This is sort-of part 2 of my post titled “data, information, knowledge, and intelligence“.
The following graphic is a simplified process-of-processes of informer to informee.
Firstly, this is a depiction of super-processes for knowledge transfer as I understand it. It is simplified because the network of networks of networks that makeup how we attain our knowledge is far more complex. And it is that complexity that I wish to understand in detail by analyzing the relationships of each of the open-loop systems that make up each of the above boxes: data, information, knowledge, and intelligence, both from the perspective of an informer, an informee, and from an artificial intelligence that is programmed to perform an array specific functions.
With respect to my last post on understanding information via multidimensional network analysis, data, information, knowledge and intelligence would make up one entire dimension. However, as clearly as it is depicted in the above diagram, each of these are also their own respective super-processes, and in my opinion, are of their own dimension because of the dramatic differences in how they independently and, at times, dependently influence each other. They do not always exist together and certainly never in the same order of process.
It’s in my opinion that because we are so dependent on the meaning and intent of the information that we consume, we are not aware of the vast complexity in the alternative: an entirely different network of information, with different structure, and intelligently designed to accomplish a more precise task.
For example, one will naturally consume a great deal of information in a mixture of personal volition and uncontrollable influence. They are not mutually exclusive when an information organism has the indefinite consequence of orchestrating a continually developing network of personalized information (aka: knowledge). What if you could increase the probability of controlling the information that you consume if you could automate and construct the networks of information that you process?
Arguably, this is what the Homo sapien has been doing throughout evolution. When we choose a major area of study at university, we are increasing the probability of extending a specific network of information in our brain. When we choose to more or less consume information from a specific news source, we are using operational information, information about how an information system operates, to influence the exposure rate of an expected network of information (of varying classification).
Secondly, looking at the above diagram, one might visually notice that the informer has the control over the larger part of an information-transfer system. However unfortunate for the control-bent informer, with the advent of the Internet and an increasing spectrum of information processing organizations such as Wikileaks, information consumers are able to more selectively increase the probability of building their knowledge according to their personal volition. Journalists and intelligence analysts, on the other hand, should have the objective of increasing an informee’s network of information. It is in the interest of both parties to strategically grow an informee’s network of information, whether it becomes solidified knowledge or not.
Each section from my above Venn diagram could be observed as a dimension to control analysis. Each section will have vastly different effects on the other sections depending on the situation. From my earlier post I stated: “Data directly affects information. Information does not directly affect data. The transformation of data to information is an open-loop system.” The above diagram is where that came from. Each box is an open-loop system because they require either the input, output, or both of another system in order to have an observable behavior. It should be obvious that that system (the network) that is data affects the system (the network) that is information. When data is gathered and organized, it is done so with the goal of providing specific information to one who wishes to demonstrate expected information. And using that same example, it becomes clear that without having previous information, in order to have expectations, information can only affect data after it is processed by the other systems that are knowledge and intelligence.
Before going further into the explanation of these super-processes, I need to touch on the importance of analyzing the actual processes that make up these super-processes. And it will not be without understanding the sub-processes, not to mention the relationships between a super-process, it’s processes, and it’s sub-processes; aka: a systemic analysis of multiple complex systems, all having expectedly different characteristics when observed in different situations.
A process that makes up the super-process that is the system of information includes a single information classification. Floridi’s “primary information” is of it’s own network of complexity depending on the dimension for which it is observed. Primary information exists objectively not only to people, but also to other classifications of information. When primary information has a relationship with other primary information or a different classification such as secondary information, it may behave differently to the informer and to the informee, both being distinct dimensions of complexity. This growth in complexity is expected to exponentially increase as we add other processes, other information classifications, thus increasing the importance to understand this system systemically in order to design artificially-intelligent systems.
In another network we have data classifications. The notions of “information classifications” also apply to data classifications. Primary data, secondary data, meta data, operational data and derivative data. Each of these processes partially make up the super-process and system that is “data”. The complexity just increased, and we haven’t even gotten into the various types of information, including Floridi’s “biological information” — information as reality, information for reality, and information about reality. Each of these dimensions will affect the processes that allow for knowledge transfer, especially when we design our information systems to purposefully affect the semantic information that we consume to grow, change, or destroy our information networks.
Additional processes that make up the super-process that is “information” include the nature of misinformation and disinformation, relative to the classifications of each, and relative to the previously explained complexity of the five information classifications.
To continue explaining the process of informer to informee, “Knowledge affects intelligence. Intelligence affects knowledge. The transformation of knowledge to intelligence and intelligence to knowledge is an open-loop system.” Here we have two open-loop systems that both affect each other, creating a particularly interesting system in and of itself. I specified that my understanding of knowledge, relative to my interest with information, as being “memory dependent, networked information”. Knowledge exists in my brain because I am able to sense various kinds of information from my world, and it becomes networked with previously processed information, thus growing, changing, or destroying previously existing networks. And of course, all of this is possible because we have a place to store this information.
Intelligence, on the other hand, includes what one actively does with their consumed information. Not being a cognitive biologist (just a wannabe cognitive neuro-scientist), while I have a genuine interest in the systems that are knowledge and intelligence, I am only concerned with them insofar as their direct abilities to affect the behavior of information. Intelligence may include the biological processes that manages our consumed information, and also our retrospective activity that affects the further retrieval and design of information systems and its influence on collecting and organizing specific data.
Depending on where each of these four super-processes exist, whether in control of the informer or in control of the informee, their behavior will change in different information-processing situations. It is these behaviors that I wish to understand in order to design the high-level processes that will dictate how artificial intelligence will be programmed.