Posted by mike cahill on September 01, 1999 at 17:30:28:

In Reply to: Re: Agresive Criticism posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 01, 1999 at 15:53:16:

Please excuse my hasty response to your excellent post.

As you say, computers have been wonderful for years. But what IS newly wondrous, is the capability of these machines to express knowledge with dynamic, interactive graphics.

If you do not think perception is the enemy, please read again Plato's marvelous description of Socrates' explanation to an apprentice: We look at the shadows on the wall and we "think" they are real. Is this not a perceptual issue? Use whatever word you wish. Our problem since the Greek's laid the foundation 2500 years ago is to perceive the truth in more and more powerful ways...don't you think?

Re causal analysis is old: Ideas about CA can be new even if the technique is ancient. The fires that were lit in Hiroshima were the same kind that warmed our ancestor's caves 25,000 years ago.

We should not be too concerned about the modern view of causality. The physicists have created grim quantum level dilemmas, and we may be able to help them, but we won't promise it. We have all the tools we need to statistically attribute causation in the real world. What we lack is a framework that allows us to see our knowledge within a causal context. Why do we wish to put knowledge in a causal context? Well, is it true that only existence is more fundamental than change? Is it true that all that is around us is under continual change? Do we think that constant change is the product of random forces? A comprehensive Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTK) should have the theoretical capability to explain all the explicit changes that we experience. And so it will.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Agresive Criticism Reilly Atkinson 21:12:27 9/01/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: