Thank you.This is actually very helpful to me.
Best,
Adam
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 11:35 AM, Dieter Fensel dieter.fensel@sti2.at wrote:
On 19.06.2019 13:15, adasal wrote:
Do you mean "ascribed"? Probably a better phrasing. Mainly he wanted to prevent
people from mining at the symbol level for knowledge nuggets.
"Or take the point of view of Newell, 1982.Knowledge is **ascribed** to an agent
by an observer that applies the concept of (bounded) rationality to explain
[its] **the agent's** ability in achieving goals.
What about more than one observer and, or, subject? Then you have several
knowledge level descriptions and the process of agreement starts. Obviously, it
is a very interesting question on why and how do subjects agree on an object and
its description and what is the essence of it.
What about the observer who is the subject of their own observations? Well, for
fundamental reasons it will always be quite a limited description as long as a
you keep infinity such as the Hilbert hotel out of the game.
Anyway, the main issue here is that it is possible to abstract knowledge as
information and then extract knowledge from that information later. There are
times, parties and places (changing contexts) involved in this.
Knowledge may be a much more fluffy concept than you may expect.