KNOWLEDGE MGMT | FORUMS | EVENTS | HELP | PRESS ROOM | @BRINT


About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise Here |
Welcome to the World's No. 1 Resource for Business Technology Management and Knowledge Management
@Brint.com
SEARCH [HELP]

Knowledge Management Think Tank is now: BRINT Global Knowledge Network.


Re: UTK -- 2 of 2 Object Constancy


[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Discussion Index ]

Posted by Muncie on September 25, 1999 at 18:52:14:

In Reply to: UTK -- A Challange posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 24, 1999 at 17:34:09:

Now, I would like to return from the metalog to the dialog to present some thoughts I've had on the notion of a UTK that is based only in causality. I wanted to take a piece of knowledge that I wasn't sure fitted into your UTK and Triadic Analysis and see where it went.
Early on I focused on a construct like this:
T(The sweet smelling rose): R(A Rose, the scent of a rose) P(Renaming) = O(A Rose, the scent of a rose)

One objection is that I use “A Rose” in the Objective when it is no longer called a rose. I feel justified in using the term “Rose” in both places because I am referring to the object and its scent, not the name of the object and the scent of the name. If I used the new name in the Objective, it would not be clear that I am talking about the same object and I might make people think that renaming an object will result in a magical transformation. This appears to be the opposite of what is actually intended by the original formulation.
Maybe the problem is that the Process is trivial and cannot induce any state changes. So let’s test this with the following triad.

T(product image): R(a new product) P(renaming) = O(a successful product)

So renaming an object can effect a state change. Maybe the problem is in the resource? Aha, renaming is a sub-process of language and language is a process of culture. So my unstated resource is the culture. So, restating T(product image), I now have:

T(product image): R(a new product, a culture) P(renaming) = (a successful product, a culture)

This seems to say that if I know a culture I will stand a better chance of finding a name for a product so that the product will be a success. That seems reasonable. Oh the joys of Triadic Analysis and UTK, how clear my thoughts have become. Lets apply this to the rose!!!

T(sweet smelling rose): R(A Rose, its scent, a culture) P(Renaming) = (A Rose, its scent, a culture)

It must be that the Renaming Process has produced a state change in the culture that I am not yet aware of.
Lets try a thought experiment. Let’s say we call the “rose” a “telephone”. Why the state change would be catastrophic. People would go to call a friend, prick their fingers and aggravate their allergies. In an effort to save themselves they would dial 911, but would be unable to communicate because they are talking into a flower! Hmm lets try another name, one that doesn’t have a prior meaning, like “Blargle”. Now we have “A blargle is a blargle is a blargle”. Clearly there would be a lot less poetry about blargles.
I don’t think either of these thought experiments get me any closer to understanding the initial triad. I guess we will just have to start deconstructing a Culture to see what state changes we might expect by changing the name of a rose. Mike, could you please start this deconstruction while I continue with the investigation of processes which on the surface don’t appear to change the state of the resource?

Oh, that’s the problem right there, I am outside the scope of TA and your UTK. I am looking at phenomena which do not have a state change. So your UTK cannot be used on any knowledge dealing with pure being and simple existence. It is only valid when there is a change in state. That seems awfully limiting. Maybe we can extend the power of UTK by looking at triads where R and O are identical. If R or O were missing, these would be dysfunctional triads. If R and O are different, then we have a normal upstanding triad. So lets call the family of triads where R=0 the lame triads. Lets see if lame triads model significant knowledge and give any insight to TA and UTK.
Let’s consider the triad for object constancy. This is something most of us learn around 6 to 8 months of age.
T(object constancy): R(object A at time 1) P(progression through time) = O(object A at time 2 where time 2 is later than time 1)
Boy, this looks like a significant piece of knowledge. It looks like Object Constancy allows us to recognize the identity of an object over time. Without this piece of knowledge, we could easily believe that moment by moment every single object in the universe is completely replaced by a totally different object that only just appears to have some relationship to an object in the previous incarnation of the universe. OOPS! I guess if we believe that, then causality goes out the window! Gee, I hope Mike lets us include lame triads in UTK or he could be in trouble. But then again, he did say that the boy in his thought experiment after his mother told him what stock to buy was not the same boy as the one before he became so informed.
Lets look at this a little further.
T(Acausal Universe): R(Universe A) P(Universal Replacement) = O(Universe B such that A is not B, but there appears to be time and causality)

This type of universe would be analogous to a movie, a series of still pictures that when viewed in rapid succession creates an illusion of movement. What makes the motion on the film consistent is that it is a projection of a reality external to the actual film. By the film analogy we could claim that there is a reality (let’s call it “God”) outside of the acausal universe that performs the Universal Replacement in such a way that the appearance of Time and causality is maintained. Under this assumption, the only true knowledge would be knowledge of God, while any knowledge of time and causality would be illusory knowledge.
Philosophically I am prepared to accept this, but I don’t think this helps Mike’s cause and the his UTK.

