) I had a thirst for knowledge but getting it was a bit of an arse which involved the library or NME or Smash Hits. Same with the news.

Now we can get this info in seconds.

Not sure where I going with this but how much more had the net made us more intelligent overall?

ok, what was on the site of the rio cinema in dalston in the mid-1890s?