Maybe we can find another way out of this. Let’s look at what happens to objects over time. Certainly, as an object ages it changes, but also something about an object remains the same so that we can still identify the object with reasonable certainty. If we think in terms of any process, it seems reasonable to say that a process defines two sets of properties for its resources. One set is the properties that change and the other set is the properties that remain constant. With this distinction we can create knowledge relative to the factors which change, or relative to the factors which remain constant. Maybe lame triads aren’t so lame after all.
Maybe we should revisit that smelly rose. Mike, are you done deconstructing the culture object? Maybe what the smelly rose is saying is that under the renaming process, neither the rose nor the culture undergo any essential change. Hey mike, stop deconstructing the culture object. I think we have something here. Maybe I didn’t need to add the culture object into the rose example because I didn’t really expect it to be a part of the change anyway. OOH-OOH! I think this is good, I was beginning to fear that if you weren’t coming up with any changes in the culture because we renamed the rose, we might have to deconstruct Humanity, or all of life on Earth or the Universe until we did find what changed.

Here it is, in order to know what objects to classify as Resources we need to know something about the process. What we need to know is what properties will change and which ones will remain constant. Any objects in the universe (potential resources) whose properties remain constant with respect to the process can be excluded from the triad. With respect to the objects that are included in the resource, the constant properties can then be used to maintain object constancy and mapping of object identity through the process. This way we can be sure that we are witnessing change and not substitution. I suppose that we can even set a threshold such that if too many properties of the resources change, then we will believe that substitution occurred and not change. For example, a magician turns a rabbit into a dove. We may not know how he does it, but we usually don’t believe that he actually turned a rabbit into a dove. Still, it is fun to go see a magician.

This whole discussion of constant vs. changing properties reminds me of a family of optical illusions called foreground/background illusions. The most common one is probably the “wire-frame” perspective drawing of a cube on a piece of paper. If we don’t hide any of the lines of the cube, there is ambiguity with respect to the orientation of the cube. In fact, with little effort a person can focus on a part of the drawing that appears to be the front of the cube and shift their perception so that the same part appears to be the back of the cube. In fact, foreground/background issues are central to many paradoxes beyond optical illusion. It would be interesting to see what light UTK can shed on various paradoxes and paradox in general.

But I think we need to deal more with the constant element (oops, didn’t mean to use “element”, we only have three elements in a triad, R, P and O). The constant thingey needs some attention. We also need a better name than “the constant thingey”. How about we call it the CONstant Thingey EXTension, which we will abbreviate as the CONTEXT.

I think this is a good place to take a break.
Let’s summarize what I think I have done and not done in my two postings.
1) I have offered Mike some suggestions for improving his communications on UTK.
2) I have suggested using a few simple games as a vehicle for examples of UTK in action.
3) I hope that I have demonstrated the point of my metalog that simpler examples with greater detail increase the clarity of the message.
4) I have introduced Lame Triads in order to discuss cases of knowledge where there is an assertion that a process results in no change.
5) I have shown that Object Constancy is a lame triad.
6) I have shown that acceptance of lame triads extends UTK to cover not only knowledge of causality, but also knowledge of being.
7) I have shown that to not accept lame triads, i.e. asserting that UTK is limited to causal phenomenon only, leads to a contradiction of the causal assertion.
8) I have defined a term, CONTEXT, which is based on being able to distinguish between things that change and things that remain constant with respect to the analysis and definition of a triad.


Follow Ups:


Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message:

[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Discussion Index ]

Download Our Articles and Interviews
[Guru Interviews] [Real Time Enterprise Business Processes] [IT Users Motivation] [IT Users Commitment] [Commitment and Motivation] [Inquiring Organizations] [Social Influences] [Customer Relationship Management] [Supply Chain Management] [IT Adoption and Utilization] [Managing and Measuring Knowledge Assets] [The Real Competitive Advantage] [Why IT and KM Systems Fail] [Myths About Expertise Management] [How 'Best Practices' Become 'Worst Practices'] [Beyond Information Ecology to Knowledge Ecosystems] [Knowledge Exchanges and Social Networks] [Why Expert Systems Aren't Enough] [KM for E-Business Performance] [Does KM=IT? Not!] [Other Articles and Interviews]


Top of Page

BRINT: 'Your Survival Network for The Brave New World Of Business'tm
Recommended by Business Week, Fortune, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company,
Business 2.0, Computerworld, Information Week, CIO Magazine, KM World,
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and hundreds of other worldwide publications.

About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise

Make BRINT your Start Page | | Link to BRINT | Submit Articles

Terms of Use | Privacy | © Copyright 1994-2007, BRINT Institute, New York, USA